Paper detail

Multi-prover Proof-of-Retrievability

There has been considerable recent interest in "cloud storage" wherein a user asks a server to store a large file. One issue is whether the user can verify that the server is actually storing the file, and typically a challenge-response protocol is employed to convince the user that the file is indeed being stored correctly. The security of these schemes is phrased in terms of an extractor which will recover the file given any "proving algorithm" that has a sufficiently high success probability. This forms the basis of \emph{proof-of-retrievability} ($\mathsf{PoR}$) systems. In this paper, we study multiple server $\mathsf{PoR}$ systems. We formalize security definitions for two possible scenarios: (i) when a threshold of servers succeed with high enough probability (worst-case) and (ii) when the average of the success probability of all the servers is above a threshold (average-case). We also motivate the study of confidentiality of the outsourced message. We give $\mathsf{M}\mbox{-}\mathsf{PoR}$ schemes which are secure under both these security definitions and provide reasonable confidentiality guarantees even when there is no restriction on the computational power of the servers. We also show how classical statistical techniques used by Paterson, Stinson and Upadhyay (Journal of Mathematical Cryptology: 7(3)) can be extended to evaluate whether the responses of the provers are accurate enough to permit successful extraction. We also look at one specific instantiation of our construction when instantiated with the unconditionally secure version of the Shacham-Waters scheme (Asiacrypt, 2008). This scheme gives reasonable security and privacy guarantee. We show that, in the multi-server setting with computationally unbounded provers, one can overcome the limitation that the verifier needs to store as much secret information as the provers.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.