Advertisement

Robust/Recover Provable Data Possession Protocol

  • Chao FengEmail author
  • Honghong Wang
  • Wenbo Wan
  • Qinghua Li
  • Fangzhou Xu
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 895)

Abstract

Provable data possession (PDP) allows a client that has stored data at remote server to verify that the server correctly possesses the original data. A long-standing problem is how to reduce I/O cost. Through the integration of Online-code and PDP, a challenge/check protocol that can verifies the possession is proposed. The protocol generates probabilistic proofs of possession by sampling tiny sets of data, which obviously reduces I/O cost. Meanwhile, the protocol can recover corrupted data. The authors formalize this notion in the Robust/Recover (RR) provable data possession guarantee. Briefly speaking, the client maintains a constant amount of metadata to verify the proof. The challenge/check protocol transmits a constant amount of data, which reduces communication complexity. The authors give a detailed analysis of this protocol and build a simulation to evaluate practicability in reliability, space overhead, computation complexity, and communication complexity.

Keywords

Data outsourcing Provable data possession Online-code Robust/Recover 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank G. Ateniese, K. Bowers, Guomin Yang and Haiying Liu for sharing their deep insights about delegated computation and KEA1-assumption related matters. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61701270) and Cooperation Foundation for The Youth Doctors of QiLu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences) (Grant No. 2017BSHZ008).

References

  1. 1.
    Devanbu, P., Gertz, M., Martel, C., et al.: Authentic third-party data publication. J. Comput. Secur. 11(4), 291–314 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mykletun, E., Narasimha, M., Tsudik, G.: Authentication and integrity in outsourced databases. ACM Trans. Storage 2(2), 107–318 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Xue, L., Ni, J., Li, Y., Shen, J.: Provable data transfer from provable data possession and deletion in cloud storage. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 11(Part 1), 46–54 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clementine, G., Chen, R., Willy, S., Thomas, P.: Dynamic provable data possession protocols with public verifiability and data privacy. In: ISPEC 2017. LNCS, Melbourne, vol. 10701, pp. 485–505. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fan, X., Yang, G., Mu, Y., Yu, Y.: On indistinguishability in remote data integrity checking. Comput. J. 58(4), 823–830 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golle, P., Staddon, J., Waters, L.B.: Secure conjunctive keyword search over encrypted data. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference ACNS 2004. LNCS, Yellow Mountain, vol. 3089, pp. 31–45. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ateniese, G., Burns, R., Curtmola, R., et al.: Provable data possession at untrusted stores. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 598–609. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juels, A., Kaliski, S.B.: PoRs: proofs of retrievability for large files. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 584–597. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Curtmola, R., Khan, O., Burns, R.: Robust remote data checking. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Workshop on Storage Security and Survivability, pp. 63–68. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bowers, K., Juels, A., Oprea, A.: Proofs of retrievability: theory and implementation. ePrint Archive Report (2008/175) (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kotla, R., Alvisi, L., Dahlin, M.: SafeStore: a durable and practical storage system. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Santa Clara, pp. 129–142 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Golle, P., Jarecki, S., Mironov, I.: Cryptographic primitives enforcing communication and storage complexity. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Financial Cryptography, Melbourne, pp. 120–135. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maymounkov, P.: Online codes. New York University, TR2003-883 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Damgard, I.: Towards practical public key systems secure against chosen ciphertext attacks. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Cryptology Conference on Advances in Cryptology. LNCS, Santa Barbara, vol. 740, pp. 445–456. Springer (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bellare, M., Palacio, A.: The knowledge-of-exponent assumptions and 3-round zero-knowledge protocols. In: Proceedings of the CRYPTO 2004, LNCS, Santa Barbara, vol. 3152, pp. 273–289. Springer (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao Feng
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Honghong Wang
    • 2
  • Wenbo Wan
    • 3
  • Qinghua Li
    • 1
  • Fangzhou Xu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physics, School of Electronic and Information EngineeringQilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences)JinanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of Electrical Engineering and AutomationQilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences)JinanPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Information Science and EngineeringShandong Normal UniversityJinanPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Institute of Automation, Shandong Academy of SciencesJinanPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations