Compliance Checking of Cloud Providers: Design and Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recognition of capabilities supplied by cloud systems is presently growing. Collecting or sharing healthcare data and sensitive information especially during the Covid-19 pandemic has motivated organizations and enterprises to leverage the upsides coming from cloud-based applications. However, the privacy of electronic data in such applications remains a significant challenge for cloud vendors to adapt their solutions with existing privacy legislation standards such as general data protection regulation (GDPR). This article first proposes a formal model and verification for data usage requests of providers in a cloud composite service using a model checking tool. A cloud pharmacy scenario is presented to illustrate the connectivity of providers in the composite service and the stream of their requests for both collection and movement of patient data. A set of verifications is then undertaken over the pharmacy service in accordance with three significant GDPR obligations, namely user consent, data access, and data transfer. Following that, the article designs and implements a cloud container virtualization based on the verified formal model realizing GDPR requirements. The container makes use of some enforcement smart contracts to only proceed with the providers’ requests that are compliant with GDPR. Finally, several experiments are provided to investigate the performance of our approach in terms of time, memory, and cost.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".