SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences, Volume 62, Issue 3: 032104(2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-018-9462-0

Identity-based public auditing for cloud storage systems against malicious auditors via blockchain

More info
  • ReceivedFeb 26, 2018
  • AcceptedMay 22, 2018
  • PublishedJan 24, 2019


Cloud storage systems provide users with convenient data storage services, which allow users to access and update outsourced data remotely. However, these cloud storage services do not guarantee the integrity of the data that users store in the cloud. Thus, public auditing is necessary, in which a third-party auditor (TPA) is delegated to audit the integrity of the outsourced data. This system allows users to enjoy on-demand cloud storage services without the burden of continually auditing their data integrity. However, certain TPAs might deviate from the public auditing protocol and/or collude with the cloud servers. In this article, we propose an identity-based public auditing (IBPA) scheme for cloud storage systems. In IBPA, the nonces in a blockchain are employed to construct unpredictable and easily verified challenge messages, thereby preventing the forging of auditing results by malicious TPAs to deceive users. Users need only to verify the TPAs' auditing results in batches to ensure the integrity of their data that are stored in the cloud. A detailed security analysis shows that IBPA can preserve data integrity against various attacks. In addition, a comprehensive performance evaluation demonstrates that IBPA is feasible and efficient.


This work was supported by National Key RD Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFB- 0802000), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61370203).


[1] Wang C, Wang Q, Ren K, et al. Privacy-preserving public auditing for data storage security in cloud computing. In: Proceedings of INFOCOM, San Diego, 2010. Google Scholar

[2] 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

[3] Ni J, Yu Y, Mu Y. On the Security of an Efficient Dynamic Auditing Protocol in Cloud Storage. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst, 2014, 25: 2760-2761 CrossRef Google Scholar

[4] Ateniese G, Burns R, 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

[5] Zhang Y, Xu C, Li H. HealthDep: An Efficient and Secure Deduplication Scheme for Cloud-Assisted eHealth Systems. IEEE Trans Ind Inf, 2018, 14: 4101-4112 CrossRef Google Scholar

[6] Wang Q, Wang C, Li J, et al. Enabling public verifiability and data dynamics for storage security in cloud computing. In: Proceedings of European symposium on research in computer security, Saint-Malo, 2009. 355--370. Google Scholar

[7] Zhang J H, Dong Q C. Efficient ID-based public auditing for the outsourced data in cloud storage. Inform Sciences, 2016, 343: 1--14. Google Scholar

[8] Armknecht F, Bohli J, Karame G, et al. Outsourced proofs of retrievability. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Scottsdale, 2014. 831--843. Google Scholar

[9] 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

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

[11] Worku S G, Xu C, Zhao J. Cloud data auditing with designated verifier. Front Comput Sci, 2014, 8: 503-512 CrossRef Google Scholar

[12] Worku S G, Xu C X, Zhao J N, et al. Secure and efficient privacy-preserving public auditing scheme for cloud storage. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 2014, 40: 1703--1713. Google Scholar

[13] Zhao J N, Xu C X, Li F G, et al. Identity-based public verification with privacy-preserving for data storage security in cloud computing. IEICE Trans Fund Electron, 2013, 96: 2709--2716. Google Scholar

[14] Liu C, Chen J, Yang L T. Authorized Public Auditing of Dynamic Big Data Storage on Cloud with Efficient Verifiable Fine-Grained Updates. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst, 2014, 25: 2234-2244 CrossRef Google Scholar

[15] Shen J, Shen J, Chen X. An Efficient Public Auditing Protocol With Novel Dynamic Structure for Cloud Data. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur, 2017, 12: 2402-2415 CrossRef Google Scholar

[16] Zhang Y, Xu C, Liang X. Efficient Public Verification of Data Integrity for Cloud Storage Systems from Indistinguishability Obfuscation. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur, 2017, 12: 676-688 CrossRef Google Scholar

[17] Zhang Y, Xu C X, Li H W, et al. Cryptographic public verification of data integrity for cloud storage systems. IEEE Cloud Comput, 2016, 3: 44--52. Google Scholar

[18] Wang B Y, Li B C, Li H. Oruta: privacy-preserving public auditing for shared data in the cloud. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput, 2014, 2: 43-56 CrossRef Google Scholar

[19] Wang B, Li B, Li H. Panda: Public Auditing for Shared Data with Efficient User Revocation in the Cloud. IEEE Trans Serv Comput, 2015, 8: 92-106 CrossRef Google Scholar

[20] Yuan J W, Yu S C. Public Integrity Auditing for Dynamic Data Sharing With Multiuser Modification. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur, 2015, 10: 1717-1726 CrossRef Google Scholar

[21] Jiang T, Chen X, Ma J. Public Integrity Auditing for Shared Dynamic Cloud Data with Group User Revocation. IEEE Trans Comput, 2016, 65: 2363-2373 CrossRef Google Scholar

[22] Liu X M, Zhang T, Ma J F, et al. Efficient data integrity verification using attribute based multi-signature scheme in wireless network. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems, Xi'an, 2013. 173--180. Google Scholar

[23] Liu X M, Ma J F, Xiong J B, et al. Personal health records integrity verification using attribute based proxy signature in cloud computing. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Internet and Distributed Computing Systems, Hangzhou, 2013. 238--251. Google Scholar

[24] Wang Y, Wu Q, Qin B. Identity-Based Data Outsourcing With Comprehensive Auditing in Clouds. IEEE TransInformForensic Secur, 2017, 12: 940-952 CrossRef Google Scholar

[25] Wang H, He D, Tang S. Identity-Based Proxy-Oriented Data Uploading and Remote Data Integrity Checking in Public Cloud. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur, 2016, 11: 1165-1176 CrossRef Google Scholar

[26] Zhang Y, Xu C, Yu S. SCLPV: Secure Certificateless Public Verification for Cloud-Based Cyber-Physical-Social Systems Against Malicious Auditors. IEEE Trans Comput Soc Syst, 2015, 2: 159-170 CrossRef Google Scholar

[27] Sookhak M, Gani A, Talebian H, et al. Remote data auditing in cloud computing environments: a survey, taxonomy, and open issues. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR), 2015, 47: 65. Google Scholar

[28] Nakamoto S. Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. 2008. http://www.bitcoin.org. Google Scholar

[29] Wood G. Ethereum: a Secure Decentralised Generalised Transaction Ledger. Ethereum Project Yellow Paper, 2014. Google Scholar

[30] Pilkington M. Blockchain technology: principles and applications. In: Research Handbook on Digital Transformations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016. 225--253. Google Scholar

[31] Buterin V. On public and private blockchains. 2015. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-blockchains/. Google Scholar

[32] Yu Y, Au M H, Ateniese G. Identity-Based Remote Data Integrity Checking With Perfect Data Privacy Preserving for Cloud Storage. IEEE TransInformForensic Secur, 2017, 12: 767-778 CrossRef Google Scholar

[33] Li Y N, Yu Y, Min G Y, et al. Fuzzy identity-based data integrity auditing for reliable cloud storage systems. IEEE T Depend Secure, 2017. Google Scholar

  • Figure 1

    (Color online) System model.

  • Figure 2

    (Color online) Simplified blockchain.

  • Figure 3

    (Color online) Procedure for the setup phase.

  • Figure 4

    (Color online) Procedure for the audit phase.

  • Figure 5

    (Color online) Public blockchain.

  • Figure 6

    (Color online) (a) Computation time on the user side versus the number of data blocks; (b) computation time on the TPA side versus the number of data blocks.

  • Table 1   Log file
    t Nonce D $(S,T,\mu,y)$ Auditing results
    $t_{1}$ ${\rm~nonce}_{1}$ $D_{1}$ $(S_{1},T_{1},\mu_{1},y_{1})$ 1/0
    $t_{2}$ ${\rm~nonce}_{2}$ $D_{2}$ $(S_{2},T_{2},\mu_{2},y_{2})$ 1/0
  • Table 2   Notations for operations/implications
    Symbol Corresponding operation/implication
    $M$ The point multiplication operation in $G_{1}$
    $E$ The exponentiation operation in $G_{2}$
    $P$ The pairing operation
    $|x|$ The number of bits of $x$
  • Table 3   Comparison of costs
    Scheme User's computational cost TPA's computational cost TPA's communication cost
    IBRDIC [32] $(n~+~2)E$ $(n~+~3)E$ + $(n~+~1)P$ $|~m~|$ + $2|~G_{1}~|$
    FIBDIA [33] $nM~+~4nE$ $(4n~+~1)E$ + $(n~+~2)P$ $|~m~|$ + $3|~G~|$
    Ours $(n~+~4)M~+~3P$ $(n~+~1)M~+~3P$ $|~Z_{q}~|$ + 3$|~G_{1}~|$
  • Table 4   Comparison of security properties
    Security IBRDIC[32] FIBDIA[33] Ours
    Resistance against replacement attacks Y Y Y
    Resistance against forgery attacks Y N Y
    Resistance against malicious auditors N N Y

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