Remote Integrity Check with Dishonest Storage Server

Ee-Chien Chang,Jia Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88313-5_15

2008-01-01

Abstract:We are interested in this problem: a verifier, with a small and reliable storage, wants to periodically check whether a remote server is keeping a large file x. A dishonest server, by adapting the challenges and responses, tries to discard partial information of x and yet evades detection. Besides the security requirements, there are considerations on communication, storage size and computation time. Juels et al. [10] gave a security model for Proof of Retrievability (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$\mathcal{POR}$\end{document}) system. The model imposes a requirement that the original x can be recovered from multiple challenges-responses. Such requirement is not necessary in our problem. Hence, we propose an alternative security model for Remote Integrity Check (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$\mathcal{RIC}$\end{document}). We study a few schemes and analyze their efficiency and security. In particular, we prove the security of a proposed scheme HENC. This scheme can be deployed as a \documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$\mathcal{POR}$\end{document} system and it also serves as an example of an effective \documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$\mathcal{POR}$\end{document} system whose “extraction” is not verifiable. We also propose a combination of the RSA-based scheme by Filho et al. [7] and the ECC-based authenticator by Naor et al. [12], which achieves good asymptotic performance. This scheme is not a \documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$\mathcal{POR}$\end{document} system and seems to be a secure \documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$\mathcal{RIC}$\end{document}. In-so-far, all schemes that have been proven secure can also be adopted as \documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$\mathcal{POR}$\end{document} systems. This brings out the question of whether there are fundamental differences between the two models. To highlight the differences, we introduce a notion, trap-door compression, that captures a property on compressibility.