Privacy Supporting Cloud Computing: ConfiChair, a Case Study

  • Myrto Arapinis
  • Sergiu Bursuc
  • Mark Ryan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7215)

Abstract

Cloud computing means entrusting data to information systems that are managed by external parties on remote servers, in the “cloud”, raising new privacy and confidentiality concerns. We propose a general technique for designing cloud services that allows the cloud to see only encrypted data, while still allowing it to perform data-dependent computations. The technique is based on key translations and mixes in web browsers.

We focus on the particular cloud computing application of conference management. We identify the specific security and privacy risks that existing systems like EasyChair and EDAS pose, and address them with a protocol underlying ConfiChair, a novel cloud-based conference management system that offers strong security and privacy guarantees.

In ConfiChair, authors, reviewers, and the conference chair interact through their browsers with the cloud, to perform the usual tasks of uploading and downloading papers and reviews. In contrast with current systems, in ConfiChair the cloud provider does not have access to the content of papers and reviews and the scores given by reviewers, and moreover is unable to link authors with reviewers of their paper.

We express the ConfiChair protocol and its properties in the language of ProVerif, and prove that it does provide the intended properties.

Keywords

Cloud Computing Cloud Service Cloud Provider Cloud Service Provider Homomorphic Encryption 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi, M.: Security protocols and their properties. In: Foundations of Secure Computation. NATO Science Series, pp. 39–60. IOS Press (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abadi, M., Fournet, C.: Mobile values, new names, and secure communication. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2001), pp. 104–115 (January 2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adida, B.: Helios: Web-based open-audit voting. In: van Oorschot, P.C. (ed.) USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 335–348. USENIX Association (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baden, R., Bender, A., Spring, N., Bhattacharjee, B., Starin, D.: Persona: an online social network with user-defined privacy. In: Rodriguez, P., Biersack, E.W., Papagiannaki, K., Rizzo, L. (eds.) SIGCOMM, pp. 135–146. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baudron, O., Fouque, P.-A., Pointcheval, D., Stern, J., Poupard, G.: Practical multi-candidate election system. In: PODC, pp. 274–283 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bethencourt, J., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 321–334. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blanchet, B.: An efficient cryptographic protocol verifier based on Prolog rules. In: Computer Security Foundations Workshop, CSFW 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blanchet, B.: Automatic proof of strong secrecy for security protocols. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 86–100 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blanchet, B., Abadi, M., Fournet, C.: Automated verification of selected equivalences for security protocols. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boneh, D., Gentry, C., Waters, B.: Collusion Resistant Broadcast Encryption with Short Ciphertexts and Private Keys. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 258–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bortolozzo, M., Centenaro, M., Focardi, R., Steel, G.: Attacking and fixing PKCS#11 security tokens. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 260–269 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buyya, R., Yeo, C.S., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., Brandic, I.: Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation Computer Systems 25(6), 599–616 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cervesato, I., Jaggard, A.D., Scedrov, A., Tsay, J.-K., Walstad, C.: Breaking and fixing public-key kerberos. Inf. Comput. 206, 402–424 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chatmon, C., van Le, T., Burmester, T.: Secure anonymous RFID authentication protocols. Technical Report TR-060112, Florida Stat University, Department of Computer Science (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chothia, T., Smirnov, V.: A Traceability Attack against e-Passports. In: Sion, R. (ed.) FC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6052, pp. 20–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clauß, S., Kesdogan, D., Kölsch, T., Pimenidis, L., Schiffner, S., Steinbrecher, S.: Privacy enhancing identity management: Protection against re-identification and profiling. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Digital Identity Management (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cloud Security Alliance. Secure Cloud (2010), http://www.cloudsecurityalliance.org/sc2010.html
  18. 18.
    Delaune, S., Kremer, S., Ryan, M.D.: Verifying privacy-type properties of electronic voting protocols. Journal of Computer Security 17(4), 435–487 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gentry, C.: Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. In: 41st ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guha, S., Tang, K., Francis, P.: NOYB: Privacy in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Online Social Networks (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A., Rivest, R.L.: Making mix nets robust for electronic voting by randomized partial checking. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 339–353. USENIX (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Juels, A., Catalano, D., Jakobsson, M.: Coercion-resistant electronic elections. In: Atluri, V., di Vimercati, S.D.C., Dingledine, R. (eds.) WPES, pp. 61–70. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lo, S.-W., Phan, R.C.-W., Goi, B.-M.: On the Security of a Popular Web Submission and Review Software (WSaR) for Cryptology Conferences. In: Kim, S., Yung, M., Lee, H.-W. (eds.) WISA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4867, pp. 245–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lowe, G.: An attack on the Needham-Schroeder public-key authentication protocol. Information Processing Letters 56(3), 131–133 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pearson, S., Shen, Y., Mowbray, M.: A Privacy Manager for Cloud Computing. In: Jaatun, M.G., Zhao, G., Rong, C. (eds.) CloudCom 2009. LNCS, vol. 5931, pp. 90–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Phillips, J., Roberts, M.: ConfiChair - prototype privacy-supporting conference management system, https://confichair.markryan.eu
  27. 27.
    Puttaswamy, K.P.N., Kruegel, C., Zhao, B.Y.: Silverline: Toward data confidentiality in third-party clouds. Technical Report 08, University of California Santa Barbara (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Qunoo, H., Ryan, M.: Modelling Dynamic Access Control Policies for Web-Based Collaborative Systems. In: Foresti, S., Jajodia, S. (eds.) Data and Applications Security and Privacy XXIV. LNCS, vol. 6166, pp. 295–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ryan, M.D.: Cloud computing privacy concerns on our doorstep. Communications of the ACM 54(1), 36–38 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sadeghi, A.-R., Schneider, T., Winandy, M.: Token-Based Cloud Computing. In: Acquisti, A., Smith, S.W., Sadeghi, A.-R. (eds.) TRUST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6101, pp. 417–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schneider, S., Sidiropoulos, A.: CSP and Anonymity. In: Martella, G., Kurth, H., Montolivo, E., Bertino, E. (eds.) ESORICS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1146, pp. 198–218. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myrto Arapinis
    • 1
  • Sergiu Bursuc
    • 1
  • Mark Ryan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations