SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences, Volume 60, Issue 12: 122104(2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-016-0038-6

## Provably secure cloud storage for mobile networks with less computation and smaller overhead

Hui MA1,2,*, Yao LU3,
• AcceptedSep 18, 2016
• PublishedApr 27, 2017
Share
Rating

### Abstract

Secure cloud storage (SCS) guarantees the data outsourced to the cloud to remain intact as it was before being outsourced. Previous schemes to ensure cloud storage reliability are either computationally heavy or admitting long overheads, thus are not suitable for mobile networks with strict computation/bandwidth restrictions. In this paper, we build an efficient SCS system for mobile networks based on homomorphic MAC and propose domain extension to enhance the security level and flexibility of the system. In addition, we give a formal security model which is compatible to previous ones and analyze our system in that model. We also give implementations on mobile devices to verify the effectiveness of our system.

### Acknowledgment

This work was supported by Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant Nos. XDA06010703, XDA06010701), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61472416, 61272478, 61632020), Foundation of Science and Technology on Information Assurance Laboratory (Grant No. KJ-14-002), and CREST, Japan Science and Technolegy Agency.

### References

[1] Deswarte Y, Quisquater J J, Saidane A. Remote integrity checking---how to trust files stored on untrusted servers. In: Proceedings of Integrity and Internal Control in Information Systems VI - IFIP TC11/WG11.5 Sixth Working Conference on Integrity and Internal Control in Information Systems (IICIS) Lausanne, 2003. 1--11. Google Scholar

[2] Filho D, Barreto P. Demonstrating data possession and uncheatable data transfer. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2006/150, 2006. http://eprint.iacr.org/. Google Scholar

[3] Naor M, Rothblum G N. The complexity of online memory checking. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2005), Pittsburgh, 2005. 573--584. Google Scholar

[4] Schwarz T, Miller E. Store, forget, and check: using algebraic signatures to check remotely administered storage. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, Lisboa, 2006. 12. Google Scholar

[5] Ateniese G, Burns R C, Curtmola R, et al. Provable data possession at untrusted stores. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Alexandria, 2007. 598--609. Google Scholar

[6] Zhu Y, Wang H X, Hu Z X, et al. Efficient provable data possession for hybrid clouds. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Chicago, 2010. 756--758. Google Scholar

[7] Erway C, Kupçu A, Papamanthou C, et al. Dynamic provable data possession. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Chicago, 2009. 213--222. Google Scholar

[8] Juels A, Kaliski B. Pors: proofs of retrievability for large files. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Alexandria, 2007. 584--597. Google Scholar

[9] Shacham H, Waters B. Compact proofs of retrievability. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security, Australia, 2008. 90--107. Google Scholar

[10] Xu J, Chang E. Towards efficient proofs of retrievability. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, Korea, 2012. 79--80. Google Scholar

[11] Ateniese G, Kamara S, Katz J. Proofs of storage from homomorphic identification protocols. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security (ASIACRYPT 2009), Tokyo, 2009. 319--333. Google Scholar

[12] Bowers K, Juels A, Oprea A. Proofs of retrievability: theory and implementation. In: Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Cloud Computing Security, Chicago, 2009. 43--54. Google Scholar

[13] Dodis Y, Vadhan S, Wichs D. Proofs of retrievability via hardness amplification. In: Proceedings of the 6th Theory of Cryptography Conference (TCC 2009). Berlin: Springer, 2009. 109--127. Google Scholar

[14] Ateniese G, Pietro R, Mancini L, et al. Scalable and efficient provable data possession. In: Proceedings of the 4th International ICST Conference on Security and Privacy in Communication Networks (SecureComm 2008), Turkey, 2008. 1--10. Google Scholar

[15] Ma H, Zhang R. Secure cloud storage for dynamic group: how to achieve identity privacy-preserving and privilege control. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Network and System Security. Berlin: Springer, 2015. 254--267. Google Scholar

[16] Wang Q, Wang C, Li J, et al. Enabling public verifiability and data dynamics for storage security in cloud computing. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Research in Computer Security, Saint-Malo, 2009. 355--370. Google Scholar

[17] Stefanov E, Dijk M, Juels A, et al. Iris: a scalable cloud file system with efficient integrity checks. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 2012). New York: ACM, 2012. 229--238. Google Scholar

[18] Cash D, Kup. Google Scholar

[19] Shi E, Stefanov E, Papamanthou C. Practical dynamic proofs of retrievability. In: Proceedigns of ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2013), Berlin, 2013. 325--336. Google Scholar

[20] Guan C, Ren K, Zhang F, et al. Symmetric-key based proofs of retrievability supporting public verification. In: Proceedigns of the 20th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS 2015). Berlin: Springer, 2015. 203--223. Google Scholar

[21] Lillibridge M, Elnikety S, Birrell A, et al. A cooperative internet backup scheme. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, 2003. 29--41. Google Scholar

[22] Wang C, Chow S S M, Wang Q. Privacy-preserving public auditing for secure cloud storage. IEEE Trans Comput, 2013, 62: 362-375 CrossRef Google Scholar

[23] Yang K, Jia X. An efficient and secure dynamic auditing protocol for data storage in cloud computing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst, 2013, 24: 1717-1726 CrossRef Google Scholar

[24] Chen F, Xiang T, Yang Y, et al. Secure cloud storage meets with secure network coding. In: Proceedings of Conference on Computer Communications, Canada, 2014. 673--681. Google Scholar

[25] Agrawal S, Boneh D. Homomorphic macs: mac-based integrity for network coding. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security, Paris-Rocquencourt, 2009. 292--305. Google Scholar

[26] Cheng C, Jiang T. A novel homomorphic MAC scheme for authentication in network coding. IEEE Commun Lett, 2011, 15: 1228-1230 CrossRef Google Scholar

[27] Shoup V. Sequences of games: a tool for taming complexity in security proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/332, 2004. http://eprint.iacr.org/. Google Scholar

[28] Krawczyk H. Cryptographic extraction and key derivation: the HKDF scheme. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Cryptology Conference (CRYPTO 2010). Berlin: Springer, 2010. 631--648. Google Scholar

• Figure 1

The system model.

• Figure 2

Our implementation.

• Table 1   Gentoo data set
 Benchmark File name File size #1 0.3.12.tar.gz 23.1 KB #2 BLT2.4z.tar.gz 2.1 MB #3 ACE+TAO-5.7.2.tar.bz2 24.9 MB #4 textures-406files-7-16-04.zip 120 MB #5 fate-0.8.2.tar.xz 422 MB
• Table 2   Performance of our system on a mobile phone
 Benchmark $N$ $M$ Outsource (ms) Audit (ms) Prove (ms) Verify (ms) Storage Comm. #1 1 K 24 2.79 0.01 0.13 1.00 24 B 8 bits #2 1 K 2150 142.24 0.17 4.95 1.69 2.1 KB 8 bits #3 1 K 25500 2004.21 0.10 4.02 1.42 24.9 KB 8 bits #3 1 M 25 1781.66 0.08 91.40 226.88 25 B 8 bits #4 1 M 121 7881.86 0.04 472.79 227.69 121 B 8 bits #5 1 M 423 26616.17 0.10 1633.80 210.30 423 B 8 bits
• Table 3   Performance of our system on a laptop
 Benchmark $N$ $M$ Outsource (ms) Audit (ms) Prove (ms) Verify (ms) Storage Comm. #1 1 K 24 0.63 0.12 0.16 0.12 24 B 8 bits #2 1 K 2150 26.00 0.19 4.06 0.26 2.1 KB 8 bits #3 1 K 25500 274.07 0.16 4.64 0.29 24.9 KB 8 bits #3 1 M 25 269.21 0.10 101.02 54.77 25 B 8 bits #4 1 M 121 1114.02 0.11 487.62 61.09 121 B 8 bits #5 1 M 423 3761.53 0.11 1710.99 54.27 423 B 8 bits
• Table 4   Performance of domain extension on a mobile device
 Benchmark $N$ $M$ Outsource (ms) Audit (ms) Prove (ms) Verify (ms) Storage Comm. #1 1 K 24 8.40 0.04 0.16 1.77 96 B 32 bits #2 1 K 2150 447.29 0.10 4.04 3.62 8.4 KB 32 bits #3 1 K 25500 4825.01 0.14 4.09 2.31 99.6 KB 32 bits #3 1 M 25 5318.33 0.14 91.45 925.69 100 B 32 bits #4 1 M 121 23140.73 0.10 476.08 974.82 484 B 32 bits #5 1 M 423 86819.68 0.13 1687.04 943.90 1.7 KB 32 bits
• Table 5   Performance comparison of our protocol with existing protocols
 Protocol User User User Cloud Cloud Cloud Unit space computation storage comm. computation storage comm. Our protocol $1\mbox{PRG}~+~m\mbox{PRF}$ $O(\lambda)$ $O(l)$ – $O(|F|+m\lambda)$ $O(n+\lambda)$ $\mathbb{F}_{2^8}$ (8 bits) Domain extension $1\mbox{PRG}~+~m\mbox{PRF}$ $O(\lambda)$ $O(l)$ – $O(|F|+rm\lambda)$ $O(n+r\lambda)$ $\mathbb{F}_{2^8}~(8r$ bits) Chen et al. [24] $m\cdot(n+2)\mbox{Exp}$ $O(\lambda)$ $O(l)$ $(l+m+n+1)\mbox{Exp}$ $O(|F|+m\lambda)$ $O(n+\lambda)$ $\mathbb{Z}_{e}~~(8$ bits) Xu and Chang [10] $m\cdot~n\mbox{Exp}+m\mbox{PRF}$ $O(\lambda)$ $O(l)$ $(n-1)\mbox{Exp}$ $O(|F|+m\lambda)$ $O(1+\lambda)$ $\mathbb{Z}_{p}~~(128$ B) Ateniese et al. [5] $m\mbox{Hash}~+2m\mbox{Exp}$ $O(\lambda)$ $O(l)$ $(l+1)\mbox{Exp}+1\mbox{Hash}$ $O(|F|+m\lambda)$ $O(1+\lambda)$ $\mathbb{Z}_{N}~(128$ B) Shacham et al. [9] $1\mbox{MAC}+1\mbox{Enc}+m\mbox{PRF}$ $O(\lambda)$ $O(l)$ – $O(|F|+m\lambda)$ $O(n+\lambda)$ $\mathbb{Z}_{p}~~~(10$ B) Shacham et al. [9] $m\mbox{Hash}~+m(n+1)\mbox{Exp}$ $O(\lambda)$ $O(l)$ $l\mbox{Exp}$ $O(|F|+m\lambda)$ $O(n+\lambda)$ $\mathbb{Z}_{p}~~~(20$ B)
• #### 3

Citations

• Altmetric

Copyright 2020 Science China Press Co., Ltd. 《中国科学》杂志社有限责任公司 版权所有