Paper detail

A distributed Integrity Catalog for digital repositories

Digital repositories, either digital preservation systems or archival systems, periodically check the integrity of stored objects to assure users of their correctness. To do so, prior solutions calculate integrity metadata and require the repository to store it alongside the actual data objects. This integrity metadata is essential for regularly verifying the correctness of the stored data objects. To safeguard and detect damage to this metadata, prior solutions rely on widely visible media, that is unaffiliated third parties, to store and provide back digests of the metadata to verify it is intact. However, they do not address recovery of the integrity metadata in case of damage or attack by an adversary. In essence, they do not preserve this metadata. We introduce IntegrityCatalog, a system that collects all integrity related metadata in a single component, and treats them as first class objects, managing both their integrity and their preservation. We introduce a treap-based persistent authenticated dictionary managing arbitrary length key/value pairs, which we use to store all integrity metadata, accessible simply by object name. Additionally, IntegrityCatalog is a distributed system that includes a network protocol that manages both corruption detection and preservation of this metadata, using administrator-selected network peers with two possible roles. Verifiers store and offer attestations on digests and have minimal storage requirements, while preservers efficiently synchronize a complete copy of the catalog to assist in recovery in case of a detected catalog compromise on the local system. We describe our prototype implementation of IntegrityCatalog, measure its performance empirically, and demonstrate its effectiveness in real-world situations, with worst measured throughput of approximately 1K insertions per second, and 2K verified search operations per second.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.