Medical Devices
and Implants:
Certifiable Security for Life-Critical Systems

Secure cryptography and OTA updates for ultra-constrained, mission-critical medical electronics

Medical devices and implants must protect sensitive patient data, device integrity, and real-time operational safety, often without the benefit of hardware security features. From insulin pumps and pacemakers to neural interfaces and surgical tools, these systems face strict safety, regulatory, and cybersecurity requirements. FortifyIQ enables advanced cryptographic protection for these devices, delivering certifiable resistance to physical attacks (SCA/FIA), even in the absence of hardware crypto.

Why Cryptographic Security in Implants Is Hard

Why FortifyIQ ?

FortifyIQ delivers cryptographic protection that meets the unique constraints of medical implants and ultra-constrained healthcare devices:

  • Security Without Hardware Crypto – Our hardened AES and HMAC software libraries provide strong SCA/FIA resistance even in devices without hardware accelerators, RNGs, or secure enclaves.
  • Compact and Efficient – Designed for minimal RAM/ROM usage and optimized CPU performance, FortifyIQ software fits within the strictest implant constraints while maintaining uncompromising security.
  • OTA Update Protection – Ensures firmware integrity and secure boot, safeguarding devices against malicious updates throughout their operational lifespan.
  • Proven Physical Attack Resistance – Validated against side-channel and fault injection attacks, including EM and power analysis, to defend devices exposed to real-world proximity threats.
  • Flexible Options – For systems requiring hardware-based security, FortifyIQ also provides compact, configurable IP cores and Roots of Trust that integrate seamlessly into low-power medical SoCs.

FortifyIQ Solutions: SCA/FIA-Hardened Software Crypto Libraries

Symmetric Cryptography

Asymmetric Cryptography

When Hardware is an Option

While FortifyIQ’s software cryptography is engineered for devices that lack hardware protection, our hardware cryptographic IPs offer extraordinary energy efficiency, minimal gate count, and protection. For medical devices that support ASIC or secure SoCs, FortifyIQ’s hardened AES, HMAC, and PKA IP cores, as well as our modular Cryptobox solutions, deliver maximum protection with minimal power, area, and latency.

Use Cases:

Pacemakers & Defibrillators:

Secure firmware updates, fault-tolerant integrity checks

Implantable Sensors:

Secure wireless telemetry and ensure firmware authenticity

Insulin Pumps & Drug Infusion Systems:

Prevent unauthorized control and protect dosing logs

Neurostimulators & Brain Interfaces:

Protect patient signals and device state

Certifiable and Standards-Aligned

FortifyIQ enables compliance with:

IEC 62304

Supports traceable, version-controlled software lifecycle practices with hardened cryptographic modules suitable for certified development flows.

FDA Cybersecurity Guidance

Provides layered cryptographic defenses, secure boot, firmware authentication, and OTA updates to prevent unauthorized access and manipulation.

EU MDR and ISO 14971

Assists in risk mitigation by addressing physical-layer threats (e.g., SCA/FIA), helping reduce residual risk in threat models.

NIST SP 800-213 and 800-82

Implements secure cryptographic modules for embedded and networked medical systems, aligned with NIST recommendations for IoT and ICS security.

Trusted Protection for Embedded Health Systems

FortifyIQ empowers medical OEMs to retrofit and deploy certifiable cryptographic protection using pure software. By eliminating the need for hardware acceleration or redesign, we offer a practical path to compliance, security, and patient safety across the implant lifecycle.

Fortify’s AES security evaluation by SGS

“Summary. The leakage analysis (Welch t-test) on over 30 million traces did not show statistically significant first- and second-order differences between trace sets with fixed and random inputs. The template-based DPA analysis, on the pseudo-random trace set for the profiling phase (15 million traces) and on a sub-set of 300k fix input traces for matching phase targeting the first-round S-box output, and template attack on ciphertext, did not indicate any potential information leakage.”

” The results for the soft IP presented in the report were obtained on the TOE which is the basic hardware implementation of the soft IP without additional levels of security (e.g. that are present in a secure silicon layout). Therefore the internal strength of the soft IP itself was evaluated. This indicates that the investigated features and parameters of the soft IP implementation should be robust against SCA and fault injection attacks in different implementations including ASIC. Nevertheless, according to the Common Criteria rules, the strength of the final composite product must be evaluated on its own.”

Request Technical Details