4.6 Article

Identity-Based Privacy Preserving Remote Data Integrity Checking for Cloud Storage

期刊

IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 577-585

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JSYST.2020.2978146

关键词

Cloud computing; Servers; Data integrity; Data privacy; Protocols; Data models; Cloud storage; identity-based cryptography; remote data checking; privacy preserving

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61972095, U1736112, 61772009, 61902140, 61822202, 61872089]
  2. Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation [1908085QF288]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article proposes a new Identity-based RDIC scheme that utilizes a homomorphic verifiable tag to reduce system complexity, while also masking original data with random integer addition to protect data privacy. The scheme is proven to be secure under the assumption of computational Diffie-Hellman problem and is shown to be efficient and feasible for real-life applications through experiment results.
Although cloud storage service enables people easily maintain and manage amounts of data with lower cost, it cannot ensure the integrity of people's data. In order to audit the correctness of the data without downloading them, many remote data integrity checking (RDIC) schemes have been presented. Most existing schemes ignore the important issue of data privacy preserving and suffer from complicated certificate management derived from public key infrastructure. To overcome these shortcomings, this article proposes a new Identity-based RDIC scheme that makes use of homomorphic verifiable tag to decrease the system complexity. The original data in proof are masked by random integer addition, which protects the verifier from obtaining any knowledge about the data during the integrity checking process. Our scheme is proved secure under the assumption of computational Diffie-Hellman problem. Experiment result exhibits that our scheme is very efficient and feasible for real-life applications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据