Cybersecurity requirements for medical devices in the EU and US - A comparison and gap analysis of the MDCG 2019–16 and FDA premarket cybersecurity guidance

The increasing use of connected medical devices has led to substantial cybersecurity challenges, putting patient safety and the integrity of healthcare infrastructures at risk. This study examines regulatory guidance on medical device cybersecurity in the European Union (guidance document of Medical Device Coordination Group MDCG 2019-16 revision 1) and the United States (US Food and Drug Administration Guidance on Cybersecurity) and identifies their strengths and weaknesses. First, the study compares these documents with a baseline requirements framework derived from international standards and best practices, revealing gaps in the thematic areas of "Cryptography," "Authentication & Access Control," and "Source Code/Software Development." Second, the guidance documents were compared with real-world cybersecurity incidents, showing that the current guidance documents would help to mitigate the weaknesses of important vulnerability examples, while recommendations are missing in both guidance documents, but more so in MDCG 2019-16, for the most important weaknesses. In conclusion, both guidance documents are inadequately formulated in certain aspects, have an unclear scope, inconsistent levels of detail, and contain thematic gaps. These gaps could result in manufacturers failing to sufficiently address cybersecurity concerns in their products, thereby creating vulnerabilities. This study highlights the need for future guidance documents to be clearer in scope and to close existing gaps to ultimately allow safer medical devices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2025.07.024
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.86

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cybersecurity requirements for medical devices in the EU and US - A comparison and gap analysis of the MDCG 2019–16 and FDA premarket cybersecurity guidance

Mitchell Parker, Max Ostermann, Florence D. Hudson, William C. Harding et al.
2 citations
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
2.86
article

Cybersecurity requirements for medical devices in the EU and US - A comparison and gap analysis of the MDCG 2019–16 and FDA premarket cybersecurity guidance

Mitchell Parker, Max Ostermann, Florence D. Hudson, William C. Harding, Stephen Gilbert, Oscar Freyer, Fatemeh Jahed, Rebecca Mathias
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The increasing use of connected medical devices has led to substantial cybersecurity challenges, putting patient safety and the integrity of healthcare infrastructures at risk. This study examines regulatory guidance on medical device cybersecurity in the European Union (guidance document of Medical Device Coordination Group MDCG 2019-16 revision 1) and the United States (US Food and Drug Administration Guidance on Cybersecurity) and identifies their strengths and weaknesses. First, the study compares these documents with a baseline requirements framework derived from international standards and best practices, revealing gaps in the thematic areas of "Cryptography," "Authentication & Access Control," and "Source Code/Software Development." Second, the guidance documents were compared with real-world cybersecurity incidents, showing that the current guidance documents would help to mitigate the weaknesses of important vulnerability examples, while recommendations are missing in both guidance documents, but more so in MDCG 2019-16, for the most important weaknesses. In conclusion, both guidance documents are inadequately formulated in certain aspects, have an unclear scope, inconsistent levels of detail, and contain thematic gaps. These gaps could result in manufacturers failing to sufficiently address cybersecurity concerns in their products, thereby creating vulnerabilities. This study highlights the need for future guidance documents to be clearer in scope and to close existing gaps to ultimately allow safer medical devices.

Computational and Structural Biotechnology JournalVol. 28
Indiana University Health (US), Trine University (US), Beijing Institute of Big Data Research (CN), Fresenius (Germany) (DE), Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US), Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
European Commission, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
2.86
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.