Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 2175–2187 | Cite as

Enabling public auditability for operation behaviors in cloud storage

  • Hui Tian
  • Zhaoyi Chen
  • Chin-Chen Chang
  • Minoru Kuribayashi
  • Yongfeng Huang
  • Yiqiao Cai
  • Yonghong Chen
  • Tian Wang
Methodologies and Application

Abstract

In this paper, we focus on auditing for users’ operation behaviors, which is significant for the avoidance of potential crimes in the cloud and equitable accountability determination in the forensic. We first present a public model for operation behaviors in cloud storage, in which a trusted third party is introduced to verify the integrity of operation behavior logs to enhance the credibility of forensic results as well as alleviate the burden of the forensic investigator. Further, we design a block-based logging approach to support selective verification and a hash-chain-based structure for each log block to ensure the forward security and append-only properties for log entries. Moreover, to achieve the tamper resistance of log blocks and non-repudiation of auditing proofs, we employ Merkle hash tree (MHT) to record the hash values of the aggregation authentication block tags sequentially and publish the root of MHT to the public once a block has been appended. Meanwhile, using the authentication property of MHT, our scheme can provide log-less verification with privacy preservation. We formally prove the security of the proposed scheme and evaluate its performance on entry appending and verification by concrete experiments and comparisons with the state-of-the-art schemes. The results demonstrate that the proposed scheme can effectively achieve secure auditing for log files of operation behaviors in cloud storage and outperforms the previous ones in computation complexity and communication overhead.

Keywords

Cloud storage Public auditing Operation behaviors Merkle hash tree Secure logging 

References

  1. Abdalla M, Reyzin L (2000) A new forward-secure digital signature scheme. In: Proceedings of cryptology ASIACRYPT 2000. Springer, Berlin, pp 116–129Google Scholar
  2. Accorsi R (2009) Safe-keeping digital evidence with secure logging protocols: State of the art and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE international conference on IT security incident management and IT forensic, pp 94–110Google Scholar
  3. Ateniese G, Burns R, Curtmola R, Herring J, Kissner L, Peterson Z, Song D (2007) Provable data possession at untrusted stores. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pp 598–609Google Scholar
  4. Bellare M, Miner SK (1999) A forward-secure digital signature scheme. In: Proceedings of cryptology—CRYPTO’99. Springer, Berlin, pp 431–448Google Scholar
  5. Bellare M, Yee B (1997) Forward integrity for secure audit logs. Computer Science and Engineering Department Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  6. Birk D, Wegener C (2011) Technical issues of forensic investigations in cloud computing environments. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE international workshop on systematic approaches to digital forensic engineering, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  7. Chen L (2013) Using algebraic signatures to check data possession in cloud storage. Future Gener Comput Syst 29:1709–1715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen YR (2015) The growing pains of cloud storage. IEEE Internet Comput 19(1):4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen CM, Chen CY, Chao HC (2015) Proof of ownership in deduplicated cloud storage with mobile device efficiency. IEEE Netw 29(2):51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corey V, Peterman C, Shearin S, Greenberg MS, Bokkele JV (2012) Network forensics analysis. IEEE Internet Comput 6(6):60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crosby SA, Wallach DS (2009) Efficient data structures for tamper-evident logging. In: Proceedings of the USENIX security symposium, pp 317–334Google Scholar
  12. Dewan H, Hansdah RC (2011) A survey of cloud storage facilities. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE world congress on services, pp 224–231Google Scholar
  13. Dixon PD (2005) An overview of computer forensics. IEEE Potentials 24(5):7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erway CC, Küpçü A, Papamanthou C, Tamassia R (2009) Dynamic provable data possession. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM conference on computer and communications security, pp 213–222Google Scholar
  15. Halevi S, Harnik D, Pinkas B, Peleg AS (2011) Proofs of ownership in remote storage systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer and communications security, pp 491–500Google Scholar
  16. Holt JE (2006) Logcrypt: forward security and public verification for secure audit logs. In: Proceedings of the 4th Australasian workshops on grid computing and E-research, pp 203–211Google Scholar
  17. Juels A, Kaliski BS (2007) PoRs: proofs of retrievability for large files. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on computer and communications security, pp 584–597Google Scholar
  18. Lan Z, Varadharajan V, Hitchens M (2015) Trust enhanced cryptographic role-based access control for secure cloud data storage. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(11):2381–2395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li X, Li J, Huang F (2016) A secure cloud storage system supporting privacy-preserving fuzzy deduplication. Soft Comput 20(4):1437–1448MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu J, Huang K, Rong H, Wang H, Xian M (2015) Privacy-preserving public auditing for regenerating-code-based cloud storage. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(7):1513–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ma D, Tsudik G (2009) A new approach to secure logging. ACM Trans Storage 5(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martini B, Choo KKR (2012) An integrated conceptual digital forensic framework for cloud computing. Digit Investig 9(2):71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mao J, Zhang Y, Li P, Li T, Wu Q, Liu J (2015) A position-aware Merkle tree for dynamic cloud data integrity verification. Soft Comput. doi:10.1007/s00500-015-1918-8
  24. Merkle RC (1989) A certified digital signature. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual international cryptology conference, pp 218–238Google Scholar
  25. Mell P, Grance T (2009) The NIST definition of cloud computing. National Institute of Standards and Technology Technique ReportGoogle Scholar
  26. Pritzker P, Gallagher PD (2014) SHA-3 standard: permutation-based hash and extendable-output functions. National Institute of Standards and Technology, pp 1–35Google Scholar
  27. Ren K, Wang C, Wang Q (2012) Security challenges for the public cloud. IEEE Internet Comput 16(1):69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rogaway P, Shrimpton T (2004) Cryptographic hash-function basics: definitions, implications, and separations for preimage resistance, second-preimage resistance, and collision resistance. In: Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on fast software encryption, pp 371–388Google Scholar
  29. Ryoo J, Rizvi S, Aiken W, Kissell J (2014) Cloud security auditing: challenges and emerging approaches. IEEE Secur Priv 12(6):68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneier B, Kelsey J (1999) Secure audit logs to support computer forensics. ACM Trans Inf Syst Secur 2(2):159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shacham H, Waters B (2008) Compact proofs of retrievability. In: Advances in cryptology, ASIACRYPT’08. Springer, Berlin, pp 90–107Google Scholar
  32. Shi E, Stefanov E, Papamanthou C (2013) Practical dynamic proofs of retrievability. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, pp 325–336, 2013Google Scholar
  33. Sookhak M, Gani A, Talebain H, Akhunzada A, Khan S, Buyya R, Zomaya A (2015) Remote data auditing in cloud computing environments: a survey, taxonomy, and open issues. ACM Comput Surv 47(4):65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sookhak M, Talebain H, Ahmed E, Gani A, Khan MK (2014) A review on remote data auditing in single cloud server: taxonomy and open issues. J Netw Comput Appl 43(5):121–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stathopoulos V, Kotzanikolaou P, Magkos E (2006) A framework for secure and verifiable logging in public communication networks. In: Proceedings of 1st international workshop on critical information infrastructures security, pp 273–284Google Scholar
  36. Stinson DR (2006) Some observations on the theory of cryptographic hash functions. Des Codes Cryptogr 38(2):259–277MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Szydlo M (2004) Merkle tree traversal in log space and time. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on the theory and applications of cryptographic techniques, pp 541–554Google Scholar
  38. Thorpe S, Grandison T, Campbell A, Williams J, Burrell K, Ray I (2013) Towards a forensic-based service oriented architecture framework for auditing of cloud logs. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE world congress on services, pp 75–83Google Scholar
  39. Tian H, Chen Y, Chang CC, Jiang H, Huang Y, Chen YH, Liu J (2015) Dynamic-hash- table based public auditing for secure cloud storage. IEEE Trans Serv Comput. doi:10.1109/TSC.2015.2512589
  40. Wang X, Yin Y L, Yu H (2005) Finding collisions in the full SHA-1. In: Proceedings of Cryptology—CRYPTO 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 17-36Google Scholar
  41. Wang C, Ren K, Lou W, Li J (2010a) Toward publicly auditable secure cloud data storage services. IEEE Netw 24(4):9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang G, Liu Q, Wu J (2010b) A hierarchical attribute-based encryption for fine-grained access control in cloud storage services. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer and communications security, pp 735–737Google Scholar
  43. Wang Q, Wang C, Ren K, Lou W, Li J (2011) Enabling public auditability and data dynamics for storage security in cloud computing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 22(5):847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang C, Chow SM, Wang Q, Ren K, Lou W (2013) Privacy-preserving public auditing for secure cloud storage. IEEE Trans Comput 62(2):362–375MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang B, Li B, Li H (2015) Panda: public auditing for shared data with efficient user revocation in the cloud. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 8(1):92–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Xu J, Chang E C (2012) Towards efficient proofs of retrievability. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM symposium on information, computer and communications security, pp 79–80Google Scholar
  47. Yang K, Jia X (2012) Data storage auditing service in cloud computing: challenges, methods and opportunities. World Wide Web 15(4):409–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang K, Jia X (2013) An efficient and secure dynamic auditing protocol for data storage in cloud computing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 24(9):1717–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang K, Jia X, Ren K, Zhang B, Xie R (2013) DAC-MACS: effective data access control for multi-authority cloud storage systems. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 8(11):1790–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yavuz AA, Ning P, Reiter MK (2012) Efficient, compromise resilient and append-only cryptographic schemes for secure audit logging. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on financial cryptography and data security, pp 148–163Google Scholar
  51. Yuan J, Yu S (2013) Proofs of retrievability with public verifiability and constant communication cost in cloud. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on security in cloud computing, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  52. Yu Y, Zhang Y, Ni J, Au MH, Chen L, Liu H (2015) Remote data possession checking with enhanced security for cloud storage. Future Gener Comput Syst 52:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zawoad S, Dutta AK, Hasan R (2013) SecLaaS: secure logging-as-a-service for cloud forensics. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGSAC symposium on information, computer and communications security, pp 219–230Google Scholar
  54. Zawoad S, Dutta AK, Hasan R (2016) Towards building forensics enabled cloud through secure logging-as-a-service. IEEE Trans Dependable Secure Comput 13(2):148–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zawoad S, Hasan R, Skjellum A (2015) OCF: an open cloud forensics model for reliable digital forensics. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE international conference on cloud computing, pp 437–444Google Scholar
  56. Zheng Q, Xu S (2012) Secure and efficient proof of storage with deduplication. In: Proceedings of 2nd ACM conference on data and application security and privacy, pp 1–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hui Tian
    • 1
  • Zhaoyi Chen
    • 1
  • Chin-Chen Chang
    • 2
  • Minoru Kuribayashi
    • 3
  • Yongfeng Huang
    • 4
  • Yiqiao Cai
    • 1
  • Yonghong Chen
    • 1
  • Tian Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Computer Science and TechnologyNational Huaqiao UniversityXiamenChina
  2. 2.Department of Information Engineering and Computer ScienceFeng Chia UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  3. 3.Graduate School of Natural Science and TechnologyOkayama UniversityOkayamaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Electronic EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations