Secure and Verifiable Policy Update Outsourcing for Big Data Access Control in the Cloud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the high volume and velocity of big data, it is an effective option to store big data in the cloud, as the cloud has capabilities of storing big data and processing high volume of user access requests. Attribute-based encryption (ABE) is a promising technique to ensure the end-to-end security of big data in the cloud. However, the policy updating has always been a challenging issue when ABE is used to construct access control schemes. A trivial implementation is to let data owners retrieve the data and re-encrypt it under the new access policy, and then send it back to the cloud. This method, however, incurs a high communication overhead and heavy computation burden on data owners. In this paper, we propose a novel scheme that enabling efficient access control with dynamic policy updating for big data in the cloud. We focus on developing an outsourced policy updating method for ABE systems. Our method can avoid the transmission of encrypted data and minimize the computation work of data owners, by making use of the previously encrypted data with old access policies. Moreover, we also propose policy updating algorithms for different types of access policies. Finally, we propose an efficient and secure method that allows data owner to check whether the cloud server has updated the ciphertexts correctly. The analysis shows that our policy updating outsourcing scheme is correct, complete, secure and efficient.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".