DACC: Distributed Access Control in Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a new model for data storage and access in clouds. Our scheme avoids storing multiple encrypted copies of same data. In our framework for secure data storage, cloud stores encrypted data (without being able to decrypt them). The main novelty of our model is addition of key distribution centers (KDCs). We propose DACC (Distributed Access Control in Clouds) algorithm, where one or more KDCs distribute keys to data owners and users. KDC may provide access to particular fields in all records. Thus, a single key replaces separate keys from owners. Owners and users are assigned certain set of attributes. Owner encrypts the data with the attributes it has and stores them in the cloud. The users with matching set of attributes can retrieve the data from the cloud. We apply attribute-based encryption based on bilinear pairings on elliptic curves. The scheme is collusion secure; two users cannot together decode any data that none of them has individual right to access. DACC also supports revocation of users, without redistributing keys to all the users of cloud services. We show that our approach results in lower communication, computation and storage overheads, compared to existing models and schemes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".