skip to main content
10.1145/3616388.3617535acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmswimConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Signal Leakage in Fat Tissue-Based In-Body Communication: Preserving Implant Data Privacy

Published:30 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Medical implants are becoming increasingly widespread, and with that comes a need for networking multiple implants in the human body. This puts new demands on in-body communication, where conventional techniques (such as galvanic coupling) suffer from low bandwidth and data rates that can be insufficient for a network with several medical implants. Radio-based techniques at microwave frequencies can, on the other hand, provide a high-capacity communication channel, with the caveat that wave propagation through bodily materials at such frequencies is associated with significant signal loss, which limits the range. Fat tissue has been shown to have low loss compared to other tissues at frequencies such as 2.45 GHz and 5.8 GHz and could be a good choice of medium for a high-capacity channel. However, a drawback of radio-based in-body communication remains: signals may "leak'' out of the channel to the outside environment. This work investigates the leakage aspects of fat tissue-based in-body communication and explores methods for preserving the privacy of data from implants communicating through fat tissue. Through both simulations and practical experiments, we show that signals are heavily attenuated (on average by about 27 dB) when leaving the fat channel through the skin. Signal attenuation through the skin layer is similar even when the channel is not straight. Additionally, we demonstrate that reducing the transmit power as well as using an external, friendly "jamming'' signal can prevent that an external eavesdropper receives the data packets. In summary, we show that there is indeed RF leakage from in-body communication through fat tissue. However, the skin layer attenuates the signal quite heavily so that reducing the transmit power in combination with external jamming may prevent eavesdroppers outside the body from receiving sensitive in-body data.

References

  1. Achraf Amar, Ammar Kouki, and Hung Cao. 2015. Power approaches for implantable medical devices. Sensors, Vol. 15, 11 (2015), 28889--28914.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Donald G. Archer and Peiming Wang. 1990. The Dielectric Constant of Water and DebyeHückel Limiting Law Slopes. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, Vol. 19, 2 (03 1990), 371--411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Noor Badariah Asan, Emadeldeen Hassan, Jacob Velander, Syaiful Redzwan Mohd Shah, Daniel Noreland, Taco J. Blokhuis, Eddie Wadbro, Martin Berggren, Thiemo Voigt, and Robin Augustine. 2018. Characterization of the Fat Channel for Intra-Body Communication at R-Band Frequencies. Sensors, Vol. 18, 9 (2018), bibinfonumpages16 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Noor Badariah Asan, Daniel Noreland, Emadeldeen Hassan, Syaiful Redzwan Mohd Shah, Anders Rydberg, Taco J. Blokhuis, Per-Ola Carlsson, Thiemo Voigt, and Robin Augustine. 2017a. Intra-body microwave communication through adipose tissue. Healthcare Technology Letters , Vol. 4, 4 (2017), 115--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Noor Badariah Asan, Carlos Pérez Penichet, Syaiful Redzwan Mohd Shah, Daniel Noreland, Emadeldeen Hassan, Anders Rydberg, Taco J. Blokhuis, Thiemo Voigt, and Robin Augustine. 2017b. Data Packet Transmission Through Fat Tissue for Wireless IntraBody Networks. IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics, RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 1, 2 (2017), 43--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Kara Bocan and Ervin Sejdic. 2016. Adaptive Transcutaneous Power Transfer to Implantable Devices: A State of the Art Review. Sensors , Vol. 16 (03 2016), 393.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Moteiv Corporation. 2006. Tmote Sky Datasheet. https://www.snm.ethz.ch/snmwiki/pub/uploads/Projects/tmote_sky_datasheet.pdf. Accessed: 2023.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Hong-Ning Dai, Qiu Wang, Dong Li, and Raymond Chi-Wing Wong. 2013. On eavesdropping attacks in wireless sensor networks with directional antennas. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, Vol. 9, 8 (2013), 760834.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Dassault Systèmes. 2023. CST STUDIO SUITE - ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD SIMULATION SOFTWARE. https://www.3ds.com/products-services/simulia/products/cst-studio-suite/. Accessed: 2023.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Noor Badariah Asan et al. 2017. Intra-body microwave communication through adipose tissue. IET Healthcare Technology Letters , Vol. 4 (2017), 115--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Ettus Research LLC. Accessed 2023. B210 USRP. Online. Available at https://www.ettus.com/all-products/ub210-kit/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Laura Marie Feeney. 2012. Towards Trustworthy Simulation of Wireless MAC/PHY Layers: A Comparison Framework. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems (Paphos, Cyprus) (MSWiM '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 295--304. https://doi.org/10.1145/2387238.2387288Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Laura Galluccio, Tommaso Melodia, Sergio Palazzo, and Giuseppe Enrico Santagati. 2012. Challenges and implications of using ultrasonic communications in intra-body area networks. 2012 9th Annual Conference on Wireless On-Demand Network Systems and Services (WONS), Vol. 1, 9 (2012), 182--189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sam Hylamia, Wenqing Yan, André Teixeira, Noor Badariah Asan, Mauricio Perez, Robin Augustine, and Thiemo Voigt. 2020. Privacy-preserving Continuous Tumour Relapse Monitoring Using In-body Radio Signals. In 2020 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW). IEEE, CA, USA, 82--87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. IFAC-CNR, Florence (Italy). 2021. Dielectric Properties of Body Tissues. http://niremf.ifac.cnr.it/tissprop/htmlclie/htmlclie.php. Accessed: 2023.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Laya Joseph, Noor Badariah Asan, Javad Ebrahimizadeh, Arvind Selvan Chezhian, Mauricio D Perez, Thiemo Voigt, and Robin Augustine. 2020. Non-invasive transmission based tumor detection using anthropomorphic breast phantom at 2.45 GHz. In 2020 14th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP). IEEE, IEEE, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. V Komarov, S Wang, and J Tang. 2005. Permittivity and measurements. Encyclopedia of RF and microwave engineering, Vol. 61, 12 (2005), 3693--3711.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Robson A. Lima, Vinicius C. Ferreira, Egberto Caballero, Célio V. N. Albuquerque, and Débora C. Muchaluat Saade. 2019. Simulation of ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Devices in WBANs. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM Conference on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems (Miami Beach, FL, USA) (MSWIM '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 221--224. https://doi.org/10.1145/3345768.3355939Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. vZ eljka Lucev, Igor Krois, and Mario Cifrek. 2012. A capacitive intrabody communication channel from 100 kHz to 100 MHz. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 61, 12 (2012), 3280--3289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Donald I. McRee. 1974. Biological Effects of Microwave Radiation. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 24, 2 (1974), 122--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. DS Nag, S Sahu, A Swain, and S Kant. 2019. Intracranial pressure monitoring: Gold standard and recent innovations. World journal of clinical cases , Vol. 7, 13 (2019), 1535. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i13.1535Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. C. Namislo. 1984. Analysis of mobile radio slotted ALOHA networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , Vol. 33, 3 (1984), 199--204. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-VT.1984.24006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Mayukh Nath, Shovan Maity, Shitij Avlani, Scott Weigand, and Shreyas Sen. 2020. Inter-body coupling in electro-quasistatic human body communication: Theory and analysis of security and interference properties. Scientific Reports , Vol. 11 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. NXP Laboratories UK. 2013. Co-existence of IEEE 802.15.4 at 2.4 GHz - Application Note. https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/application-note/JN-AN-1079.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. George Oikonomou, Simon Duquennoy, Atis Elsts, Joakim Eriksson, Yasuyuki Tanaka, and Nicolas Tsiftes. 2022. The Contiki-NG open source operating system for next generation IoT devices. SoftwareX , Vol. 18 (2022), 101089.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Madhushanka Padmal, Christian Rohner, Robin Augustine, and Thiemo Voigt. 2023. RFID Tags as Passive Temperature Sensors. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on RFID (RFID). IEEE, WA, USA, 48--53. https://doi.org/10.1109/RFID58307.2023.10178523Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. David M Pozar. 2011. Microwave engineering. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Pramod K. B. Rangaiah, Johan Engstrand, Ted Johansson, Mauricio D. Perez, and Robin Augustine. 2023. 92 Mb/s Fat-Intrabody Communication (Fat-IBC) With Low-Cost WLAN Hardware. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , Vol. X, X (2023), bibinfonumpages9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2023.3292405Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Wenyu Sun, Jian Zhao, Yuxuan Huang, Yinan Sun, Huazhong Yang, and Yongpan Liu. 2019. Dynamic Channel Modeling and OFDM System Analysis for Capacitive Coupling Body Channel Communication. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, Vol. 13, 4 (2019), 735--745. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBCAS.2019.2917832Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Texas Instruments. 2022. 2.4 GHz IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee-ready RF Transceiver. https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cc2420.pdf. Accessed: 2023.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Xi Tian, Pui Mun Lee, Yu Jun Tan, Tina LY Wu, Haicheng Yao, Mengying Zhang, Zhipeng Li, Kian Ann Ng, Benjamin CK Tee, and John S Ho. 2019. Wireless body sensor networks based on metamaterial textiles. Nature Electronics , Vol. 2 (2019), 243--251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. William J. Tomlinson, Stella Banou, Shay Blechinger-Slocum, Christopher Yu, and Kaushik R. Chowdhury. 2019. Body-Guided Galvanic Coupling Communication for Secure Biometric Data. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 18, 8 (2019), 4143--4156. https://doi.org/10.1109/TWC.2019.2921964Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. William J Tomlinson, Stella Banou, Christopher Yu, Milica Stojanovic, and Kaushik R Chowdhury. 2018. Comprehensive survey of galvanic coupling and alternative intra-body communication technologies. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , Vol. 21, 2 (2018), 1145--1164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Deepak Vasisht, Guo Zhang, Omid Abari, Hsiao-Ming Lu, Jacob Flanz, and Dina Katabi. 2018. In-Body Backscatter Communication and Localization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (Budapest, Hungary) (SIGCOMM '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 132--146. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230543.3230565Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Marc Simon Wegmueller, Sonja Huclova, Juerg Froehlich, Michael Oberle, Norbert Felber, Niels Kuster, and Wolfgang Fichtner. 2009. Galvanic coupling enabling wireless implant communications. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 58, 8 (2009), 2618--2625.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Qiang Zhang, Julien Sarrazin, Massimiliano Casaletti, Philippe De Doncker, and Aziz Benlarbi-Delaï. 2017. Assessment of On-Body Skin-Confined Propagation for Body Area Network. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters , Vol. 16 (2017), 2610--2613. https://doi.org/10.1109/LAWP.2017.2735631Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Signal Leakage in Fat Tissue-Based In-Body Communication: Preserving Implant Data Privacy

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        MSWiM '23: Proceedings of the Int'l ACM Conference on Modeling Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems
        October 2023
        330 pages
        ISBN:9798400703669
        DOI:10.1145/3616388

        Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 30 October 2023

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate398of1,577submissions,25%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)101
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader