HL7 FHIR security topics

Back to Security Main Page

HL7 FHIR Provenance Resource Project Work

Scope: Develop and Maintain FHIR Security Resources

Project ID 1209 This project will identify and define resources, terminology, profiles, extensions as well as security label metadata necessary to support Healthcare Security and Privacy requirements. These requirements include those identified by international domains as articulated in legislation, policy, related standards, and those documented in HL7 Privacy and Security related domain analysis, architectural frameworks, services, and functional models, and various v2, v3, CDA, and FHIR interchange specifications. Specifically, this includes the AuditEvent resource, Provenance resource, Signature datatype, assigned to Security by the FMG as well as profiles and implementation guides created against these resources. The development and maintenance of these artifacts will be conducted in collaboration with other relevant domain work groups as outlined in the Security WG mission and charter. The Security WG will develop guidance regarding use of HL7 Security Standards (e.g. Role and Attribute-based access controls and vocabularies. In addition, the Security WG will work with appropriate external standards organizations to develop appropriate guidance on the use of general purpose security technologies, such as user authentication and authorization, that would aid with the secure and privacy protecting use of FHIR; and guide the FHIR community on the appropriate use of these solutions through the security pages of the FHIR specification, assigned to Security WG by the FMG.

• FHIR disposition link on gForge for review/discussion (ongoing weekly agenda item)

Export from Gforge Security Open

Wiki

• 3318 Clarify how to use RBAC and ABAC using FHIR ()
• 5525 Consent Directive does not appear to be aligned with the 80% ()
• 6303 Add Record Lifecycle Events to AuditEventObjectLifecycle Set ()
• 7563 2015May core #854 - Expand on how to use Provenance ()
• 7567 2015May core #858 - Provenance isn't sufficiently aligned with w3c spec ()
• 7568 2015May core #859 - How are agent and activity linked? ()
• 7569 2015May core #860 - Clarify relationship agents and entities used in activity ()
• 7570 2015May core #861 - Clarify relationship agents and entities used in activity ()
• 7597 2015May core #888 - This resource is missing any reference to the "action" performed on the entity. Is there a default "create" action or is it an omission? ()
• 7598 2015May core #889 - Can Provenance apply to a resource or just a data element ()
• 8638 how does Provenance work when deleting records ()
• 8731 Canonicalization for signatures ()
• 8738 Unapplied QA changes around security and services ()
• 8790 Give guidance on AuditEvent that codes don't need DisplayName populated ()
• 8803 Provenance for a subset of a resource ()
• 8827 Signature datatype does not include counter-signature type ()

Other

• Security pages
  • Including guidance on Authentication and Authorization
  • Security Labels Page
    • including meta tag use for security labels
• Signature Data Type

Provenance Resource

• Address outstanding Provenance CPs from January 2015 FHIR Ballot mistakenly assigned to FHIR Infrastructure
• Including signature use within Provenance
• Provenance.activity value-set needs to be enlarged with existing vocabulary, and discussion around if it should be marked as Extensible.
• Provenance.entity.role unclear how each vocabulary item should be used.
  • how is derivation to be used?
  • how is revision to be used, other than the duplicate indication that would be in Provenance.activity.
• Provenance.reason binding only to the PurposeOfUse is not granular. Seems there should be a more clear distinction between reason and activity. question on why this is Extensible
• show how a resource and provenance would look as that resource transitions through lifecycle. In this way one would be able to find each step of the lifecycle, by way of version; and the provenance statement by way of the pointer to that version specific.
• Detailed work plan and notes HL7 FHIR Provenance Resource

AuditEvent Resource

• Address outstanding AuditEvent CPs from January 2015 FHIR Ballot mistakenly assigned to FHIR Infrastructure
  • harmonize the structure, element names, and vocabulary as much as possible with Provenance.
  • document use cases for interoperable FHIR AuditEvent - e.g., federated system with central AuditEvent Service - intra- and inter-enterprise.
  • address the thought experiment of why do we have both Provenance and AuditEvent. (motivation vs consequence) (medical records vs security surveillance)
    • See http://hl7-fhir.github.io/auditevent-mappings.html#w3c.prov
    • See http://hl7-fhir.github.io/auditevent-mappings.html#fhirprovenance
    • See http://hl7-fhir.github.io/provenance-mappings.html#w3c.prov
    • See http://hl7-fhir.github.io/provenance-mappings.html#fhirauditevent
    • See http://hl7-fhir.github.io/w5
  • Detailed work plan and notes HL7 FHIR AuditEvent Resource

Relation of Provenance and Audit Event, and Security Labels

• • Who records Provenance vs AuditEvent; what are the various architectures. The important point is to assure that the architecture chosen doesn't miss information.
• and various other things concerning Security -- Risks to Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
• also interested in
  • W5
  • Privacy Consent as a profile on Contract