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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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