Comparison on Computation Cost of the Cloud

simile on Computation Cost of the CloudIn this chapter, we list the relation on computation cost of the corrupt for file upload betwixt and our scheme.Computational Cost info access issues in the field of the deprave computer science provide a good measurement-based performance as mentioned along this research, and hence, the security features tolerate be improved using the new proposed model as comfortably as a suitable computational cost. However, the proposed protocol provides these advantages and evaluates the performance based on computational cost and security requirements.The performance of our proposed scheme is evaluated using the vivacious experimental in 33 34 35 for a variety of cryptographic operations using MIRACLE 36 in PIV 3 GHZ processor with Windows XP operating system and 512 MB memory. From 33 34 35 the coitus running age for the operations we adopted in our proposed scheme and we define some terms for the running time calculationsTp= Pairing operation = 20.01 msTh= Hash function= 3.04 msTpm= Pairing-based scalar multiplication= 6.38 msTec= ECC-based scalar multiplication= 0.83 msOther operations omittedThe following tables illustrates the performance energy based on running time which is focus on user side including data ownerTable 1 Computational Cost-based Performance readinessPhasesOperationsRunning time (ms)Key GenerationTec+2Th6.91UploadTp+Th23.05Download (Transformation Key)Tpm6.38TotalTp+ Tpm+Tec+3Th36.34The following table shows comparison between 37 38 and our scheme in the major process which is file upload/download, with file in any size (not affected) and for one userTable 2 Comparison of Computational Cost-based Performance EfficiencyReferencesRef 37Ref 38 Our schemeUpload872.0933.2423.05Download400.2139.256.38Total1272.3072.4929.43From the above tables we clearly stick out observe that our proposed model is much efficient and has low running time indeed. The following figure can simplify this comparisonFigure 1 Comparison of performance efficiency-based running timeSecurity requirement In the security aspects of our proposed model, we can notice that this model can achieve AC, FR, DC, IG, security requirements. Furthermore, this model not only provide a cost-based efficient scheme, but also provide a high secure and robust model against attacks such as Anti-collusion, Replay, MITM, and DoS attacks as followsAnti-collusion attack whatever unauthorized users or members whose attributes do not satisfy the access policy, they may also try to access the data by colluding together with other users or even the service provider to compromise some data owners privacy. Our scheme is considered it to be secure against this attack due when a user is revoked, the group charabanc updates the revocation list (RL) stored in the cloud with a new. In addition, the group manager adds a time stamp to the data files and signs, to make sure that the cloud updates the data files.New DF = sign ts ( =(,() -), gr oup id, CT )Replay attack Replay attacks are ne twork attacks in which the attacker spies the conversation between the vector and receiver and takes the authenticated information e.g. sharing depict and then contact to the receiver with that key. Moreover, our scheme is considered it to be secure against this attack due to temporary academic term by using timestamp for encrypted data.Man-in-the-Middle Attack (MITM) Man-in-the-middle attack has become quite popular in the SaaS environment. Here the attacker intercepts the communication channel established between trustworthy users and modifies the communication between client and server without their knowledge. Moreover, our scheme is considered it to be secure against this attack due to encrypted identities and the hash function used in the term of key generationDenial of Service Attack (DOS) Most of the serious attacks in cloud computing. In Denial of service attack an attacker prevent true users of service from using the desi red resources by flood a network or by consuming bandwidth .So authentication is need to distinguish legitimated clients from malicious clients, which can be performed through strong cryptographic verification. Moreover, our scheme is considered it to be secure against this attack due to the client creates a unique HMAC, or hash, per request to the cloud by combing the request data and hashing that data, along with his id and sending it as part of a request. The cloud receives the request and regenerates its own unique HMAC. The cloud compares the two HMACs, and, if theyre equal, the client is trusted and the request is executed.Request tk+ H(id)For convince, we define the following termsAC Access controlFR Flexible revocationDC Data confidentialityIG IntegritySym Symmetric AlgorithmCT Computational costTS TimestampODBERBE Role based encryptionLGS leveraging group signatureDBE dynamic place encryptionTable 3 Security requirement comparisonReferencesRef 38Ref 39Ref 40Our schemeTe chniquesSymDBERBEABEFeatures AC, DCAC, DCACAC, FR, DC, IGComments noble CT, No TSHigh CT, No TSHigh CT, No TSLow CT,TSAnti-collusion attackReplay attackMITM attackDoS attack means the scheme can achieve the corresponding goal.In general and from the above comparisons, our scheme can achieve data confidentiality, secure access control, integrity and flexible revocation. For clearly eyesight the advantages of security of our proposed scheme, as explain in table 3, we list a table compared with ref 38, ref 39 and ref 40.