MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118326624 · doi:10.5555/1182635.1164140

Efficient secure query evaluation over encrypted XML databases

2006· article· en· W2118326624 on OpenAlexaff
Hui Wang, Laks V. S. Lakshmanan

Bibliographic record

VenueVery Large Data Bases · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabaseEncryptionDatabase securityMetadataViewXML databaseXML EncryptionInformation retrievalXMLComputer securityDatabase designWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by the database-as-service paradigm wherein data owned by a client is hosted on a third-party server, there is significant interest in secure query evaluation over encrypted databases. We consider this problem for XML databases. We consider an attack model where the attacker may possess exact knowledge about the domain values and their occurrence frequencies, and we wish to protect sensitive structural information as well as value associations. We capture such security requirements using a novel notion of security constraints. For security reasons, sensitive parts of the hosted database are encrypted. There is a tension between data security and efficiency of query evaluation for different granularities of encryption. We show that finding an optimal, secure encryption scheme is NP-hard. For speeding up query processing, we propose to keep metadata, consisting of structure and value indices, on the server. We want to prevent the server, or an attacker who gains access to the server, from learning sensitive information in the database. We propose security properties for such a hosted XML database system to satisfy and prove that our proposal satisfies these properties. Intuitively, this means the attacker cannot improve his prior belief probability distribution about which candidate database led to the given encrypted database, by looking at the encrypted database as well as the metadata. We also prove that by observing a series of queries and their answers, the attacker cannot improve his prior belief probability distribution over which sensitive queries (structural or value associations) hold in the hosted database. Finally, we demonstrate with a detailed set of experiments that our techniques enable efficient query processing while satisfying the security properties defined in the paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations126
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVery Large Data BasesSame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207