Mathematics (Jun 2024)

A Secure Certificate-Based Data Integrity Auditing Protocol with Cloud Service Providers

  • Yuan Tian,
  • Xuan Zhou,
  • Tanping Zhou,
  • Weidong Zhong,
  • Ruifeng Li,
  • Xiaoyuan Yang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/math12131964
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 13
p. 1964

Abstract

Read online

With the surge in cloud storage popularity, more individuals are choosing to store large amounts of data on remote cloud service providers (CSPs) to save local storage resources. However, users’ primary worries revolve around maintaining data integrity and authenticity. Consequently, several cloud auditing methods have emerged to address these concerns. Many of these approaches rely on traditional public-key cryptography systems or are grounded in identity-based cryptography systems or certificateless cryptography systems. However, they are vulnerable to the increased costs linked with certificate management, key escrow, or the significant expenses of establishing a secure channel, respectively. To counter these limitations, Li et al. introduced a certificate-based cloud auditing protocol (LZ22), notable for its minimal tag generation overhead. Nonetheless, this protocol exhibits certain security vulnerabilities. In this paper, we devise a counterfeiting technique that allows the CSP to produce a counterfeit data block with an identical tag to the original one. Our counterfeiting method boasts a 100% success rate ∀ data block and operates with exceptional efficiency. The counterfeiting process for a single block of 10 kB, 50 kB, and 100 kB takes a maximum of 0.08 s, 0.51 s, and 1.04 s, respectively. By substituting the exponential component of homomorphic verifiable tags (HVTs) with non-public random elements, we formulate a secure certificate-based cloud auditing protocol. In comparison to the LZ22 protocol, the average tag generation overhead of our proposed protocol is reduced by 6.80%, 13.78%, and 8.66% for data sizes of 10 kB, 50 kB, and 100 kB, respectively. However, the auditing overhead of our proposed protocol shows an increase. The average overhead rises by 3.05%, 0.17%, and 0.45% over the LZ22 protocol’s overhead for data sizes of 10 kB, 50 kB, and 100 kB, correspondingly.

Keywords