arXiv 论文提出临床协议感知的医疗网络安全韧性框架
Clinical-Protocol-Aware Cyber Resilience for Connected Clinical Technologies Under AI-Enabled Adversarial Conditions
把临床流程因素塞进网络安全设计里的一篇论文,仿真数据挺具体,做医疗信息化或安全的人可以看看。
一篇 arXiv 论文针对联网医疗设备的网络安全风险,提出临床协议感知的网络韧性框架,基于有界临床微网络与受控互联设计。参数化 Monte Carlo 仿真显示,连接式架构相比分段架构使平均网络暴露增加 56.3%,预防加遏制组合控制可将暴露降低 60.1%。实验还发现协议依赖度上升时,临床影响指数从 1.021 升至 7.567,而平均网络暴露不变,说明技术暴露与临床后果可以背离。论文强调结果是对比性架构分析,不是真实风险的校准估计。
Clinical-Protocol-Aware Cyber Resilience for Connected Clinical Technologies Under AI-Enabled Adversarial Conditions
Healthcare increasingly relies on connected medical devices, clinical information systems, cloud services, and distributed-care technologies, creating cybersecurity risks across clinical workflows. AI-enabled capabilities can accelerate vulnerability discovery and attack-path analysis, increasing the need to limit compromise propagation. This paper proposes a clinical-protocol-aware cyber-resilience framework based on bounded clinical micro-networks and controlled interconnections. The framework integrates clinical factors into cybersecurity design, management, and evaluation, covering prevention, containment, and incident response. A parameterized Monte Carlo simulation distinguishes technical cyber exposure from modeled clinical consequence. Experiments investigate architectural connectivity, adversarial capability, security controls, protocol dependency, risk alignment, communication directionality, lifecycle integration, and response timing. Under the simulation assumptions, connected architecture increases mean cyber exposure by 56.3% relative to segmented architecture, while combined prevention and containment reduce exposure by 60.1% relative to no controls. Increasing protocol dependency raises the modeled clinical-impact index from 1.021 to 7.567 without changing mean cyber exposure, demonstrating that technical exposure and clinical consequence can diverge. Risk-alignment experiments further indicate higher modeled clinical impact when greater technical risk corresponds to greater clinical significance. The findings support comparative architectural analysis, not calibrated estimates of real-world cyber risk, control effectiveness, or patient harm. The framework provides a clinical-context-aware approach to security-boundary design, control prioritization, and coordinated containment in connected healthcare environments.