Distributed and Parallel Databases

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 507–534 | Cite as

Efficient integrity verification of replicated data in cloud using homomorphic encryption

  • Raghul Mukundan
  • Sanjay MadriaEmail author
  • Mark Linderman


The cloud computing is an emerging model in which computing infrastructure resources are provided as a service over the internet. Data owners can outsource their data by remotely storing them in the cloud and enjoy on-demand high quality services from a shared pool of configurable computing resources. However, since data owners and the cloud servers are not in the same trusted domain, the outsourced data may be at risk as the cloud server may no longer be fully trusted. Therefore, data confidentiality, availability and integrity is of critical importance in such a scenario. The data owner encrypts data before storing it on the cloud to ensure data confidentiality. Cloud should let the owners or a trusted third party to check for the integrity of their data storage without demanding a local copy of the data. Owners often replicate their data on the cloud servers across multiple data centers to provide a higher level of scalability, availability, and durability. When the data owners ask the cloud service provider (CSP) to replicate data, they are charged a higher storage fee by the CSP. Therefore, the data owners need to be strongly convinced that the CSP is storing data copies agreed on in the service level contract, and data-updates have been correctly executed on all the remotely stored copies. To deal with such problems, previous multi copy verification schemes either focused on static files or incurred huge update costs in a dynamic file scenario. In this paper, we propose a dynamic multi-replica provable data possession scheme (DMR-PDP) that while maintaining data confidentiality prevents the CSP from cheating, by maintaining fewer copies than paid for and/or tampering data. In addition, we also extend the scheme to support a basic file versioning system where only the difference between the original file and the updated file is propagated rather than the propagation of operations for privacy reasons. DMR-PDP also supports efficient dynamic operations like block modification, insertion and deletion on replicas over the cloud servers. Through security analysis and experimental results, we demonstrate that the proposed scheme is secure and performs better than some other related ideas published recently.


Replication Data integrity Cloud computing 


  1. 1.
    Ateniese, G., Burns, R., Curtmola, R., Herring, J., Kissner, L., Peterson, Z., Song, D.: Provable data possession at untrusted stores. In CCS ’07: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, New York, NY, USA, pp. 598–609 (2007).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ateniese, G., Pietro, R.D., Mancin, L.V., Tsudik, G.: Scalable and efficient provable data possession. In SecureComm 08: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Security and Privacy in Communication Networks, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–10 (2008).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barreto, P.S.L.M., Naehrig, M.: Pairing-friendly elliptic curves of prime order. In: Preneel, B., Tavares, S. (eds.) Proceedings of SAC. LNCS, vol. 3897, pp. 319–331. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barsoum, A.F., Hasan, M.A.: On verifying dynamic multiple data copies over cloud servers. In: Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2011/447. (2011) Please update Refs. [4, 6, 23](16, 21, 13 in original tex file) respectively with last accessed date
  5. 5.
    Boneh, D., Lynn, B., Shacham, H.: Short signatures from the weil pairing. In: ASIACRYPT’01: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security, London, UK, pp. 514–532 (2001).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowers, K.D., van Dijk, M., Juels, A., Oprea, A., Rivest, R.L.: How to tell if your cloud files are vulnerable to drive crashes. In: Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2010/214. (2010)
  7. 7.
    Catalano, D., Gennaro, R., Howgrave-Graham, N., Nguyen, P.Q.: Paillier’s Cryptosystem Revisited. ACM CCS ’2001. ACM Press, New York (2001).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi, D.H., Choi, S., Won, D.: Improvement of probabilistic public key cryptosystem using discrete logarithm. In: Kim, K. (ed.) The 4th International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology, ICISC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2288, pp. 72–80. Springer, Berlin (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Curtmola, R., Khan, O., Burns, R., Ateniese, G.: MR-PDP: Multiple-Replica Provable Data Possession. In: 28th IEEE ICDCS, pp. 411–420 (2008).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Damgard, I., Jurik, M.: A generalisation, a simplification and some applications of Paillier’s probabilistic public key system. In: 4th International Workshop on Practice and Theory in Public Key Cryptosystems (PKC), pp. 13–15 (2001).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deswarte, Y., Quisquater, J.-J., Sadane, A.: Remote integrity checking. In: Strous, S.J.L. (ed.) 6th Working Conference on Integrity and Internal Control in Information Systems (IICIS), pp. 1–11 (2003).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erway, C., Kupcu, A., Papamanthou, C., Tamassia, R.: Dynamic provable data possession. In CCS 09: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, New York, NY, USA, pp. 213–222 (2009).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Filho, D.L.G., Barreto, P.S.L.M.: Demonstrating data possession and uncheatable data transfer. In: Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2006/150 (2006).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Golle, P., Jarecki, S., Mironov, I.: Cryptographic primitives enforcing communication and storage complexity. In FC’02: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Financial Cryptography, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 120–135 (2003).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hao, Z., Zhong, S., Yu, N.: A privacy-preserving remote data integrity checking protocol with data dynamics and public verifiability. In: IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, PrePrints, p. 99 (2011).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mukundan, R., Madria, S., Linderman, M.: Replicated data integrity verification in cloud. In: IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin (2012).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mykletun, E., Narasimha, M., Tsudik, G.: Authentication and integrity in outsourced databases. ACM Trans. Storage 2(2), 107–138 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sebe, F., Domingo-Ferrer, J., Martinez-Balleste, A., Deswarte, Y., Quisquater, J.-J.: Efficient remote data possession checking in critical information infrastructures. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 20, 8 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shacham, H., Waters, B.: Compact proofs of retrievability. In: Pieprzyk, J. (ed.) Advances in Cryptology–ASIACRYPT 2008, vol. 5350, pp. 90–107. Springer, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shah, M.A., Baker, M., Mogul, J.C., Swaminathan, R.: Auditing to keep online storage services honest. In: HOTOS’07: Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 1–6 (2007).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shah, M.A., Swaminathan, R., Baker, M.: Privacy-preserving audit and extraction of digital contents. In: Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2008/186 (2008).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang, Q., Wang, C., Li, J., Ren, K., Lou, W.: Enabling public verifiability and data dynamics for storage security in cloud computing. In: ESORICS09: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Research in Computer Security, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 355–370 (2009).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, C., Wang, Q., Ren, K., Lou, W.: Ensuring data storage security in cloud computing. In: Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2009/081. (2009)
  24. 24.
    Zeng, K.: Publicly verifiable remote data integrity. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information and Communications Security, Ser. ICICS ’08, pp. 419–434. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raghul Mukundan
    • 1
  • Sanjay Madria
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark Linderman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA
  2. 2.Air Force Research LabRomeUSA

Personalised recommendations