Healthcare Cybersecurity

Vulnerability Identified in Philips Tasy EMR

A vulnerability has been identified in the Philips Tasy EMR information system. If exploited, an attacker could send unexpected information to the system which could potentially allow the execution of arbitrary code, alter information flow, affect system integrity, and could give the attacker unauthorized access to patient information.

The flaw was identified by security researcher Rafael Honorato who reported the vulnerability to Philips, which reported the flaw to the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. An advisory about the vulnerability was issued by ICS-CERT on April 30, 2019.

The vulnerability – CVE-2019-6562 – is present in Tasy EMR versions 3.02.174 and earlier, and mostly affects healthcare providers in Brazil and Mexico. The vulnerability has not been exploited in wild and no public exploits have been identified.

The cross-site scripting vulnerability is caused by improper neutralization of user-controllable input during web page generation. The vulnerability requires a low level of skill to exploit by an individual on the customer site or connecting via a VPN. Despite the potential for information exposure, the vulnerability has been assigned a CVSS v3 base score of 4.1 out of 10.

Philips has advised all users of Tasy EMR to update to the latest three versions of the software as soon as possible and to ensure Service Packs are applied promptly. Philips will be patching hosted solutions automatically and users who have installed Tasy EMR on-premise will receive alerts when new software versions are released.

Additionally, Philips recommends following the instructions in the product configuration manual and ensuring that Tasy EMR is only accessible over the internet via a VPN.

The post Vulnerability Identified in Philips Tasy EMR appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Feature of DICOM Image Format Could Be Abused to Fuse Malware with PHI

The DICOM image format, which has been in use for around for 30 years, contains a design ‘flaw’ that could be exploited by hackers to embed malware in image files. Were that to happen, the malware would become permanently fused with protected health information.

The DICOM file format was developed to allow medical images to be easily stored and shared. It eliminated the need for physical films and solved hardware compatibility issues. DICOM is now the standard format used for MRI and CT images and is supported by most medical imaging systems. The file format can be read by a range of devices that are used to view patient image files and diagnostic information.

DICOM images contain a section at the start of the files called a Preamble. This section is used to facilitate access to the metadata within the images and ensure compatibility with image viewers which do not support the DICOM image format. By altering the Preamble section of the file, image viewers treat DICOM images as a file type that they support, such as a jpeg, allowing the file to be opened.

This design feature is part of the reason why the DICOM file format is so useful. However, this feature can also be seen as a flaw. Markel Picado Ortiz, a security researcher at Cylera, discovered the preamble section of the file does not have restrictions on what can be added.

Ortiz has a proof-of-concept exploit for the flaw which allows an arbitrary sequence of executable code to be inserted into the image. Provided that code is less than 128 bytes, it can be inserted without affecting compliance with the DICOM standard, altering the image in any other way, or changing any PHI contained in the file. Ortiz has called the attack method PE/DICOM.

By altering the Preamble of a file, a hacker could insert executable code that masquerades as a DICOM file. The DICOM image would become an executable file, yet it would not have a file extension associated with executable files. Headers could also be added that make the file appear to be another file format, such as an executable.

Any hacker that were to use this method of incorporating malicious code would also benefit from HIPAA regulations. Files containing PHI are usually ignored by anti-malware solutions for compliance reasons. Even if they did, it would be unlikely they would detect the presence of any code in the preamble section of the files.

Detecting the malware would therefore prove difficult. Malicious code could remain undetected, but worse, the infected files would be stored within the healthcare provider’s protected environment. The file may also be shared with other healthcare providers would be unaware the files had been infected with malware.

Since the malware contains executable code, it could download other malware onto the network or give an attacker a launch pad to conduct further attacks. Files could be given worm-like properties that allow malware to be propagated throughout the network.

The potential uses of this flaw are numerous. “This [flaw] enables new and existing malware to evolve into more potent variants, optimized for successful compromise of healthcare organizations, by using the infected patient data to hide, protect and spread itself – three of the primary functions that determine the effectiveness of a malware campaign,” said Ortiz.

Were the malware to be identified, healthcare organizations would have a problem with removing the malware. The hybrid file that is created could not have the malware removed without permanently deleting the file, which would result in the permanent loss of the image and patients’ PHI. Healthcare providers may have to keep the infected file due to HIPAA regulations.

“The fusion of fully-functioning executable malware with HIPAA-protected patient information adds regulatory complexities and clinical implications to automated malware protection and typical incident response processes in ways that did not previously need to be considered,” explained Ortiz.

Unfortunately, since the flaw is present in the DICOM standard itself, it is not possible to issue a patch to correct the flaw. The solution would be for the DICOM standard to be changed to place restrictions on what can be incorporated into the Preamble, but that may prove to be a challenge and would also involve altering a feature of DICOM files that makes them so useful.

Anti-malware solutions could be developed to check for the presence of malicious code inside DICOM images, but that does not solve the issue of what is done with the files if they are determined to contain malware.

While the flaw is serous, in order for it to be exploited, an attacker would first need to have permissions to access the system on which DICOM images are stored and would also need to have permissions to execute commands. Valid Active Directory credentials would therefore be required. That said, there have been many cases of credentials being compromised that have given hackers access to healthcare networks. The flaw could also be exploited by a malicious insider with access to the network.

All healthcare organizations can do to protect against the flaw in the short term is to adopt standard cybersecurity best practices to prevent access to the network being gained, such as changing default credentials, securing the perimeter, and scanning for and addressing vulnerabilities. Network segregation will help to prevent the spread of any malware and intrusion detection systems could detect an attack before DICOM images could be changed.

What is clear is that correcting the flaw and preventing abuse is going to be a major challenge and one that will not easily be solved.

The post Feature of DICOM Image Format Could Be Abused to Fuse Malware with PHI appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Critical Vulnerability Identified in Fujifilm Computed Radiography Cassette Readers

Two vulnerabilities have been identified in Fujifilm computed radiography cassette readers. If exploited, an attacker could gain access to the operating system, execute arbitrary code, render the devices inoperable, alter functionality, and cause image loss.

The vulnerabilities are present in the following Fujifilm computed radiography cassette readers:

  • CR-IR 357 FCR Capsula X
  • CR-IR 357 FCR Carbon X
  • CR-IR 357 FCR XC-2

The most serious vulnerability – CVE-2019-10950 – is due to improper access controls on telnet services. A remote attacker with a relatively low level of skill could exploit the vulnerability to gain access to the operating system and remotely execute code and affect the functionality of the device. The vulnerability has been assigned a CVSS v3 base score of 9.8 out of 10.

The second vulnerability – CVE-2019-10948 – is due to uncontrolled resource consumption. An overflow of TCP packets could be caused in a denial of service (DoS) attack. If exploited, a DoS attack could render the device in operable and would require a reboot to restore functionality. The vulnerability has been assigned a CVSS v3 base score of 7.5.

The vulnerabilities were identified by Marc Ruef and Rocco Gagliardi of Scip AG.

To prevent exploitation of the vulnerabilities, users can configure the CR-IR-357 system with ‘Secure Host functionality.’ This configuration instructs the CR-IR-357 system to ignore network traffic other than from the IP address of the image acquisition console.

This mitigation will only be an option for users that have one image acquisition console using the CR-IR-357 Reader Unit. With this configuration activated, multiple image acquisition consoles cannot share the Reader Unit as network traffic will only be accepted from a single IP address. If Reader Unit sharing has been implemented, Fujifilm should be contacted for further information on other possible mitigations.

Users should also ensure that appropriate administrative and technical controls are implemented to prevent unauthorized devices and users from connecting to the network. Fujifilm also recommends segmenting the network or using a VLAN to segregate public traffic from the private network.

The post Critical Vulnerability Identified in Fujifilm Computed Radiography Cassette Readers appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Healthcare Organizations Found Not to be In Conformance with NIST CSF and HIPAA Rules

A recent study conducted by the consultancy firm CynergisTek has revealed healthcare organizations are not in conformance with NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) controls and the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

For the study, CynergisTek analyzed the results of assessments at almost 600 healthcare organizations against NIST CSF and the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

The NIST CSF is a voluntary framework, but the standards and best practices help organizations manage cyber risks. Healthcare organizations that are not in conformance with CSF controls face a higher risk of experiencing a cyberattack or data breach. On average, healthcare organizations were only in conformance with 47% of NIST CSF controls. Conformance has only increased by 2% in the past year.

Assisted living organizations had the highest level of conformance with NIST CSF (95%), followed by payers (86%), and accountable care organizations (73%). Business associates of HIPAA covered entities only had an average conformance level of 48%. Physician groups had the lowest level of conformance (36%).

Out of the five core functions of the NIST CSF – Identify, detect, protect, respond, and recover – conformance was lowest for detect.

Even though conformance with the HIPAA Security Rule has been mandatory for the past 14 years, many healthcare organizations were found to be falling short. On average, healthcare organizations were found to be in conformance with 72% of HIPAA Security Rule requirements, which was 2% lower than last year. Critical access hospitals fared the worst with an average of 67% conformance.

Even when organizations were complying with HIPAA Rules, significant security gaps were identified, which clearly demonstrated compliance does not necessarily equate to security.

Compliance with the requirements of the HIPAA Privacy Rule was better, but there is still significant room for improvement. On average, healthcare organizations were complying with 77% of HIPAA Privacy Rule provisions. Many organizations had missing policies and procedures and improper postings. More than 60% of assessments revealed gaps in the maintenance of written policies and procedures related to the use and release of protected health information.

Conformance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule increased year over year for payers and physician groups, but declined for hospitals and health systems, falling from 94% in 2017 to 72% in 2018. CynergisTek explained this fall as most likely being due to higher numbers of assessments being performed on hospitals and health systems in 2018.

CynergisTek also found that insider breaches continue to be a major challenge for healthcare organizations. Insiders were responsible for 28% of healthcare data breaches in 2018 and, on average, those breaches took 255 days to detect. 74% of cases involved employees accessing the health records of household members, 10% involved accessing the records of VIPs that were treated at the hospital. 8% of cases involved accessing the health records of co-workers and 8% involved accessing neighbors’ health records.

Business associates were found to be a major security risk. They were involved in 20% of healthcare data breaches in 2018. CynergisTek found that in many cases, healthcare organizations were not proactively assessing their vendors, even those that are medium to high risk. The most common business associate failures were related to risk assessments, governance, and access management.

The post Healthcare Organizations Found Not to be In Conformance with NIST CSF and HIPAA Rules appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

HHS Slow to Implement GAO Health IT and Cybersecurity Recommendations

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has been slow to implement recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office. In total. 392 recommendations have yet to be addressed, including 42 which GAO rated as high priority.

Over the past four years, GAO has made hundreds of recommendations, but the HHS has only addressed 75% of them, 2% less than other government agencies.

The poor implementation rate was outlined in a March 28, 2019 letter from the GAO to HHS secretary Alex Azar.

GAO explained that healthcare is part of the nation’s critical infrastructure and relies heavily on computerized systems and electronic data to function. Those systems are regularly targeted by a diverse range of threat actors, so it is essential they are secured and protected from unauthorized access.

GAO drew attention to four high priority recommendations covering health IT and cybersecurity that are still outstanding.

“The four open priority recommendations within this area outline steps to ensure HHS can effectively monitor the effect of electronic health records programs and progress made toward goals; encourage adoption of important cybersecurity processes and procedures among healthcare entities; protect Medicare beneficiary data accessed by external entities; and ensure progress is made toward the implementation of IT enhancements needed to establish the electronic public health situation awareness network,” wrote GAO in the letter.

GAO explained that in March 2018, it recommended that the administrator of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure entities that use claims data should evaluate the performance of Medicare service and equipment providers and ensure they have implemented appropriate security controls.

While CMS has agreed to engage a contractor to review the current data security framework and provide recommendations on specific controls and implementation requirements, GAO notes that CMS must also develop appropriate processes and procedures for implementing those controls.

Three other high priority health IT and cybersecurity recommendations have yet to be implemented.

The HHS has yet to develop performance measures that allow it to assess whether the Meaningful use program (now the Promoting Interoperability Program) is actually improving outcomes and patient safety.

GAO recommended in 2018 that the HHS and the Secretary of Agriculture should collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security and NIST and develop methods for determining the level and type of cybersecurity framework adoption required to improve the critical infrastructure of the healthcare industry. While some work has been completed in this area, GAO wrote that the HHS is still trying to identify applicable methods 12 months on.

GAO also recommended that the HHS should instruct the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response to conduct all IT management and oversight processes when establishing the network and should act under the leadership of the HHS CIO. GAO notes that little has been done to enhance national public health situational awareness network capabilities that would allow officials to view real-time information about emerging health threats.

GAO explained that it is essential for these and other recommendations to be implemented promptly. Further, GAO believes that fully implementing all of its recommendations will significantly improve HHS operations.

The post HHS Slow to Implement GAO Health IT and Cybersecurity Recommendations appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Data Security Incident Response Analysis Published by BakerHostetler

BakerHostetler has released its fifth annual Data Security Incident Response Report, which contains an analysis of the 750+ data breaches the company helped manage in 2018.

BakerHostetler suggests there has been a collision of data security, privacy, and compliance, and companies have been forced to change the way they respond to security breaches.

In addition to federal and state regulations covering data breaches and notifications, companies in the United States must also comply with global privacy laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).  All of these different regulations make the breach response a complex process. The definitions of personal information and breach response and reporting requirements differ for GDPR, HIPAA, and across the 50 states. The failure to comply with any of the above-mentioned regulations can lead to severe financial penalties. It is therefore of major importance to be prepared for breaches and be able to respond as soon as a breach is discovered.

This has led many companies to create committees to help manage data breaches, which include stakeholders with expertise in each of the above areas.

Most Common Causes of Data Breaches

An analysis of 2018 incidents shows phishing remains the most common cause of data breaches, accounting for 37% of all incidents managed by the law firm in 2018. The most common type of phishing attack seeks Office 365 credentials. 34% of phishing attacks in 2018 resulted in an Office 365 account being accessed by the attacker.

  1. Phishing Attacks – 37%
  2. Network Intrusions – 30%
  3. Accidental Disclosures – 12%
  4. Lost/stolen devices and records – 10%
  5. System Misconfiguration – 4%

30% of successful phishing attacks saw the attackers peruse the network to find accessible data. 12% of intrusions resulted in the deployment of ransomware, and 8% resulted in a fraudulent wire transfer. In 1% of cases, a successful phishing attack resulted in the deployment of malware other than ransomware.

55% of successful attacks occurred as a result of a mistake by employees, 27% were due to a non-vendor unrelated third party, 11% were due to a vendor, 5% of attacks involved a malicious insider, 3% were due to a non-vendor related third party, and 2% were due to an unrelated third party.

Incident Response, Investigation and Recovery

In 2018, 74% of breaches were discovered internally and 26% were identified by a third-party.

The average time to detect a breach across all industry sectors was 66 days. It took an average of 8 days to contain the breach and 28 days for a forensic investigation to be completed. The average time to issue notifications was 56 days.

Healthcare data breaches took an average of 36 days to discover, 10 days to contain, 32 days to complete a forensic investigation, and 49 days to issue notifications. Healthcare data breaches required an average of 5,751 notification letters to be sent.

There was an increase in investigations by OCR and state Attorneys General in 2018. 34% of breaches resulted in an investigation by an Attorney General and 34% were investigated by OCR. Out of 397 breach notifications issued, 4 lawsuits were filed.

There has been an increase in the use of forensic investigators following a breach. 65% of breaches involved some kind of forensic investigation compared to 41% of incidents in 2017. The average cost of a forensic investigation was $63,001 and $120,732 for network intrusion incidents.

The average ransom payment that was paid was $28,920 and the maximum was $250,000. In 91% of cases, payment of the ransom resulted in the attacker supplying valid keys to decrypt files.

70% of breaches required credit monitoring services to be offered, in most cases due to the exposure of Social Security numbers.

BakerHostetler also notes that following a data breach there is often an increase in access right requests. It is therefore important for companies to have established and scalable access right request processes in place to ensure they can cope with the increase following a security breach.

Interactive Data Breach Notification Map

Healthcare organizations are required to comply with the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule which requires breach notification letters to be issued to affected individuals within 60 days of the discovery of a breach of PHI.

States have also introduced their own breach notification laws, which differ from HIPAA and may, in some cases, require notifications to be issued more rapidly. To help companies find out about the breach notification requirements in each state, BakerHostetler has compiled an interactive data breach notification map.

Using this interactive tool, organizations can find out about the breach reporting requirements in each state. The interactive data breach notification map can be viewed on this link.

The post Data Security Incident Response Analysis Published by BakerHostetler appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Study Reveals How Well Consumers Feel Health Data is Protected

The results of a study on healthcare cybersecurity from the perspective of consumers has recently been published by cybersecurity firm Morphisec. More than 1,000 consumers were surveyed to obtain their opinions on healthcare cybersecurity, the healthcare threat landscape, how their personal health information is being targeted, and how well they feel their health information is protected.

The transition from paper records to electronic health records has improved efficiency and allows health information to be shared more easily, but vulnerabilities have been introduced that can be exploited by hackers.

Morphisec notes that cyberattacks on the healthcare industry occur at more than double the rate of attacks on other industry sectors. The volume of attacks and frequency that they are reported in the media undoubtedly affects how secure consumers believe their health records are.

Since 2009, more than 190 million healthcare records have been exposed or stolen, which is equivalent to 59% of the population of the United States, yet when consumers were asked if their providers have experienced a data breach, 54% did not know. 40% said no breach had occurred to their knowledge and only 6% said one of their providers has been affected. HIPAA requires notifications to be sent to consumers when their health records are exposed, but it would appear that many consumers feel they are not informed about data breaches.

Consumers Concerned About Privacy and Security of Health Data

When asked who is responsible for protecting health data, 51% of consumers felt it was a joint responsibly between consumers and their providers. Only 29% felt that it was the sole responsibility of their provider to keep health data private and confidential. Only 8% of consumers felt that it was their own responsibility to keep health that has been exchanged with them to be kept private.

As more and more healthcare providers give patients access to their health information through patient portals, and consumers are encouraged to obtain copies of their health data, it is not surprising that so many consumers feel the responsibility for protecting health data is shared. The use of patient portals has increased from 28% to 42% in the past 12 months – an increase of 14%.

55% of consumers feel their health data is more secure when stored by providers. 45% believe that health information stored on personal electronic devices is more secure than data held by their providers. It is unclear whether consumers do not trust their providers to secure data, whether they think a cyberattack on a provider is more likely than an attack on them personally, or if they feel that there is little difference between their own security defenses and those of their providers.

What is clear is consumers believe there are many weak links that need to be addressed, in particular web browser defenses, which almost a quarter of respondents (24.1%) felt was the weakest link in security. A fifth of respondents felt the weak point was endpoint defenses (21%), email phishing defenses (20.9%) or patient portal defenses (20.1%). Only 13.8% felt medical device security was the weakest link.

Healthcare Organizations Only Achieving a Baseline Level of Security

HIPAA requires healthcare organizations to implement security measures to keep protected health information private and confidential. Heavy fines can be issued if a data breach is experienced and providers are discovered to have failed to implement appropriate defenses. HIPAA has certainly helped to improve the standard of security across the healthcare industry as a whole, but many providers have only implemented security defenses to ensure compliance with HIPAA. Once the minimum standard of security has been achieved, the checkbox is ticked, and little is done to further reduce risk.

Through compliance, risk can be reduced, but HIPAA compliance does not mean cyberattacks will not succeed nor that attacks have been made difficult for hackers.

“With nearly 90% of health organization CIOs indicating they purchase cybersecurity software to comply with HIPAA, rather than to reduce threat risk, consumers have a right to be worried about the cyber defenses protecting their health data,” said Tom Bain, VP of Security Strategy at Morphisec. “Merely checking the box that cybersecurity defenses meet HIPAA requirements isn’t enough to protect healthcare organizations today from advanced and zero-day attacks from FIN6 and other sophisticated attackers.”

That sentiment has been echoed by many industry professionals who believe that the threat of financial penalties is stopping healthcare organizations from improving their defenses further. Many just achieve the minimum level of security to comply with HIPAA.

Several stakeholders have suggested a safe harbor should be established for healthcare providers who meet HIPAA security standards to ensure they are immune from financial penalties. With the threat of financial penalties gone, it is felt that healthcare organizations would be more likely to invest more heavily in cybersecurity defenses.

The post Study Reveals How Well Consumers Feel Health Data is Protected appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Hardin Memorial Health Cyberattack Results in EHR Downtime

Hardin Memorial Health in Kentucky has experienced a cyberattack which caused disruption to its IT systems and EHR downtime.

The cyberattack started on the evening of Friday April 5. A statement issued by a spokesperson for the health system confirmed that IT systems were disrupted as a result of a security breach. Details of the cyberattack have not yet been released so it is unclear whether this was a hacking incident, malware or ransomware attack.

The health system has been working round the clock to restore affected systems and servers. Hardin Memorial Health’s IT team has already brought most IT systems back online and has restored access to its EHR system in some units.

Despite the lack of access to its EHR system, business continued as usual and the hospital did not have to cancel appointments. All 50 of its locations remained open. “At no time during this event has the quality and safety of patient care been affected,” said HMH Vice President and Chief Marketing and Development Officer, Tracee Troutt.

Upon discovery of the security breach, emergency procedures were implemented, and an IT assessment was conducted to determine the nature and extent of the incident. That assessment is ongoing, but most of the issues associated with the attack were resolved within 24 hours.

Extra staff were brought in over the weekend to assist with its remediation efforts and to conduct administrative processes manually until systems could be brought back online.

“A combined team of some 40 internal IT and patient care specialists, complemented by external experts, importantly including our Baptist Health partners, worked over the weekend to resolve issues quickly and is working on the assessment,” said Troutt.

The hospital was well prepared for system downtime. The Hardin Memorial Health IT team regularly tests emergency procedures to make sure they can be implemented quickly and are effective at preventing disruption to patient services. Extra protocols have already been implemented to reinforce system security.

This incident shows that while it may not be possible to prevent all cyberattacks, with tried and tested backup and emergency response plans it is possible to recover from a cyberattack quickly and prevent disruption to patient services.

The post Hardin Memorial Health Cyberattack Results in EHR Downtime appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Malware Alters CT Scans to Create and Remove Tumors

There is growing concern about hackers gaining access to medical devices and conducting attacks to cause harm to patients. Now malware has been created that can add fake tumors to CT scans.

The malware is not being used in real-world attacks. It has been created by researchers at the Ben Gurion University Cybersecurity Center in Israel to demonstrate just how easy it is to exploit vulnerabilities in medical imaging equipment.

In addition to adding tumors to medical images the malware could be used to remove real tumors. The former could be conducted for political reasons such as preventing a candidate from running for office, the latter would prevent individuals from receiving treatment for a life-threatening illness. The technique could also be used for insurance fraud, sabotaging of medical trials, and cyber terrorism.

Prior to a patient being prescribed radiation therapy or chemotherapy additional tests would be performed and the incorrect diagnosis would be identified, but patients would still be caused considerable emotional distress. The removal of tumors to make the patient appear healthy could have much more serious implications. Treatment could be delayed until a point when it is too late to be effective.

The researchers used a deep learning neural network called a generative adversarial network to alter the CT scans intercepted by the malware.

The attack scenario demonstrated by the researchers would require a man-in-the-middle device to be built and physical access to a hospital. The device could be planted close to the scanner, such as at night when there is less chance of detection. With the device in place it would be possible to intercept CT scans and manipulate them at will.

The researchers created such a device from a Raspberry Pi 3 which was connected to a USB to Ethernet adapter. Both could be purchased for around $40.

The device was loaded with the Raspbian OS and was configured as a network bridge and set up as a WiFi access point. Once connected to the network, the device was capable of intercepting scan data as it was sent to the PAC system. The attacker had full control over scan data and could alter it at will and create or remove any number of tumors while retaining the same anatomy as the original scans.

But how effective is the malware at altering CT scans? Were the alterations good enough to fool trained radiologists?

In tests, 70 images were manipulated. The accuracy of the alterations was such that it was possible to fool three radiologists in 99% of instances where fake tumors were added and 94% of images where real tumors were removed. The altered images fooled AI systems every time.

When the radiologists were made aware that scans had been altered, in a second test using a mix of genuine and doctored images, they were still fooled by 60% of the images that had tumors added and 87% of images where tumors had been removed.

In the tests, the researchers used lung scans and injected fake tumors, but brain tumors could be created or removed just as easily and the system could be used on a wide range of health conditions such as bone fractures, blood clots, or spinal problems.

The alteration of images would be difficult to detect as scans are typically not encrypted nor digitally signed. Healthcare organizations are usually good at implementing robust perimeter controls to prevent attacks from remote threat actors but are less good at protecting internal networks. This eggshell approach to security leaves hospitals vulnerable to attacks conducted inside the facility by malicious insiders.

A video of the simulated attack can be viewed on the following link: https://youtu.be/_mkRAArj-x0

 

The post Malware Alters CT Scans to Create and Remove Tumors appeared first on HIPAA Journal.