TRACE: Zero-Down-Time Database Damage Tracking, Quarantine, and Cleansing with Negligible Run-Time Overhead

  • Kun Bai
  • Meng Yu
  • Peng Liu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5283)


As Web services gain popularity in today’s E-Business world, surviving DBMSs from an attack is becoming crucial because of the increasingly critical role that database servers are playing. Although a number of research projects have been done to tackle the emerging data corruption threats, existing mechanisms are still limited in meeting four highly desired requirements: near-zero-run-time overhead, zero-system-down time, zero-blocking-time for read-only transactions, minimal-delay-time for read-write transactions. In this paper, we propose TRACE, a zero-system-down-time database damage tracking, quarantine, and recovery solution with negligible run time overhead. TRACE consists of a family of new database damage tracking, quarantine, and cleansing techniques. We built TRACE into the kernel of PostgreSQL. Our experimental results demonstrated that TRACE is the first solution that can simultaneously satisfy the first two requirements aforementioned and the first solution that can satisfy all the four requirements.


Data Record Damage Assessment Corrupted Data Data Corruption Attack Recovery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Ammann, P., Jajodia, S., Liu, P.: Recovery from malicious transactions. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering 14(5), 1167–1185 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ammann, P., Jajodia, S., McCollum, C., Blaustein, B.: Surviving information warfare attacks on databases. In: The IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 1997, pp. 164–174 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bai, K., Liu, P.: Towards database firewall: Mining the damage spreading patterns. In: 22nd Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 2006), pp. 449–462 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbara, D., Goel, R., Jajodia, S.: Using checksums to detect data corruption. In: Int’l Conf. on Extending Data Base Technology (March 2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein, P.A., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency control and recovery in database systems. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1987)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CERT. Cert advisory ca-2003-04 ms-sql server worm (January 25, 2003),
  7. 7.
    Chen, Q., Dayal, U.: Failure handling for transaction hierarchies. In: Gray, A., Larson, P.-Å. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Data Engineering, Birmingham, U.K, April 7-11, 1997, pp. 245–254. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chiueh, T., Pilania, D.: Design, implementation, and evaluation of an intrusion resilient database system. In: Proc. International Conference on Data Engineering, April 2005, pp. 1024–1035 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eder, J., Liebhart, W.: Workflow recovery. In: Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 124–134 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    TPC-C Benchmark,
  11. 11.
    Lake, C.: Journal based recovery tool for ingresGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, J.-L., Dunham, M.H.: A survey of distributed database checkpointing. Distributed and Parallel Databases 5(3), 289–319 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, P.: Architectures for intrusion tolerant database systems. In: The 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, December 9-13, 2002, pp. 311–320 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, P., Ammann, P., Jajodia, S.: Rewriting histories: Recovery from malicious transactions. Distributed and Parallel Databases 8(1), 7–40 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lomet, D., Vagena, Z., Barga, R.: Recovery from ”bad” user transactions. In: SIGMOD 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pp. 337–346. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McDermott, J., Goldschlag, D.: Towards a model of storage jamming. In: The IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, Kenmare, Ireland, June 1996, pp. 176–185 (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mohan, C., Haderle, D., Lindsay, B., Pirahesh, H., Schwarz, P.: Aries: a transaction recovery method supporting fine-granularity locking and partial rollbacks using write-ahead logging. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 17(1), 94–162 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ORACLE. Oracle database advanced application developer’s guide (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OWASP. Owasp top ten most critical web application security vulnerabilities (January 27, 2004),
  20. 20.
    Panda, B., Giordano, J.: Reconstructing the database after electronic attacks. In: The 12th IFIP 11.3 Working Conference on Database Security, Greece, Italy (July 1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Sobhan, R., Panda, B.: Reorganization of the database log for information warfare data recovery. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth annual working conference on Database and application security, Niagara, Ontario, Canada, July 15-18, 2001, pp. 121–134 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tang, J., Hwang, S.-Y.: A scheme to specify and implement ad-hoc recovery in workflow systems. In: Schek, H.-J., Saltor, F., Ramos, I., Alonso, G. (eds.) EDBT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1377, pp. 484–498. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yao, Q., An, A., Huang, X.: Finding and analyzing database user sessions. In: Zhou, L.-z., Ooi, B.-C., Meng, X. (eds.) DASFAA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3453, pp. 851–862. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kun Bai
    • 1
  • Meng Yu
    • 2
  • Peng Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.College of ISTThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceWestern Illinois UniversityMacombUSA

Personalised recommendations