MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410319475 · doi:10.1145/2906153

Ensuring Security and Privacy Preservation for Cloud Data Services

2016· review· en· W2410319475 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Tang, Yong Cui, Qi Li, Kui Ren, Jiangchuan Liu, Rajkumar Buyya

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Data Security Solutions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceOutsourcingComputer securityInformation privacyCloud computing securityData securityServerData breachData Protection Act 1998Internet privacyEncryptionWorld Wide WebBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development of cloud computing, more and more enterprises/individuals are starting to outsource local data to the cloud servers. However, under open networks and not fully trusted cloud environments, they face enormous security and privacy risks (e.g., data leakage or disclosure, data corruption or loss, and user privacy breach) when outsourcing their data to a public cloud or using their outsourced data. Recently, several studies were conducted to address these risks, and a series of solutions were proposed to enable data and privacy protection in untrusted cloud environments. To fully understand the advances and discover the research trends of this area, this survey summarizes and analyzes the state-of-the-art protection technologies. We first present security threats and requirements of an outsourcing data service to a cloud, and follow that with a high-level overview of the corresponding security technologies. We then dwell on existing protection solutions to achieve secure, dependable, and privacy-assured cloud data services including data search, data computation, data sharing, data storage, and data access. Finally, we propose open challenges and potential research directions in each category of solutions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations169
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Computing SurveysSame topicCloud Data Security SolutionsFrench-language works237,207