Advertisement

Trust level estimation for cloud service composition with inter-service constraints

  • Hela MaloucheEmail author
  • Youssef Ben Halima
  • Henda Ben Ghezala
Original Research
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Many cloud services with similar functionalities but different quality of service (QoS) have emerged in the past few years. Thus, the composition of a set of services in order to perform a particular functionality becomes a challenge. Organizations are more and more interested in moving their information systems (IS) with their various components (data, services, business processes, etc.) to the cloud. The composition of services in a similar case is more difficult since the components of the IS have different levels of complexity. This process should not be based only on the QoS, but other factors must be considered, such as the constraints that may exist between services as well as the trustworthiness of the providers. In this paper, we introduce an approach for the composition of cloud services to deal with the above issues. We compared our approach with other algorithms that treat the same problem, in order to evaluate it. The evaluation results show that our approach returns better results that meet the non-functional requirements and respect the constraints between services while maximizing the trust level of service providers.

Keyword

Cloud computing Information system Genetic algorithm Quality of service Service composition Trustworthiness 

Notes

References

  1. Ai L, Tang M (2008) A penalty-based genetic algorithm for QoS-aware web service composition with inter-service dependencies and conflicts. In: 2008 international conference on computational intelligence for modelling control and automation, CIMCA 2008. pp 738–743Google Scholar
  2. Almanea MI (2015) The role of transparency and trust in the selection of cloud service providers. Newcastle University, Newcastle upon TyneGoogle Scholar
  3. Alrifai M, Risse T, Nejdl W (2011) A hybrid approach for efficient Web service composition with end-to-end QoS constraints. ACM Trans Web.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2180861.2180864 Google Scholar
  4. Avizienis A, Laprie J-C, Randell B, Landwehr C (2004) Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans Dependable Secur Comput 1:11–33.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2004.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouanaka MA, Zarour N (2013) An approach for an optimized web service selection based on skyline. Int J Comput Sci Issues 10:412–418Google Scholar
  6. Cao Y, Guo Z, Zhang J (2017) Weight calculation for cases generated by tacit knowledge explicit based on RS-FAHP. MATEC Web Conf.  https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201710005029 Google Scholar
  7. Chakraborty S, Roy K (2012) An SLA-based framework for estimating trustworthiness of a cloud. In: Proceeding of the 11th IEEE international conference on trust, security and privacy in computing and communications trust—11th IEEE international conference on ubiquitous computing and communications IUCC-2012, pp 937–942.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TrustCom.2012.84
  8. Chhetri MB, Goh S, Lin J et al (2007) Agent-based negotiation of service level agreements for web service compositions. In: Proceedings of the joint conference on the INFORMS section on group decision and negotiation. pp 81–93Google Scholar
  9. Chiregi M, Navimipour NJ (2016) A new method for trust and reputation evaluation in the cloud environments using the recommendations of opinion leader’s entities and removing the effect of troll entities. Comput Human Behav.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.029 Google Scholar
  10. Cloud Security Alliance (2013) The notorious nine cloud computing top threats in 2013. https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/top_threats/The_Notorious_Nine_Cloud_Computing_Top_Threats_in_2013.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2019
  11. Cloud Security Alliance (2016) The treacherous 12: cloud computing top threats in 2016. https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/assets/research/top-threats/Treacherous-12_Cloud-Computing_Top-Threats.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2018
  12. Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (2000) Using similarity criteria to make negotiation trade-offs. In: Proceedings—4th international conference on MultiAgent systems, ICMAS 2000. pp 119–126Google Scholar
  13. Farokhi S, Jrad F, Brandic I, Streit A (2014) HS4MC: hierarchical SLA-based service selection for multi-cloud environments. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on cloud computing and services science (CLOSER 2014). Barcelona, Spain, pp 722–734Google Scholar
  14. Fdhila W, Dumas M, Godart C (2010) Optimized decentralization of composite web services. In: Conference on collaborative computing: networking, applications and worksharing. pp 1–10Google Scholar
  15. Goettelmann E, Dahman K, Gateau B et al (2014) A broker framework for secure and cost-effective business process deployment on multiple clouds. In: CAiSE 2014 Forum/Doctoral Consortium. Lecture notes in business information processing 204Google Scholar
  16. Hajizadeh R, Jafari Navimipour N (2017) A method for trust evaluation in the cloud environments using a behavior graph and services grouping. Kybernetes.  https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2017-0070 Google Scholar
  17. Kanpariyasoontorn J, Senivongse T (2017) Cloud service trustworthiness assessment based on cloud controls matrix. In: International conference on advanced communication technology, ICACT. pp 291–297Google Scholar
  18. Klein A, Ishikawa F, Honiden S (2011) Efficient heuristic approach with improved time complexity for QoS-aware service composition. In: Proceedings—2011 IEEE 9th international conference on web services, ICWS 2011. pp 436–443Google Scholar
  19. Klein A, Ishikawa F, Honiden S (2012) Towards network-aware service composition in the cloud. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web—WWW’12. pp 959–968Google Scholar
  20. Liu B, Zhang Z (2016) QoS-aware service composition for cloud manufacturing based on the optimal construction of synergistic elementary service groups. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88:2757–2771.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8992-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu Y, Esseghir M, Boulahia LM (2016) Evaluation of parameters importance in cloud service selection using rough sets. Appl Math 7:527–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lu W, Hu X, Wang S, Li X (2014) A multi-criteria QoS-aware trust service composition algorithm in cloud computing environments. Int J Grid Distrib Comput 7:77–88.  https://doi.org/10.14257/ijgdc.2014.7.1.08 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malouche H, Ben Halima Y, Ben Ghezala H (2017) Enterprise preparation for cloud migration: assessment phase. In: 2017 IEEE/ACS 14th international conference on computer systems and applications (AICCSA). IEEE, pp 652–659Google Scholar
  24. Nemhauser GL, Wolsey LA (1988) Integer and combinatorial optimization. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. NIST (2013) Security and privacy controls for federal information systems and organizations. NIST Spec Publ.  https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53Ar4 Google Scholar
  26. Pavithra M, Mahalingam SK (2015) Trust driven workflow scheduling by composition of cloud services under fuzzy preferences of users. Int J Eng Technol Sci 2:45–50Google Scholar
  27. Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Comput Inf Sci 11:341–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01001956 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Ranbhise SM, Joshi KK (2014) Simulation and analysis of cloud environment. Int J Adv Res Comput Sci Technol 2:206–209Google Scholar
  29. Remli MA, Deris S, Jamous M et al (2015) Service composition optimization using differential evolution and opposition-based learning. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 11:229–234.  https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.11.1711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sasikaladevi N (2016) Trust based cloud service composition framework. Int J Grid Distrib Comput 9:99–104.  https://doi.org/10.14257/ijgdc.2016.9.1.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shehu U, Safdar GA, Epiphaniou G (2015) Network-aware composition for Internet of thing services. Trans Netw Commun.  https://doi.org/10.14738/tnc.31.961 Google Scholar
  32. Stegaru G, Danila C, Sacala IS et al (2012) Quality driven web service composition modeling framework. In: 13th working conference on virtual enterpries (PROVE), Oct 2012, Bournemouth, United Kingdom. Springer, IFIP advances in information and communication technology, AICT-380. pp 87–95Google Scholar
  33. Talbi J, Haqiq A (2017) A MAS-based cloud service brokering system to respond security needs of cloud customers. Int J Interact Multimed Artif Intell 4:65.  https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2017.4310 Google Scholar
  34. Wang S, Sun Q, Zou H, Yang F (2013) Particle swarm optimization with skyline operator for fast cloud-based web service composition. Mob Netw Appl 18:116–121.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-012-0373-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang D, Yang Y, Mi Z (2014) A genetic-based approach to web service composition in geo-distributed cloud environment. Comput Electr Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2014.10.008 Google Scholar
  36. Wu Q, Zhang M, Zheng R et al (2013) A QoS-satisfied prediction model for cloud-service composition based on a hidden markov model. Math Probl Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/387083 Google Scholar
  37. Yacoab MYM, Alameen A, Sha MM (2018) A web service composition framework based on functional weight to reach maximum QoS. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 9:146–150Google Scholar
  38. Zeng L, Benatallah B, Dumas M et al (2003) Quality driven web services composition. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on World Wide Web WWW 03. pp 411–421Google Scholar
  39. Zheng X, Martin P, Brohman K (2012) Cloud service negotiation: concession vs. tradeoff approaches. In: Proceedings—12th IEEE/ACM international symposium on cluster, cloud and grid computing, CCGrid 2012. pp 515–522Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RIADI Labs, National School of Computer ScienceManouba UniversityManoubaTunisia

Personalised recommendations