Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Threat in Healthcare IoT: Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This chapter argues that quantum computers will break the encryption protecting healthcare IoT devices, and that migration to post-quantum cryptography must start before fault-tolerant machines arrive.

desk verdict A useful but uneven review chapter that needs quantitative and citation cleanup before it is trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05904 v1 pith:6NPVKZ46 submitted 2024-12-08 cs.CR

Asif Alif , Khondokar Fida Hasan , Jesse Laeuchli , Mohammad Jabed Morshed Chowdhury This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords quantumthreathealthcareIoTpost-quantumcryptographyShor'salgorithmGrover'sharvestnowdecryptlatermedicaldevicesecurityKyber
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This chapter argues that the encryption currently protecting healthcare IoT devices—RSA, ECC, and AES—will be broken by sufficiently powerful quantum computers, and that this is a near-term problem because data intercepted today can be decrypted later. It makes the threat concrete by describing what a quantum attacker could do: read and alter patient records, manipulate real-time readings from glucose monitors, smart inhalers, and heart-rate sensors, and take control of devices such as pacemakers and insulin pumps. The chapter then surveys post-quantum cryptography (PQC) and quantum key distribution (QKD), and evaluates which candidate algorithms fit the severe memory and clock limits of real medical devices. A sympathetic reader would take away that healthcare IoT needs a planned, resource-aware migration to quantum-resistant algorithms, not a wait-and-see posture.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism of the argument is a pairing between quantum attack estimates and device resource ceilings. Shor's algorithm, a polynomial-time quantum factoring and discrete-log method, would break RSA and ECC; Grover's algorithm, a quadratic-speedup search, would reduce the effective security of a 128-bit AES key to about 64 bits. Against those attack estimates, the chapter sets concrete hardware limits—continuous glucose monitors with 32–64 KB of RAM, smart-inhaler microcontrollers with about 512 KB of RAM, and heart-rate-monitor microcontrollers with up to 640 KB of RAM—and asks whether post-quantum primitives fit. The feasibility conclusion is driven by public figures such as Dilithium needing 40–70 KB of RAM and Falcon needing roughly 500 bytes of RAM, not by a proof.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be comparing credible hardware roadmaps against the roughly 2,050–8,194 logical qubits the chapter cites as needed to break RSA-1024 through RSA-4096; if fault-tolerant machines at that scale are predicted to arrive only after the confidentiality lifetime of current medical data expires, the urgency claim weakens. Another decisive observation would be running Kyber and Dilithium on a representative glucose-monitor microcontroller with 32–64 KB of RAM and finding that they fit, which would overturn the resource-constraint conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The chapter's central claim is stated plainly: with the extraordinary computational power of quantum computers, traditional cryptographic algorithms widely used in today's healthcare IoT devices will be vulnerable in the near future. In concrete terms, a quantum attacker could access, read, and change private healthcare information and could take control of critical devices such as pacemakers and insulin pumps. The chapter also argues that the threat is current rather than purely future through the 'harvest now, decrypt later' model, in which encrypted medical data is stolen today and decoded once a capable quantum machine exists. It identifies Shor's algorithm as the breaker of RSA and ECC, Grover's algorithm as the halver of symmetric key strength, and post-quantum primitives such as Kyber, Dilithium, and Falcon as the candidate replacements, while noting that device resource limits will decide whether those replacements actually run.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that cryptographically relevant quantum computers will arrive while today's RSA and ECC keys still protect data that must remain confidential, so 'harvest now, decrypt later' is a real threat.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Healthcare IoT vendors should start migration planning now, because encrypted medical data collected today can be harvested and decrypted later.
  • RSA and ECC keys in current sizes will not survive a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, so public-key operations need post-quantum replacements.
  • Symmetric cryptography can remain usable by moving to 256-bit keys, but key exchange and digital signatures still need new algorithms.
  • Some standardized PQC candidates will not fit low-end medical devices; Dilithium's larger RAM footprint may exclude it from CGM-class hardware, while Kyber and Falcon-style schemes may be feasible.
  • Quantum key distribution offers strong key security but needs dedicated hardware, so it is not a general substitute for PQC in constrained healthcare IoT.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the chapter leaves implicit is that migration is not a single algorithm swap; devices need cryptographic agility so they can replace algorithms as standards settle.
  • If the quoted memory figures are accurate, the practical bottleneck is hardware: devices with less than 64 KB of RAM may require a hardware refresh rather than a software patch to run PQC.
  • A testable extension would be to benchmark the candidate key-encapsulation and signature schemes on actual glucose-monitor and inhaler microcontrollers, since the chapter relies on published figures rather than new measurements.
  • The urgency claim carries a timing assumption: if fault-tolerant quantum machines arrive after the confidentiality window of today's medical data, the near-term threat recedes, though long-lived records would still justify migration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This book chapter surveys the quantum computing threat to cryptographic systems used in healthcare IoT. It reviews quantum attacks on RSA, ECC, AES, and hash functions, presents three healthcare IoT use cases (continuous glucose monitoring, smart inhalers, and heart-rate monitoring), and discusses post-quantum cryptography (PQC), quantum key distribution (QKD), and global standardization efforts such as NIST and IETF initiatives. The central claim, stated in Sections 2.2 and 2.2 of the healthcare IoT discussion, is that current public-key algorithms used in healthcare IoT devices will be vulnerable to quantum computers in the near future, requiring migration to quantum-resistant primitives despite severe device resource constraints.

Significance. The chapter addresses a timely and practically important topic: the security of resource-constrained medical IoT devices in a future with cryptographically relevant quantum computers. Its strengths are the accessible overview of Shor's and Grover's algorithms, the concrete device datasheet figures (e.g., CGM, K32W061, QN9090, STM32, MSP430), the use-case-specific threat narratives, and the summary of PQC projects (PQCrypto, Open Quantum Safe, PQClean, SAFECrypto, NIST, IETF). The chapter does not ship machine-checked proofs or new derivations, but it usefully compiles and organizes external evidence for a non-specialist readership. However, the quantitative material that is meant to support the urgency claim is internally inconsistent, and several specific cryptographic claims are inaccurate. These issues are local and fixable, but they are load-bearing for the chapter's 'near future' urgency argument and therefore require revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4 and Tables 1, 2] The AES-128 break times in Table 1 and Table 2 differ by roughly 12 orders of magnitude: Table 1 reports 2.61×10^12 years, while Table 2 reports 585 years under an explicit 10^9 operations-per-second assumption. The chapter does not explain whether Table 1 includes quantum error-correction overhead, code distance, parallelization, or a different clock model, so a reader cannot determine which estimate the argument relies on. This matters because the 'near future' claim in Section 2.2 is the load-bearing premise for urgency. Please reconcile the tables by stating a single, coherent set of assumptions or by removing the exact times and instead citing ranges with sources.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Table 1] The text states that Shor's algorithm can factor a 1024-bit number 'in about 10 hours,' while Table 1 lists RSA-1024 as 3.58 hours. No derivation or error-correction model is provided for either number, and the cited source is a National Academies report that does not itself give simple wall-clock times of this kind. Additionally, the ECC-521 row in Table 1 lists 1.13×10^6 physical qubits, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the ECC-384 row's 9.05×10^6; this is internally implausible unless a different error-correction code or security model is intended. The table must be corrected and the source assumptions stated explicitly.
  3. [Section 4.2.3 (Use Case-3 mitigation)] The chapter recommends 'adopting Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) algorithms like Kyber, Dilithium, and NTRUEncrypt, as recommended by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [49].' NTRUEncrypt was not selected by NIST for standardization; it was a third-round alternate candidate, and the cited NIST status report [49] does not recommend it as a standard. This is a factual error in a recommendation that practitioners may follow. The sentence should be corrected to name only NIST-selected algorithms (e.g., ML-KEM/Kyber and ML-DSA/Dilithium) or to state the actual status of NTRUEncrypt.
  4. [Sections 2.2 and 2.2.1–2.2.3] The threat scenarios are stated with near-certainty, e.g., 'traditional cryptographic algorithms that are widely being used in today's healthcare IoT devices will be vulnerable in the near future.' Given the unresolved timeline and resource-estimate inconsistencies noted above, these statements should be framed as conditional on a cryptographically relevant fault-tolerant quantum computer arriving within the confidentiality lifetime of the data and devices. In particular, the 'harvest now, decrypt later' argument should explicitly weigh data-retention periods against expected quantum-development timelines, or it should be presented as a risk-management rationale rather than an established immediate threat.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section numbering after Section 3.3] The headings after '3.3 IoT Perspective' are misnumbered: '1.1 PQC General Implementation Requirements', '1.2 IoT Perspective', and '2 Overview of HealthCare IoT' should be renumbered to continue the sequence (e.g., Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 4). This is likely a carryover from an earlier draft and should be fixed in the final version.
  2. [Section 2.1 (IBM Condor)] The text says IBM Condor 'demonstrates significant progress towards achieving quantum supremacy'; Condor is a 1,121-qubit processor, but quantum supremacy has not been demonstrated with it. The wording should be changed to 'towards fault-tolerant quantum computing' or 'quantum utility.'
  3. [Section 3 vs. Section 5.1 (NIST process)] Section 3 says NIST's PQC standardization process is 'currently in its fourth round,' while Section 5.1 states that NIST finalized the selection in 2022, selecting three signatures and one KEM. These statements should be harmonized with the actual 2024 final standards (ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA) and the fourth-round KEM candidates.
  4. [References] Reference [57] duplicates reference [4], and reference [60] (a paper on GNSS time synchronization in vehicular networks) appears to be unrelated to the sentence about NB-IoT and LTE standardization in which it is cited; the citation placement should be checked.
  5. [Table 2] Table 2 lists RC4 with a 2048-bit key and a Grover complexity of O(2^1024) operations. While RC4 supports variable key sizes, including it in a table of symmetric block ciphers without comment may confuse readers, since RC4 is a stream cipher and is not part of current NIST-recommended suites; a footnote or removal would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the chapter is a literature review whose threat and mitigation claims rest on external Shor/Grover results and NIST/PQC sources, not on author-derived inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no fitted prediction or derivation that reduces to its own inputs. Its central claim—that Shor's algorithm will break RSA/ECC and Grover's algorithm halves symmetric-key security—is explicitly attributed to external work (e.g., refs. [11], [12], [19], [20]) and to the NIST standardization process ([24], [49], [58]). The only in-text quantitative derivation, Section 2.4 and Table 2, is a transparent back-of-envelope calculation: Grover complexity divided by an assumed 10^9 operations/second, which is an input assumption, not a conclusion smuggled from the output. The PQC feasibility discussion in Section 3.2 uses independent device specifications and published benchmarks for Falcon, Dilithium, and Kyber (ref. [29]). Self-citations [3] and [60] are present—[3] for the CIA triad and [60] for an aside on IoT standardisation—but neither is load-bearing: removing them does not alter the threat premise, the resource analysis, or the recommendation to migrate to PQC. The internally inconsistent AES-128 break times between Table 1 (2.61e12 yr) and Table 2 (585 yr) are a correctness/consistency issue about the urgency timeline, not a circularity: neither estimate is derived from the chapter's own conclusion. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain forces the stated outcome, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated. The chapter's quantitative claims are imported from cited sources; its central argument depends on domain assumptions about quantum-computer timelines, NIST standardization accuracy, and device resource figures.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computers capable of running Shor's algorithm will be built within a timeframe relevant to healthcare data lifetimes.
    The entire threat and migration urgency argument in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 depends on this timeline; the paper offers no independent projection beyond citing general progress such as IBM Condor.
  • standard math Shor's algorithm breaks RSA and ECC, and Grover's algorithm halves effective symmetric key strength.
    Standard cryptanalytic facts invoked in Sections 2.3 and 2.4; the paper does not prove them but cites prior literature.
  • domain assumption The NIST PQC selection process and the cited resource benchmarks for Falcon, Dilithium, and Kyber are accurately described.
    Sections 3.1 and 4.2.3 rely on NIST standardization claims; the paper misstates NTRUEncrypt as NIST-recommended, so this assumption is partially false, which affects soundness.
  • domain assumption The resource constraints listed for CGMs, smart inhalers, and heart-rate monitors are correct and representative.
    Use-case feasibility conclusions in Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.3 and Section 3.2 rest on datasheet values for RAM, ROM, flash, and clock speed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Threat in Healthcare IoT: Challenges and Mitigation Strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NPVKZ46

@misc{pith2026241205904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Threat in Healthcare IoT: Challenges and Mitigation Strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NPVKZ46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05904}
}
read the original abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) has transformed healthcare, facilitating remote patient monitoring, enhanced medication adherence, and chronic disease management. However, this interconnected ecosystem faces significant vulnerabilities with the advent of quantum computing, which threatens to break existing encryption standards protecting sensitive patient data in IoT-enabled medical devices. This chapter examines the quantum threat to healthcare IoT security, highlighting the potential impacts of compromised encryption, including privacy breaches, device failures, and manipulated medical records. It introduces post-quantum cryptography (PQC) and quantum-resistant techniques like quantum key distribution (QKD), addressing their application in resource-constrained healthcare IoT devices such as pacemakers, monitoring tools, and telemedicine systems. The chapter further explores the challenges of integrating these solutions and reviews global efforts in mitigating quantum risks, offering insights into suitable PQC primitives for various healthcare use cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Decade of Healthcare Cyber Threats: Empirical Analysis, Evidence-Based Prioritisation, and AI Threat Model

    cs.CR 2026-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using MITRE ATT&CK, CISA KEV, and NVD data, the paper reports a shift toward stealthy tactics in healthcare attacks and identifies 42 high-priority detection techniques.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [60]

    and Tian, Y.C., 2022

    Hasan, K.F., Feng, Y. and Tian, Y.C., 2022. Precise GNSS Time Synchronization With Experimental Validation in Vehicular Networks. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , 20(3), pp.3289-3301. 61 Gross, G., IETF News, in IETF launches post-quantum encryption working group. 2023, IETF

    work page 2022

  2. [49]

    Alagic, G., et al., Status report on the third round of the NIST post -quantum cryptography standardization process. 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Firouzi, and K

    Farahani, B., F. Firouzi, and K. Chakrabarty, Healthcare iot. Intelligent Internet of Things: From Device to Fog and Cloud, 2020: p. 515-545

    work page 2020

  4. [2]

    Chacko, A. and T. Hayajneh, Security and privacy issues with IoT in healthcare. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Pervasive Health and Technology, 2018. 4(14). 22 Asif et al

    work page 2018

  5. [3]

    IEEE Access, 2024

    Hasan, K.F., et al., A Framework for Migrating to Post-Quantum Cryptography: Security Dependency Analysis and Case Studies. IEEE Access, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2019

    Fernández-Caramés, T.M., From pre-quantum to post-quantum IoT security: A survey on quantum-resistant cryptosystems for the Internet of Things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2019. 7(7): p. 6457-6480

    work page 2019

  7. [5]

    Niraula, T., et al., Quantum computers’ threat on current cryptographic measures and possible solutions

    work page

  8. [6]

    Denker, K. and A.Y. Javaid. Quantum computing as a threat to modern cryptography techniques . in Proceedings of the International Conference on Foundations of Computer Science (FCS) . 2019. The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer …

    work page 2019

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    Strategic Finance, 2021

    Castelluccio, M., The Quantum Threat to Cryptography. Strategic Finance, 2021. 102(12): p. 55-56

    2021

  2. [8]

    Singh, S. and E. Sakk, Implementation and Analysis of Shor's Algorithm to Break RSA Cryptosystem Security. 2024

    2024

  3. [9]

    Davis, R., It’s been 20 years since “15” was factored on quantum hardware. 2022

    2022

  4. [10]

    madhav, ESG Research Unearths Critical Insights for Future- Proofing Encryption and Key Management . 2024

    2024

  5. [11]

    Here’s How to Protect Them

    HOUSTON-EDWARDS, K., Tomorrow’s Quantum Computers Threaten Today’s Secrets. Here’s How to Protect Them. 2024

    2024

  6. [12]

    Logical Qubit

    Quera. Logical Qubit . Available from: https://www.quera.com/glossary/logical - qubit#:~:text=The%20ratio%20that%20is%20commonly,will%20require%201%2C000%20physical%20qubi ts

  7. [13]

    2023, IBM

    Gambetta, J., Breaking the 1,000 -qubit barrier with Condor , in The hardware and software for the era of quantum utility is here. 2023, IBM

    2023

  8. [14]

    Navigating The Quantum Era: The Shift To Quantum- Safe Cryptography

    Sharma, S. Navigating The Quantum Era: The Shift To Quantum- Safe Cryptography. 2023; Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2023/12/07/navigating- the-quantum-era-the-shift-to- quantum-safe-cryptography/?sh=485694085601

    2023

  9. [15]

    and Medicine, Quantum Computing: Progress and Prospects , ed

    National Academies of Sciences, E. and Medicine, Quantum Computing: Progress and Prospects , ed. E. Grumbling and M. Horowitz. 2019, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 272

    2019

  10. [16]

    and A.J.J.o.C.S.T

    Buchanan, W. and A.J.J.o.C.S.T . Woodward, Will quantum computers be the end of public key encryption?

  11. [17]

    and engineering, Quantum factoring, discrete logarithms, and the hidden subgroup problem

    Jozsa, R.J.C.i.s. and engineering, Quantum factoring, discrete logarithms, and the hidden subgroup problem

  12. [18]

    Rijmen, V. and J. Daemen, Advanced encryption standard. Proceedings of federal information processing standards publications, national institute of standards and technology, 2001. 19 : p. 22

    2001

  13. [19]

    Bernstein, D.J. and T. Lange, Post-quantum cryptography. Nature, 2017. 549(7671): p. 188-194

    2017

  14. [20]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

    Grover, L.K. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 1996

    1996

  15. [21]

    Practical introduction to quantum- safe cryptography

    IBM. Practical introduction to quantum- safe cryptography . Available from: https://learning.quantum.ibm.com/course/practical-introduction-to-quantum-safe- cryptography/cryptographic-hash-functions

  16. [22]

    Shi, T., et al., (Multi -Key) Quantum Analysis of Masked Even--Mansour with Applications to Offset Public Permutation and Elephant

  17. [23]

    Hekkala, J., et al., Implementing post-quantum cryptography for developers. 2023. 4(4): p. 365

    2023

  18. [24]

    Dam, D.-T., et al., A survey of post-quantum cryptography: Start of a new race. 2023. 7(3): p. 40

    2023

  19. [25]

    and G.J.T.c.s

    Bennett, C.H. and G.J.T.c.s. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. 2014. 560: p. 7-11

    2014

  20. [26]

    Bu, L., et al., Post-quantum cryptographic hardware primitives. 2019

    2019

  21. [27]

    Raza, and M.J.A.P

    Khan, W.Z., M. Raza, and M.J.A.P. Imran, Quantum Cryptography a Real Threat to Classical Blockchain: Requirements and Challenges. 2023

    2023

  22. [28]

    Kumar, A., et al., Securing the future internet of things with post-quantum cryptography. 2022. 5(2): p. e200

    2022

  23. [29]

    Requirements for Post -Quantum Cryptography on Embedded Devices in the IoT

    Derek, A. Requirements for Post -Quantum Cryptography on Embedded Devices in the IoT . in Conference Name: Third PQC Standardization Conference. 2021

    2021

  24. [30]

    Nasiri, S., et al., Security requirements of internet of things -based healthcare system: a survey study. 2019. 27(4): p. 253. Securing Healthcare IoT 23

    2019

  25. [31]

    Silva, C., et al., Analysis of the Cryptographic Algorithms in IoT Communications. 2023: p. 1-18

    2023

  26. [32]

    and C.J.a.p.a

    Ott, D. and C.J.a.p.a. Peikert, Identifying research challenges in post quantum cryptography migration and cryptographic agility. 2019

    2019

  27. [33]

    Available from: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/11444 - glucose-continuous-glucose-monitoring

    Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Available from: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/11444 - glucose-continuous-glucose-monitoring

  28. [34]

    Available from: https://diatribe.org/continuous -glucose-monitors- cgm

    Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGM) . Available from: https://diatribe.org/continuous -glucose-monitors- cgm

  29. [35]

    Bajrić, S.J.I.A., Enabling Secure and Trustworthy Quantum Networks: Current State- of-the-Art, Key Challenges, and Potential Solutions. 2023. 11: p. 128801-128809

    2023

  30. [36]

    Chrystyn, H., et al., Real-life inhaler adherence and technique: Time to get smarter! 2019. 158: p. 24-32

    2019

  31. [37]

    Available from: https://www.nxp.com/design/design-center/designs/smart-inhaler:SMART- INHALER

    Smart Inhaler. Available from: https://www.nxp.com/design/design-center/designs/smart-inhaler:SMART- INHALER

  32. [38]

    K32W061/41: High-Performance, Secure and Ultra- Low-Power MCU for Zigbee®,Thread™ , and Bluetooth® LE 5.0 with Built -In NFC Option . Available from: https://www.nxp.com/products/wireless - connectivity/multiprotocol-mcus/k32w061-41-high-performance-secure-and-ultra-low-power-...

  33. [39]

    QN9090/30: Bluetooth Low-Energy MCU with Arm®Cortex® -M4 CPU, Energy Efficiency, Analog and Digital Peripherals and NFC Tag Option. Available from: https://www.nxp.com/products/wireless- connectivity/bluetooth-low-energy/qn9090-30-bluetooth-low-energy-mcu-with-armcortex-m4-cpu...

  34. [40]

    Shepherd, C., et al., Physical fault injection and side- channel attacks on mobile devices: A comprehensive analysis. 2021. 111: p. 102471

    2021

  35. [41]

    and H.J.J.E

    Kim, K.B. and H.J.J.E. Baek, Photoplethysmography in wearable devices: a comprehensive review of technological advances, current challenges, and future directions. 2023. 12(13): p. 2923

    2023

  36. [42]

    Microcontroller-Based Heart Rate Monitor

    Saha, A., et al. Microcontroller-Based Heart Rate Monitor. 2022. Singapore: Springer Singapore

    2022

  37. [43]

    Wang, and W

    Ai, Z., Z. Wang, and W. Cui. Low -power wireless wearable ECG monitoring chestbelt based on ferroelectric microprocessor. in 2019 Chinese Control Conference (CCC). 2019. IEEE

    2019

  38. [44]

    Design of ECG acquisition and display system based on ADS1292R and STM32 microcontroller

    Su, Y.-p. Design of ECG acquisition and display system based on ADS1292R and STM32 microcontroller . in 2022 15th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI). 2022. IEEE

    2022

  39. [45]

    Available from: https://www.st.com/en/microcontrollers - microprocessors/stm32-high-performance-mcus.html

    STM32 High Performance MCUs . Available from: https://www.st.com/en/microcontrollers - microprocessors/stm32-high-performance-mcus.html

  40. [46]

    2023, Springer

    LaMeres, B.J., The MSP430, in Embedded Systems Design using the MSP430FR2355 LaunchPad™ . 2023, Springer. p. 135-152

    2023

  41. [47]

    Dey, M., et al., Primer: Profiling interrupts using electromagnetic side-channel for embedded devices. 2021. 71(8): p. 1824-1838

    2021

  42. [48]

    Lavaud, C., et al., Whispering devices: A survey on how side- channels lead to compromised information

  43. [50]

    Kalaivani, V.J.P. and u. computing, Enhanced BB84 quantum cryptography protocol for secure communication in wireless body sensor networks for medical applications. 2023. 27(3): p. 875

    2023

  44. [51]

    Dione, D., et al., Hardware Security for IoT in the Quantum Era: Survey and Challenges. 2023. 14(4): p. 227- 249

    2023

  45. [52]

    and M.J.I.A

    Althobaiti, O.S. and M.J.I.A. Dohler, Cybersecurity challenges associated with the internet of things in a post- quantum world. 2020. 8: p. 157356-157381

    2020

  46. [53]

    Malina, L., et al., Post -quantum era privacy protection for intelligent infrastructures. 2021. 9: p. 36038 - 36077

    2021

  47. [54]

    Safe, O.Q.; Available from: https://openquantumsafe.org/

  48. [55]

    Available from: https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs

    Open Quantum safe / liboqs. Available from: https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs

  49. [56]

    Improving software quality in cryptography standardization projects

    Kannwischer, M.J., et al. Improving software quality in cryptography standardization projects . in 2022 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) . 2022. IEEE. 24 Asif et al

    2022

  50. [57]

    Fernández-Caramés, T.M.J.I.I.o.T.J., From pre-quantum to post-quantum IoT security: A survey on quantum- resistant cryptosystems for the Internet of Things. 2019. 7(7): p. 6457-6480

    2019

  51. [58]

    PQC Standardization Process: Announcing Four Candidates to be Standardized, Plus Fourth Round Candidates

    Team, T.N.P. PQC Standardization Process: Announcing Four Candidates to be Standardized, Plus Fourth Round Candidates . 2022; Available from: https://csrc.nist.gov/news/2022/pqc -candidates-to-be- standardized-and-round-4

    2022

  52. [59]

    Tjhai, M.T., A

    C. Tjhai, M.T., A. Cheng, G. Bartlett. Hybrid Quantum-Safe Key Exchange for Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) draft -tjhai-ipsecme-hybrid-qske-ikev2-00. 2017; Available from: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tjhai-ipsecme-hybrid-qske-ikev2-00

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.