4.7 Article

Blockchain based efficient and robust fair payment for outsourcing services in cloud computing

期刊

INFORMATION SCIENCES
卷 462, 期 -, 页码 262-277

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2018.06.018

关键词

Blockchain; Cloud security; Fair payment; Provable data possession; Outsourcing computation; Authentication

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFB0802000]
  2. AXA Research Fund
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61772418, 61472472, 61402366]
  4. Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China [2015K6236]
  5. New Star Team of Xi'an University of Posts and Telecommunications [201602]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As an attractive business model of cloud computing, outsourcing services usually involve online payment and security issues. The mutual distrust between users and outsourcing service providers may severely impede the wide adoption of cloud computing. Nevertheless, most existing payment solutions only consider a specific type of outsourcing service and rely on a trusted third-party to realize fairness. In this paper, in order to realize secure and fair payment of outsourcing services in general without relying on any third-party, trusted or not, we introduce BCPay, a blockchain based fair payment framework for outsourcing services in cloud computing. We first present the system architecture, specifications and adversary model of BCPay, then describe in detail its design. Our security analysis indicates that BCPay achieves Soundness and what we call Robust Fairness, where the fairness is resilient to eavesdropping and malleability attacks. Furthermore, our performance evaluation shows that BCPay is very efficient in terms of the number of transactions and computation cost. As illustrative applications of BCPay, we further construct a blockchain-based provable data possession scheme in cloud computing and a blockchain-based outsourcing computation protocol in fog computing. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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