Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Non-repudiable provenance for clinical decision support systems

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2006.11233 v1 pith:2QT5R4S6 submitted 2020-06-19 cs.CR

classification cs.CR
keywords provenancedataservicetemplateevidencenon-repudiablecallclinical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Provenance templates are now a recognised methodology for the construction of data provenance records. Each template defines the provenance of a domain-specific action in abstract form, which may then be instantiated as required by a single call to the provenance template service. As data reliability and trustworthiness becomes a critical issue in an increasing number of domains, there is a corresponding need to ensure that the provenance of that data is non-repudiable. In this paper we contribute two new, complementary modules to our template model and implementation to produce non-repudiable data provenance. The first, a module that traces the operation of the provenance template service itself, and records a provenance trace of the construction of an object-level document, at the level of individual service calls. The second, a non-repudiation module that generates evidence for the data recorded about each call, annotates the service trace accordingly, and submits a representation of that evidence to a provider-agnostic notary service. We evaluate the applicability of our approach in the context of a clinical decision support system. We first define a policy to ensure the non-repudiation of evidence with respect to a security threat analysis in order to demonstrate the suitability of our solution. We then select three use cases from within a particular system, Consult, with contrasting data provenance recording requirements and analyse the subsequent performance of our prototype implementation against three different notary providers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools