We introduce a model for provable data possession (PDP) which allows a client that has stored data at an untrusted server to verify that the server possesses the original data without retrieving it. In a previous work, Ateniese et al. proposed a remote data integrity checking protocol that supports data partial dynamics. In this paper, we present a new remote data possession checking protocol which allows an unlimited number of file integrity verifications and efficiently supports dynamic operations, such as data modification, deletion, insertion and append. The proposed protocol supports public verifiability. In addition, the proposed protocol does not leak any private information to third-party verifiers. Through a specific analysis, we show the correctness and security of the protocol. After that, we demonstrate the proposed protocol has a good performance.
References
[1]
Tan, S., Jia, Y. and Han, W.H. (2015) Research and Development of Provable Data Integrity in Cloud Storage. Chinese Journal of Computers, 38, 164-177.
[2]
Ateniese, G., Bruns, R. and Curtmola, R. (2007) Provable Data Possession at Untrusted Stores. Pro-ceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Alexandra, 598-609. https://doi.org/10.1145/1315245.1315318
[3]
Ateniese, G., Pietro, R.D., Mancini, L. and Tsudik, G. (2008) Scalable and Efficient Provable Data Possession. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Security and Privacy in Communication Networks, Istanbul, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1460877.1460889
[4]
Wang, Q., Wang, C., Li, J. and Lou, W.J. (2009) Enabling Public Verifiability and Data Dynamics for Storage Security in Cloud Computing. Proceedings of the 4th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, Saint Malo, 355-370.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04444-1_22
[5]
Mao, J., Zhang, Y., Li, P., Wu, Q.H. and Liu, J.W. (2015) A Position-Aware Merkle Tree for Dynamic Cloud Data Integrity Verification. Soft Computing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-015-1918-8
[6]
Erway, C., Kupcu, A., Papamathou, C. and Tamassia, R. (2009) Dynamic Provable Data Possession. Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Chicago, 213-222.
http://doi.org/10.1145/1653662.1653688
[7]
Hao, Z., Zhong, S. and Yu, N.H. (2011) A Privacy-Preserving Remote Data Integrity Checking Protocol with Data Dynamics and Public Verifiability. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23, 1432-1437.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1653662.1653688
[8]
Xu, W., Feng, D. and Liu, J.N. (2012) Remote Data Integrity Checking Protocols from Homomorphic Hash Functions. Proceedings of 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on Communication Technology, Chengdu, 604-608
https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2011.62
[9]
Zhu, Y., Ahn, G.-J., Hu, H.X., Yau, S.S., An, H.G. and Hu, C.-J. (2013) Dynamic Audit Services for Outsourced Storages in Clouds. IEEE TSC, 6, 227-238.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCT.2012.6511277
[10]
Tang, C.-M. and Zhang, X.J. (2015) A New Publicly Verifiable Data Possession on Remote Storage. Journal of Supercomputing, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-015-1556-z
[11]
Hu, D.M. and Yu, X. (2014) Dynamic Cloud Storage Data Integrity Verifying Me-thod Based on Homomorphic Tags. Application Research of Computers, 31, 1362-1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-015-1556-z
[12]
Hu, D.M. and Yu, X. (2014) Dynamic Data Integrity Detection Method in Cloud Storage Service. Application Research of Computers, 31, 3056-3060.
[13]
Ateniese, G., Burns, R., Curtmola, R., Herring, J., Khan, O., Kissner, L., Peterson, Z. and Song, D. (2011) Remote Data Checking Using Provable Data Possession. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 14, 1-34.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1952982.1952994
[14]
Li, A.P., Tan, S. and Jia, Y. (2016) A Method for Achieving Provable Data Integrity in Cloud Computing. Journal of Supercomputing, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1952982.1952994
[15]
Juels, A. and Kaliski, B.S. (2007) PORs: Proofs of Retrievability for Large Files. Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Whistler, 584-597. https://doi.org/10.1145/1315245.1315317
