4.5 Article

Multi-dimensional dynamic trust evaluation scheme for cloud environment

Journal

COMPUTERS & SECURITY
Volume 91, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.cose.2020.101722

Keywords

Cloud computing; Trustworthiness; Trust; Dynamic trust evaluation scheme; Compliance Information

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In cloud computing environment, Cloud Customers (CCs) and Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) require to evaluate the trust levels of potential partner prior to appealing in communications. The accurateness of trust evaluation significantly influences the success velocity of the communication. Determining trustworthiness dynamically is a demanding problem in an open and dynamic environment (such as cloud computing) because of huge number of CSPs offering similar types of services. Also it is a challenging job for both CCs and CSPs to mutually recognize and distinguish between the trustworthy and untrustworthy CSPs and CCs. Presently, there are very less number of dynamic trust evaluation scheme that permits CCs to evaluate the trustworthiness of CSPs from multi-dimensional perspectives (i.e., perspectives from Cloud Auditors (CAs), Cloud Brokers (CBs), Service Level Agreement Agents (SLAAs) and Peers). Similarly, there is no scheme that permits CSPs to evaluate trustworthiness of CCs. This paper proposes a Multi-dimensional Dynamic Trust Evaluation Scheme (MDTES) that facilitates CCs to evaluate the trustworthiness of CSPs from various viewpoints. Similar approach can be employed by CSPs to evaluate the trustworthiness of CCs. The proposed MDTES helps CCs to choose trustworthy CSP which provides desired QoS and CSPs to choose desired and legal CCs. The experimental results illustrate that the MDTES is dynamic, efficient and steady in distinguishing trustworthy and untrustworthy CSPs and CCs compared to other trust models. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available