Automated Security Assessment Framework for Wearable BLE-enabled Health Monitoring Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth of IoT technology, increasing prevalence of embedded devices, and advancements in biomedical technology have led to the emergence of numerous wearable health monitoring devices (WHMDs) in clinical settings and in the community. The majority of these devices are Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) enabled. Though the advantages offered by BLE-enabled WHMDs in tracking, diagnosing, and intervening with patients are substantial, the risk of cyberattacks on these devices is likely to increase with device complexity and new communication protocols. Furthermore, vendors face risk and financial tradeoffs between speed to market and ensuring device security in all situations. Previous research has explored the security and privacy of such devices by manually testing popular BLE-enabled WHMDs in the market and generally discussed categories of possible attacks, while mostly focused on IP devices. In this work, we propose a new semi-automated framework that can be used to identify and discover both known and unknown vulnerabilities in WHMDs. To demonstrate its implementation, we validate it with a number of commercially available BLE-enabled enabled wearable devices. Our results show that the devices are vulnerable to a number of attacks, including eavesdropping, data manipulation, and denial of service attacks. The proposed framework could therefore be used to evaluate potential devices before adoption into a secure network or, ideally, during the design and implementation of new devices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".