HL7v2 - Health Level Seven International

HL7v2 – Overview, Purpose & Adoption

What is HL7v2

HL7v2 is the messaging standard from HL7 International that defines exchange of clinical and administrative data between healthcare systems. It is designed for the application layer (layer 7) of the OSI stack (hence "Health Level Seven").

Key purposes:

• Enable interoperability between disparate healthcare systems (e.g., EHRs, Laboratory Information Systems (LIS), Radiology Information Systems (RIS), billing systems).
• Standardize the format of messages containing data like patient demographics, admissions/discharges/transfers (ADT), orders (ORM), results (ORU), etc.
• Provide a framework for messaging that can be customised locally to handle domain‐specific or facility‐specific variations.

‍

Adoption and "80/20" Rule

HL7v2 is extremely widely used. For example: The National Library of Medicine states that v2 is "the most used health information exchange standard in the United States". The "80/20 rule" is often cited: the standard covers about 80% of the interface requirements and leaves ~20% to local adaptation.

Because of this widespread adoption, any healthcare integration or security program must consider HL7v2 as a core technology.

‍

Versioning and Backward Compatibility

HL7v2 has many versions: 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.8.1, 2.9 (and future). One of its design goals is backward compatibility - newer systems can receive messages from older versions, as most differences are additive or optional. This trait is useful for interoperability, but also means implementations often carry legacy quirks and less strict conformance.

‍

Challenges and Implications

While HL7v2 delivers broad interoperability, its flexibility and local customization introduce challenges:

• Local "Z-segments" and optional fields vary widely between sites, making standardisation and testing harder.
• Parsing and validation logic may differ between sending/receiving systems, raising the risk of misinterpretation.
• Because it's text‐based, easy to inspect but also easier to manipulate/inject malicious content if parsing is weak.
• Network transport, application logic and interface engines introduce multiple layers of vulnerability.

Thus, from a security viewpoint, HL7v2 deserves distinct attention - not just the "data" but the protocol and parsing logic, transport surfaces, validation rules, and interoperability assumptions.

‍

HL7v2 Protocol Structure - How the Standard Looks

In this section we go into the details of how HL7v2 messages are formed: encoding rules, segments, fields, components, delimiters, profiles, transport, and also highlight aspects of the "newest" specification.

‍

Delimiters and Encoding Basics

HL7v2 uses a text‐based encoding with delimiters. The typical/default delimiter characters are:

• Segment separator: carriage‐return (CR) or carriage‐return + line‐feed (often CR).
• Field separator: vertical bar (pipe) |.
• Component (sub‐field) separator: caret ^.
• Subcomponent separator: ampersand &.
• Repetition separator: tilde ~.
• Escape character: backslash \ (for special encoding).

The default "MSH" header segment defines the delimiters used in the message (the second field after MSH typically lists the encoding characters). For example, a message might start:

MSH|^~\&|SENDING_APP|SENDING_FACILITY|RECEIVING_APP|RECEIVING_FACILITY|…  

‍

Here the |^~\& indicates that the field separator is |, component separator ^, repetition separator ~, escape \, subcomponent &. Many implementations stick to defaults.

‍

Message Structure & Segments

An HL7v2 message is composed of one or more segments. Each segment begins with a three‐character identifier (e.g., MSH, PID, PV1, OBX, etc.) followed by delimiter‐separated fields. For example:

PID|1|123456^^^MRN|…|DOE^JOHN|…  

‍

The message structure is hierarchical at a conceptual level, though represented in a flat text with delimiters. The typical order is:

• MSH (Message Header) - required.
• [Optional] other header‐type segments (e.g., EVN = Event Type)
• Data segments: e.g., PID (Patient Identification), PV1 (Patient Visit), NK1 (Next of Kin), ORC (Common Order), OBR (Observation Request), OBX (Observation Result) etc.
• Ending segment: often the last data segment, and the message ends at the segment delimiter.

For example, in version 2.7 the PID segment is defined with fields: PID‐1 Set ID, PID‐2 Patient ID, PID‐3 Patient Identifier List, etc.

‍

Data Types, Components and Repetitions

Each field in a segment may itself contain components and subcomponents, separated by their respective delimiters. For example, the XPN data type (Extended Person Name) can be something like DOE^JOHN^A^^MR where DOE is last name, JOHN first name, A middle initial, MR suffix (depending on local convention).

A field may also have multiple repetitions indicated by the repetition separator (~). For example:

PID|…|123456^^^MRN~654321^^^ALTMRN|…

‍

Here the patient identifier list field has two repeated identifiers.

‍

Message Header (MSH) Segment

The MSH segment is key. It carries metadata: sending application, sending facility, receiving application, receiving facility, date/time, message type, message control ID, processing ID, version, among others. A typical MSH might look like:

MSH|^~\&|HOSPITAL_APP|HOSPITAL_FAC|LAB_APP|LAB_FAC|202310261200||ORM^O01|MSG00001|P|2.5|||AL|NE

• HOSPITAL_APP|HOSPITAL_FAC = sending system
• LAB_APP|LAB_FAC = receiving system
• 202310261200 = timestamp
• ORM^O01 = message type (ORM = Order Message, trigger event O01)
• MSG00001 = message control ID
• P = processing ID (P = Production)
• 2.5 = version of HL7 standard used

The MSH segment also defines the encoding characters (in field 2) which set the delimiters for the rest of the message.

‍

Message Types, Trigger Events and Segments

HL7v2 defines many message types and associated trigger events. For example:

• ADT (Admit/Discharge/Transfer) messages (e.g., ADT^A01 = admit a patient)
• ORM (Order) messages
• ORU (Observation Result) messages
• VXU (Vaccination Update) messages
  … and many more. Implementation guides define which message types are used in each interface.

‍

Each message type corresponds to a profile of segments, fields, data types and trigger events. The conformance methodology defines how profiles are derived from base message definitions.

‍

Versions and Specification Documents

As of the latest publicly‐available materials, HL7v2 has versions up to 2.9 (and ongoing work). The HL7v2 Conformance Methodology document (2019) indicates the versions covered (v2.3, v2.3.1, v2.4, v2.5, v2.5.1, v2.6, v2.7, v2.7.1, v2.8, v2.8.1, v2.8.2, v2.9). Implementation guides regularly build on these.

The existence of local variations (custom Z‐segments, optional fields, system‐specific constraints) means that while the base standard defines the “format,” each interface may deviate. This variability is critical for testing and for security considerations.

‍

Transport / Lower Layer Protocols

HL7v2 messages are typically transported over TCP/IP using the Minimum Lower Layer Protocol (MLLP). MLLP is a de-facto standard for HL7v2 transport. It defines a start‐of‐block and end‐of‐block framing, e.g., <VT> at start, <FS><CR> at end (vertical tab, file separator, carriage return). Many integration engines or interface engines support MLLP.

However, HL7v2 messages may also be transported over other protocols depending on the system, including:

• Secure TCP with TLS
• FTP/FTPS (batch file transfers)
• Web services (SOAP) carrying HL7 segments
• Secure RESTful wrappers (less common for v2)
  

Understanding the exact transport in a given environment is important for security: for example is TLS used, is authentication enforced, is the network perimeter segmented, etc.

‍

Message Profile & Conformance

HL7v2 uses the notion of profiles and implementation guides. A message profile constrains the base message definition for a particular use case (e.g., immunization update, patient admit). The Conformance Methodology document defines how to create these profiles: choose the base message, apply constraints, build an implementation guide.

For example, an immunization implementation guide may define "VXU^V04" as the trigger event for sending immunisation history, and pair it with an acknowledgement profile "ACK^V04".

From a security testing perspective, knowing the exact profile in use is important because deviations (unexpected segments, custom fields, extra Z-segments) can be a source of mis‐parsing or exploitation.

‍

How the Newest Spec Looks - Key Enhancements, Considerations

While many deployments continue to use version 2.5.1, later versions (2.7, 2.8, 2.9) include enhancements. From a high level:

• Version 2.7 (and its derivatives) expanded the number of trigger events, segments, data types, optionality.
• The Conformance Methodology document (2019) was published to unify profiling across versions.
• Emphasis on message‐level conformance, segment cardinality, datatype definitions, and optionality - improving clarity for implementers.
• Support for structural data types (e.g., HD – Hierarchic Designator) and richer data modelling.

‍

In practical terms, for a tester/security engineer, the "newest spec" means:

• Validate which version the system claims ("2.3", "2.5.1", "2.9" etc) and verify that the profile is consistent (via MSH segment version field).
• Check for deviations from the standard version: custom segments, Z‐segments, non‐standard fields, custom triggers.
• Be aware that backward compatibility means the receiving system may silently ignore unexpected fields or segments - which can hide parsing issues or vulnerabilities.
• Verify transport parameters (MLLP framing, control characters, etc) in accordance with the spec and local implementation.
• Since many implementations treat optionality liberally, test edge cases: missing segments, repeated segments, unexpected large field length, unusual delimiters, escape sequences.

A sound security testing plan therefore uses the latest spec as baseline and then accounts for local deviations.

‍

Security Testing of HL7v2 Interfaces - Why It Matters

Often when people think of "secure healthcare messaging" they focus on encryption (TLS), authentication, and data‐in‐transit. While those are essential, security testing of HL7v2 must go deeper: the protocol, parsing, interface engine, transport framing, message size/structure, injection risks, validation logic, segmentation mapping, replay, etc.

Here are key reasons:

‍

Parsing Risks and Injection

Because HL7v2 messages are text‐based with many delimiters and optional fields/components, parsing logic varies. A poorly implemented parser may:

• Fail to handle unexpected repeated fields or segments, leading to buffer overflows or denial‐of‐service.
• Misinterpret delimiters or escape sequences, enabling data injection or malformed fields that bypass validation.
• Accept oversized fields or segments, leading to memory exhaustion, log overflow, or integration engine crash.
• Fail to validate custom Z‐segments or custom fields leading to unexpected behaviour downstream.

Thus testing must target parsing robustness, not just "valid" message flows.

‍

Protocol / Transport Layer Weaknesses

HL7v2 transport often uses MLLP over TCP. If not properly secured, you may face:

• Unencrypted connections allowing eavesdropping of PHI (Protected Health Information).
• Unauthenticated endpoints accepting arbitrary messages from unauthorized senders.
• Message framing vulnerabilities: e.g., missing start/end delimiters, message concatenation confusion, partial messages accepted, replay attacks.
• Network segmentation issues: interfaces accessible over hospital network may be reachable from low‐trust segments.

Testing should cover connection establishment, framing boundaries, error handling of invalid start/stop bytes, large message floods, and replay.

‍

Interface Engine / Message Hub Logic

In a typical healthcare environment there is an integration engine (interface engine) which receives HL7v2, transforms it, routes it, logs it, maybe stores it. Vulnerabilities may exist in this logic:

• The engine may assume only known segments/fields, and unexpected ones may be dropped but still logged, causing log injection or overflow.
• Custom mapping or transformation logic may inadvertently expose sensitive data or be susceptible to injection (e.g., mapping field values into SQL queries).
• A malicious HL7v2 message may trigger downstream workflows (e.g., create a false patient admission, discharge, lab result) leading to data integrity issues.
• Logging and monitoring may not fully capture malformed or error messages resulting in obscure failures.

From a security‐testing viewpoint you need to examine not just message content but how the engine reacts: what workflows it triggers, how it logs errors, how it handles edge cases, failure modes, etc.

‍

Data‐Integrity, Denial of Service & Business Logic Abuse

Because HL7v2 supports key workflows (patient admission, order creation, result reporting), security failures can have material impacts:

• A malicious actor injecting bogus messages could cause fake admissions, fake orders, erroneous results, causing clinical harm.
• Large volumes of messages (malformed or valid) could overload the interface engine, causing delays or downtime ("Denial of Service").
• If message authentication or source‐validation is missing, unauthorised systems may send messages directly to internal systems, bypassing controls.
• Replay of old messages may cause duplicate orders or outdated data being re‐ingested.

Thus security testing must include business logic abuse scenarios, not just protocol robustness.

‍

Compliance and PHI Exposure

Healthcare interfaces carry Protected Health Information (PHI) and must comply with regulations (HIPAA in the US, GDPR/other in Europe, national healthcare regulations). Key security considerations:

• Ensure messages in transit are encrypted when required.
• Ensure endpoint authentication and authorization (only known senders allowed).
• Ensure proper logging and auditing of message receipt and changes.
• Ensure preservation of data confidentiality and integrity once the message is processed.
• Ensure that malformed messages cannot circumvent validation and inject malicious data.

Failure to test these can lead to regulatory violations, audits, fines, and patient-harm.

‍

Why Testing the Protocol and Data Matters

Testing only the data payload (e.g., field values contain PHI, or whether field X is validated) is important but not sufficient. The protocol (framing, segments, delimiters, repetition, optional fields) and the integration engine logic (parsing, mapping, routing) are equally critical.

Examples of what protocol-testing covers:

• Sending messages with unexpected delimiters or malformed segment separators.
• Repeating segments beyond expected counts.
• Including custom Z-segments with weird content.
• Omitting required segments or fields.
• Using very large fields or long strings in fields.
• Combining multiple messages in a single TCP frame.
• Sending partial messages and keeping the connection open.
• Changing encoding characters (rare but possible).
• Changing version field in MSH to unsupported value.

Such tests reveal weaknesses in the parsing engine, error‐handling, interface robustness, and security controls around message acceptance. Hence a full security test strategy for HL7v2 must cover protocol, transport, interface logic, and data.

‍

Security Testing Methodology for HL7v2

Here is a practical methodology for security testing of HL7v2 interfaces, including preparatory steps, test categories, tool approaches and example scenarios.

Preparatory Steps

Before testing you should:

• Identify the interface(s) in scope: which system(s) send HL7v2 messages, which receive, what versions, what message types (ADT, ORM, ORU, etc).
• Obtain the implementation guide/profile in use for that interface: message type, segments allowed, expected version, optional segments. (E.g., immunization update guide, lab result guide).
• Capture or obtain sample messages in production or staging: these serve as "valid baseline" for your tests.
• Determine transport details: MLLP/TCP port, encryption/TLS, authentication required, which IPs or systems are allowed.
• Identify integration engine or interface hub details: which engine is used (Mirth, Rhapsody, Cloverleaf, custom), how message handling is done (routing, mapping, logging).
• Determine the logging/auditing and error‐handling strategy: where errors are logged, how they are monitored, whether message failures are alerted.
• Identify PHI sensitivity and regulatory controls: what data is carried, what protections must be in place.

‍

Test Categories

You can group tests into several categories:

Protocol/Transport Tests

• Attempt to connect to the MLLP/TCP endpoint from unauthorized source or network segment. Ensure it is refused or authenticated.
• Establish a connection, send a valid message but tamper with start/end framing (e.g., missing <VT>, missing <FS><CR>, concatenated messages) and observe how system handles it (error, crash, silence).
• Send valid messages in rapid succession (burst flood) to test for DoS/resilience.
• Send partial message (start message and pause before sending end) to test resource consumption or connection hang.
• Send same valid message repeatedly (replay) and check if system rejects duplicates or alerts.
• Verify if TLS is used (if required) and whether encryption/authentication are enforced.
• Inspect network traffic (if allowed) to ensure PHI is not in plaintext where encryption is required.

‍

Message Structure / Parsing Tests

From a valid baseline message, modify parameters to test parsing robustness:

• Change the encoding characters in the MSH segment to non‐standard values and see if the receiver parses or rejects.
• Alter the version field in MSH (e.g., set to "2.9" if receiver supports only 2.5) and see how system handles it.
• Remove required segments or fields (e.g., omit PID segment, or remove message control ID) and observe error handling.
• Add unexpected segments (e.g., an extra Z-segment or extra OBX) and check whether it is ignored, logged, or causes error.
• Introduce very long field values (e.g., 10,000 characters in a free‐text field) and test for buffer overflow or denial of service.
• Use invalid delimiters or embed delimiters within a field value to test escape handling.
• Use repeated segments beyond expected (e.g., 50 NK1 segments instead of 1) and test behavior.
• Use tricky escape sequences (e.g., \F\, \S\, \T\, \R\) or embed special characters to test parser handling.
• Insert non‐printable or control characters within fields to test logging and downstream processing.
• Modify timestamp formats, data types (e.g., put text where numeric expected) and observe validation.

‍

Business Logic / Workflow Tests

• Create a message that appears valid but triggers unwanted workflow: e.g., a fake admission (ADT^A01) of a nonexistent patient, and check if system logs it, blocks it, or triggers downstream actions.
• Submit an order (ORM) for a patient and verify if the system accepts it from unauthorized source or with manipulated fields (e.g., billing codes).
• Send a result (ORU) message altering OBX values (e.g., abnormal results) to test whether systems detect abnormal/unexpected values or whether they blindly accept them.
• Replay an old message (e.g., previous discharge) to test whether duplicates or stale data are processed or flagged.
• Generate messages with conflicting data (e.g., patient visited after discharge date) and observe system behavior.
• Combine malicious message content with valid segments to test whether downstream systems propagate the abnormal values (e.g., adverse event codes, unknown patient identifiers).
• Test interface engine’s mapping logic: send messages tempting injection of SQL commands, log manipulation, or special characters in fields that might overflow or log‐poisoning.
• Simulate high‐volume valid messages to test if system slows, logs get backed up, or resource exhaustion occurs.

‍

Data Security, Validation & Monitoring

• Confirm that any PHI in the message is handled properly: e.g., encryption in transit, logging of only necessary fields, secure storage of log files.
• Validate that authentication/authorization is required for message sending and that messages from unauthorized systems are rejected or quarantined.
• Test for audit trail generation: check that each message receipt is logged, with control ID, timestamp, sender/receiver.
• Verify that abnormal or failed messages generate alerts or get flagged for manual review.
• Check that data validation is in place: e.g., PID‐3 (Patient Identifier List) should not accept malformed identifiers, OBX segments should validate units/values, etc.
• Test whether the system sanitises or rejects malicious payloads designed to exploit downstream systems (e.g., injection of HTML/JavaScript or SQL in free‐text fields).

‍

Tools and Approach

Testing HL7v2 interfaces can be accomplished using a combination of custom scripts, integration engines (for simulation), and specialized fuzzing tools. Important considerations:

• Build a "valid baseline" message set (captured from production or staging) for each message type in scope. Use this as a starting point for mutation/fuzzing.
• Use a simulation tool or script that connects to the MLLP endpoint and sends messages according to protocol framing. Many open‐source tools exist (e.g., Mirth Connect, hl7apy for Python).
• For protocol/fuzzing tests, use a fuzzer that allows mutation of the message structure (fields, segments, delimiters) and monitors system behavior (e.g., crashes, connection resets, error logs).
• Ensure you have monitoring of the receiving system: logs, integration engine status, downstream systems, performance metrics, error queues.
• Where possible, use non‐production or test environment which mirrors the production interface to avoid clinical disruption.
• Document test cases, results, observations: how the system handled malformed or unexpected messages, any failures, any vulnerabilities discovered.
• After tests, coordinate with the integration/IT team to remediate parsing issues, validation weaknesses, logging/monitoring gaps, access control weaknesses, transport weaknesses.

‍

Example Scenarios

Below are illustrative scenarios you can include in your test suite (you should adapt to your environment):

Scenario A – Invalid Framing Attack

• Connect to the MLLP endpoint.
• Send a message with missing start‐block <VT> or missing end‐block <FS><CR>.
• Observe if the connection remains open (leading to resources held) or if the message is silently accepted.
• Then send another valid message and see if the receiver processes it or if the parsing has become mis‐aligned.

‍

Scenario B – Long Field Buffer Overflow

• Take a valid ADT^A01 message.
• In the PID segment, for field "Patient Name (XPN)", replace the value with 50,000 characters of 'A'.
• Observe whether the receiving system logs an error, drops the message, crashes, or silently truncates.
• Check whether logs include sensitive data (e.g., full 50,000 char string) and whether the system is responsive after the test.

‍

Scenario C - Repeated Segments Abuse

• Use a valid ORU^R01 (Observation Result) message.
• Duplicate the OBX segment 100 times (instead of expected 1 or 2) with valid data inside.
• Submit the message and evaluate how the system handles extra segments: Does it process them, ignore them, throw an error, slow down?
• Evaluate downstream system(s) for unintended load or mis‐routing.

‍

Scenario D – Replay and Duplicate Message

• Send a valid admission message (ADT^A01) with given Message Control ID, then wait, then send the same message again.
• Verify if the system identifies it as duplicate or processes it twice.
• Then send a modified admission (ADT^A05, e.g., patient transfer) but reuse the same control ID and observe behaviour.

‍

Scenario E – Field Content Injection

• In a valid ORU message, modify the OBX segment value field: e.g., put <script>alert('x')</script> or SQL snippet '; DROP TABLE Patients; --.
• Submit the message and trace if any downstream system interprets or logs the malicious input unsafely.
• Check logs for clean sanitisation and whether the interface engine does not propagate un‐escaped content into logs or databases.

‍

What to Capture and Analyse

During testing you should capture:

• Network traffic (e.g., tcpdump) of HL7v2 sessions: start/stop blocks, delimiters, message control IDs, framing anomalies.
• Logs from interface engine: message receipt time, control ID, sender/receiver, parsing errors, rejections, queue backlog.
• Downstream system behaviour: state changes (admissions, orders, results), any abnormal entries, resource consumption, error queues.
• System performance metrics: CPU/memory usage, connection count, queue lengths, response times.
• Security logs: failed message receipts, authentication failures, repeated connections from unknown sources.
• Audit trail: verify message control IDs correlate to processing, duplicates flagged, errors recorded.

‍

Remediation and Hardening Recommendations

Based on test findings, recommend the following:

• Enforce transport security: use TLS for MLLP or other transport, restrict inbound endpoints, authenticate sender systems.
• Validate message framing strictly: reject messages lacking proper delimiters or start/stop bytes.
• Enforce parser hardening: limit maximum field lengths, reject unexpected segments, treat repeated segments beyond policy as error.
• Enable secure logging: sanitize field content, truncate oversized fields, prevent log injection, monitor log size and rotation.
• Duplicate detection: use message control ID, timestamp, and logical content to detect and reject duplicates/replays.
• Business logic validation: validate orders/admissions/results against known patients, valid statuses, avoid blindly accepting.
• Monitor and alert: set up alerting for high error rates, unusual message volumes, unknown senders, failed parsing.
• Conduct regular fuzzing and penetration testing of HL7v2 interfaces as part of the security program.
• Document and standardise interface profiles (implementation guides) and integrate security testing into interface change management.

‍

Using Penzzer to Test HL7v2 Interfaces

Here we describe how the fuzzing solution Penzzer can be used specifically for HL7v2 interfaces, how it maps to the testing methodology above, and how one might build workflows, test harnesses and interpret results.

‍

Penzzer Overview (technical)

Penzzer is a fuzzing and security-testing platform designed for protocol, application and interface testing. It supports custom protocols, message formats, transport layers, and integration with CI/CD pipelines for security testing. (Note: this section is technical, not marketing.)

Relevant features for HL7v2 testing:

• Ability to define custom message templates (e.g., sample valid HL7v2 messages) and then apply mutation/fuzzing at field, component or structural level.
• Support for TCP/MLLP integration (since HL7v2 typically uses MLLP over TCP) including custom start/stop framing, timeouts, connection handling.
• Capture of send/receive responses and detection of anomalous behaviours (timeouts, resets, crashes, unexpected responses).
• Logging and analytics of test results: tracking which mutations triggered errors, analysing root causes, generating reports.
• Integration with monitoring of target systems (via API, log watchers, performance counters) to detect DoS, resource exhaustion, or degradation.
• The ability to schedule fuzzing campaigns, prioritise test cases (e.g., high‐risk fields like patient identifiers, command fields, free‐text segments), and reuse the campaign for regression testing as the interface evolves.

‍

Building an HL7v2 Testing Workflow in Penzzer

Here is a suggested workflow:

Baseline Setup

• Import or define a set of valid HL7v2 messages (for each message type in scope) into Penzzer. These form the "seed" messages. Use production/staging captures if possible (with PHI anonymised).
• Define the transport configuration: e.g., host/IP of HL7v2 receiver endpoint (MLLP over TCP port), start/stop block settings (<VT>/<FS><CR>), optional TLS settings, authentication if required.
• Define expected response behaviour: many HL7v2 endpoints send back an acknowledgement (ACK message) with the same Message Control ID. Configure Penzzer to parse/validate the ACK response, capture control IDs, message types, response times, error codes.
• Define monitoring hooks: e.g., Penzzer can watch target system resource metrics, interface engine logs, error queue lengths, connection resets, etc.

‍

Protocol‐Fuzzing Configuration

• Configure Penzzer mutation rules at multiple levels:
  • Field‐level: mutate specific fields (e.g., Patient ID, Date of Birth, Identifier List) by injecting long strings, invalid characters, non‐ASCII characters, control characters.
  • Component‐level: within components separate by ^, inject unusual values (e.g., multiple delimiters, embedded separators, missing components).
  • Segment‐level: add extra segments (e.g., add Z‐segments), duplicate segments, omit required segments, reorder segments.
  • Framing‐level: send messages missing start/stop, concatenated messages, partial messages, custom delimiter settings.
  • Volume / rate: schedule bursts of messages quickly to test DoS/resilience.
• Define test categories: for example
  • "Delimiters & framing" category
  • "Field value robustness" category
  • "Segment/structure robustness" category
  • "Business logic abuse" category
• Set prioritisation: For example, prioritise message types that create or modify patient state (ADT) or orders (ORM) because of higher business risk.

‍

Execution and Monitoring

• Run the fuzzing campaign in Penzzer against the HL7v2 interface (test or sandbox environment).
• Monitor for anomalies: connection resets, slow responses, no ACK received, wrong ACK message, interface engine errors, downstream system errors, increased CPU/memory, logs with unhandled exceptions, crash of integration engine.
• For each anomaly, Penzzer will log the seed message variant that caused it, the mutation type, and the observed response (or lack thereof).
• Correlate the anomaly with logs on the target system: did the message get logged? Did it trigger a workflow? Did it cause data integrity issue? Was there resource exhaustion?
• Use Penzzer’s reporting features to summarise findings (e.g., number of invalid responses, categories of failures, time to failure, etc).

‍

Analysis and Remediation

• Review Penzzer's logs: which mutations caused errors, which passed, which caused performance degradation.
• Map failures to root cause: e.g., parsing error due to large field, duplicate segment handling bug, missing authentication.
• Prioritise remediation: For example, if repeated large messages caused connection exhaustion, that is DoS risk. If malformed segments cause crash, that is high severity.
• Configure regression tests: save specific seed messages that triggered vulnerabilities, and include them in future fuzzing campaigns to ensure fixes remain effective.
• Integrate Penzzer into CI/CD: when interface code changes (e.g., new version of integration engine, new message type), use Penzzer to re-fuzz automatically as part of security validation.

‍

Example Penzzer Scenario for HL7v2

Suppose your hospital uses an HL7v2 interface on port 2575 using MLLP (VT start, FS+CR end), version “2.5.1”, message type ADT^A01. The receiving system sends back ACK^A01 messages.

Step-by‐step

• Import sample valid message:

MSH|^~\&|HOSP_APP|HOSP_FAC|EHR_APP|EHR_FAC|202310261230||ADT^A01|MSG00001|P|2.5.1
EVN|A01|202310261230
PID|1|123456^^^MRN|654321^^^ALT|DOE^JOHN||19800101|M|||123 MAIN ST^^CITY^ST^12345
PV1|1|I|WARD^101^1^^HOSP||…  

• Configure Penzzer to connect to host:port, start block <VT>, end block <FS><CR>, expect ACK.
• Create a mutation rule: in the PID segment, field PID‐3 (Patient Identifier List) mutate to 10000 characters of 'A'.
• Run the campaign. Penzzer sends the mutated message and receives no ACK (timeout). Connection logs show large buffer and eventual connection reset.
• Penzzer logs the seed variant ID, mutation type "long‐field", observed behaviour "timeout/no ACK".
• Security engineering reviews target logs: integration engine shows "NullPointerException" in parser, connection pool exhausted.
• Remediation: apply field‐length limits, drop oversized fields gracefully, log error, send negative ACK.
• Add regression test in Penzzer: same mutated message should now trigger rejected ACK and no resource exhaustion.
• Expand campaign to other message types (ORM, ORU), other fields (OBX value fields, date/time fields, custom Z-segments).
• Schedule Penzzer to run nightly in test environment as part of interface regression.

‍

Benefits of Using Penzzer for HL7v2 Testing

• Automation of what would otherwise be laborious manual test cases (many permutations of field/segment mutations).
• Ability to test at scale (volume, bursts) to surface performance or DoS risks.
• Structured logging and correlation (seed variant ↔ system behaviour) which aids root‐cause and remediation tracking.
• Enables integration into CI/CD so that interface changes automatically trigger security testing, reducing regression risk.
• Focus on protocol/structure fuzzing rather than just data value testing, which is often neglected in HL7v2 interfaces.

‍

Limitations and Considerations

• Because HL7v2 interfaces are often in production healthcare environments, it is critical to perform fuzzing in isolated test/sandbox environments, not directly in production without proper controls (to avoid disrupting patient care).
• Fuzzing may trigger unexpected downstream workflows (e.g., fake orders/admissions) - ensure safeguards are in place (segregated test systems, fake patient IDs, no live patients).
• Some custom integrations may have rate limits, connection limits, authentication gates; the fuzzing tool must be configured to respect these to avoid unintended side‐effects.
• Interpretation of results requires domain knowledge: some failures may be expected (e.g., message rejected due to version mismatch) and not actually vulnerability; triage is necessary.
• Proper baseline and monitoring are key: you must correlate what you observe (e.g., timeout) with the actual behaviour of the receiving system (logs, metrics) to confirm a real vulnerability rather than normal rejection.
• Ensure compliance/regulatory considerations are addressed: using real PHI in test messages may require de‐identification or synthetic data.