A Framework for Leveraging Image Security in Cloud with Simultaneous Compression and Encryption Using Compressive Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the contemporary era, technological innovations like cloud computing and Internet of Things (IoT) pave way for diversified applications producing multimedia content. Especially large volumes of image data, in medical and other domains, are produced. Cloud infrastructure is widely used to reap benefits such as scalability and availability. However, security and privacy of imagery is in jeopardy when outsourced it to cloud directly. Many compression and encryption techniques came into existence to improve performance and security. Nevertheless, in the wake of emergence of quantum computing in future, there is need for more secure means with multiple transformations of data. Compressive sensing (CS) used in existing methods to improve security. However, most of the schemes suffer from the problem of inability to perform compression and encryption simultaneously besides ending up with large key size. In this paper, we proposed a framework known as Cloud Image Security Framework (CISF) leveraging outsourced image security. The framework has an underlying algorithm known as Hybrid Image Security Algorithm (HISA). It is based on compressive sensing, simultaneous sensing and encryption besides random pixel exchange to ensure multiple transformations of input image. The empirical study revealed that the CISF is more effective, secure with acceptable compression performance over the state of the art methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".