Comparing Several Encrypted Cloud Storage Platforms
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cloud services and cryptographic cloud storage systems have gained popularity in recent years due to their availability and accessibility. The present systems are nonetheless still ineffectual. They are the best since they demand a lot of trust from the user or the provider. To ensure they are not violating any End-User License Agreement (EULA) clauses, providers typically keep the ability to examine the files that have been saved, and some even keep the ability to share the data. It is simple to create a copy of every piece of data when a provider has access to go through it, which is considered an abuse. A typical user would have a very difficult time proving these claims because they have no method of finding any evidence supporting such claims. Due to the growing quantity of Machine Learning (ML) performed on personal user data for either tailoring advertisements or, in more severe cases, manipulating public opinion, this issue has only gotten worse in modern times. Due to the volume of users and files kept, cloud storage services are the ideal location for getting such information, whether personal or not. To retain complete anonymity, the user could take the simple step of adding a local layer of encryption. This will prevent the cloud provider from being able to decrypt the data. The requirement for ongoing key management, which becomes more challenging as the number of keys rises, is another drawback of this. To better understand normal behaviours and pinpoint potential weaknesses, this study aims to explore and assess the security of a few well-known existing cryptographic cloud storage options. Among the vendors investigated are Microsoft Azure, Tresorit, Amazon S3, and Google Cloud. Based on documentation particular to each service, this comparison was made. However, most providers frequently provide only a limited amount of information or don't go into detail about specific ideas or procedures (for instance, security in Google Cloud), leaving room for interpretation. The authors conclude by outlining a unique approach for encrypted cloud storage that employs Cocks Identity Based Encryption (IBE) and Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)-256 Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) to limit potential abuse by alerting the user anytime a file inspection takes place. Cocks IBE will be utilised as an alternate cryptographic method for access controls, and AES-256 will be used for the Initialization Vector (IV) features' encryption. Additionally, Fiat-Shamir authentication will be zero-knowledge. A system like this might be used by companies who offer services in the actual world because it would boost customer confidence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle