Keyword-Based Delegable Proofs of Storage

  • Binanda SenguptaEmail author
  • Sushmita Ruj
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11125)


Cloud users (clients) with limited storage capacity at their end can outsource bulk data to the cloud storage server. A client can later access her data by downloading the required data files. However, a large fraction of the data files the client outsources to the server is often archival in nature that the client uses for backup purposes and accesses less frequently. An untrusted server can thus delete some of these archival data files in order to save some space (and allocate the same to other clients) without being detected by the client (data owner). Proofs of storage enable the client to audit her data files uploaded to the server in order to ensure the integrity of those files. In this work, we introduce a type of (selective) proofs of storage that we call keyword-based delegable proofs of storage, where the client wants to audit all her data files containing a specific keyword (e.g., “important”). Moreover, it satisfies the notion of public verifiability where the client can delegate the auditing task to a third-party auditor who audits the set of files corresponding to the keyword on behalf of the client. We formally define the security of a keyword-based delegable proof-of-storage protocol. We construct such a protocol based on an existing proof-of-storage scheme and analyze the security of our protocol. We argue that the techniques we use can be applied atop any existing publicly verifiable proof-of-storage scheme for static data. Finally, we discuss the efficiency of our construction.


Cryptographic protocols Proofs of storage Cloud computing Keyword-based audits Public verifiability 



This work is partially supported by Cisco University Research Program Fund, CyberGrants ID: #698039 and Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The authors would like to thank Chris Shenefiel and Samir Saklikar for their comments and suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Armknecht, F., Bohli, J., Karame, G.O., Liu, Z., Reuter, C.A.: Outsourced proofs of retrievability. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS, pp. 831–843 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ateniese, G., et al.: Provable data possession at untrusted stores. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS, pp. 598–609 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Back, A.: Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure, August 2002.
  4. 4.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random oracles are practical: a paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS, pp. 62–73 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boneh, D., Lynn, B., Shacham, H.: Short signatures from the Weil pairing. J. Cryptol. 17(4), 297–319 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowers, K.D., Juels, A., Oprea, A.: Proofs of retrievability: theory and implementation. In: ACM Cloud Computing Security Workshop, CCSW, pp. 43–54 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cash, D., et al.: Dynamic searchable encryption in very-large databases: data structures and implementation. In: Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS (2014).
  8. 8.
    Cash, D., Küpçü, A., Wichs, D.: Dynamic proofs of retrievability via oblivious RAM. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 279–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang, H., Hsu, C.: Using topic keyword clusters for automatic document clustering. IEICE Trans. 88-D(8), 1852–1860 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curtmola, R., Garay, J.A., Kamara, S., Ostrovsky, R.: Searchable symmetric encryption: improved definitions and efficient constructions. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS, pp. 79–88 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dodis, Y., Vadhan, S.P., Wichs, D.: Proofs of retrievability via hardness amplification. In: Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC, pp. 109–127 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erway, C.C., Küpçü, A., Papamanthou, C., Tamassia, R.: Dynamic provable data possession. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS, pp. 213–222 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Galbraith, S.D., Paterson, K.G., Smart, N.P.: Pairings for cryptographers. Discret. Appl. Math. 156(16), 3113–3121 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gritti, C., Chen, R., Susilo, W., Plantard, T.: Dynamic provable data possession protocols with public verifiability and data privacy. In: International Conference on Information Security Practice and Experience, ISPEC, pp. 485–505 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Juels, A., Kaliski, B.S.: PORs: Proofs of retrievability for large files. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS, pp. 584–597 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kang, S.: Keyword-based document clustering. In: International Workshop on Information Retrieval with Asian Languages, IRAL, pp. 132–137 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koblitz, N., Menezes, A.: Pairing-based cryptography at high security levels. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) Cryptography and Coding 2005. LNCS, vol. 3796, pp. 13–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merkle, R.C.: A digital signature based on a conventional encryption function. In: Pomerance, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 1987. LNCS, vol. 293, pp. 369–378. Springer, Heidelberg (1988). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller, A., Juels, A., Shi, E., Parno, B., Katz, J.: Permacoin: repurposing bitcoin work for data preservation. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, S&P, pp. 475–490 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008).
  21. 21.
    Reed, I.S., Solomon, G.: Polynomial codes over certain finite fields. J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 8(2), 300–304 (1960)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sengupta, B., Bag, S., Ruj, S., Sakurai, K.: Retricoin: bitcoin based on compact proofs of retrievability. In: International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, ICDCN, pp. 14:1–14:10 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sengupta, B., Ruj, S.: Publicly verifiable secure cloud storage for dynamic data using secure network coding. In: ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ASIACCS, pp. 107–118 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sengupta, B., Ruj, S.: Efficient proofs of retrievability with public verifiability for dynamic cloud storage. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. PP(99) (2017).
  25. 25.
    Shacham, H., Waters, B.: Compact proofs of retrievability. J. Cryptol. 26(3), 442–483 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shi, E., Stefanov, E., Papamanthou, C.: Practical dynamic proofs of retrievability. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS, pp. 325–336 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tao, J.J.: Hybrid and iterative keyword and category search technique. US Patent 8667007 B2, March 2014.
  28. 28.
    Tao, J.J.: Semantic context based keyword search techniques. US Patent 9589050 B2, March 2017.
  29. 29.
    Wang, C., Chow, S.S.M., Wang, Q., Ren, K., Lou, W.: Privacy-preserving public auditing for secure cloud storage. IEEE Trans. Comput. 62(2), 362–375 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, Q., Wang, C., Ren, K., Lou, W., Li, J.: Enabling public auditability and data dynamics for storage security in cloud computing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 22(5), 847–859 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Statistical InstituteKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations