Critique: Provable Data Possession at Untrusted Stores
Paper Critique: “Provable Data Possession at Untrusted Stores”
Reviewer: Carol Williams
1. (10%) State the problem the paper is trying to solve.
The authors describe a way to probabilistically determine whether a file stored at a SSP exists and has not been modified, the results are: * Fast checks. They are I/O bound, not CPU bound * The size of the file stored at the server increases * The client needs to store a constant small amount of data per file * They use sampling to reduce the load on the server. * Uploads are slow because preprocessing is expensive on the order of 160kB/s 2. (20%) State the main contribution of the paper: solving a new problem, proposing a new algorithm, or presenting a new evaluation (analysis). If a new problem, why was the problem important? Is the problem still important today? Will the problem be important tomorrow? If a new algorithm or new evaluation (analysis), what are the improvements over previous algorithms or evaluations? How do they come up with the new algorithm or evaluation? * Formally define protocols for provable data possession (PDP) that provide probabilistic proof that a third party stores a file. * Introduce the first provably-secure and practical PDP schemes that guarantee data possession. * Implement one of our PDP schemes and show experimentally that probabilistic possession guarantees make it practical to verify possession of large data sets.
3. (15%) Summarize the (at most) 3 key main ideas (each in 1 sentence.)
The authors describe a way to probabilistically determine whether a file stored at a SSP exists and has not been modified. I don't quite understand the crypto, but the results are: * Fast checks. They are I/O bound, not CPU bound * The size of the file stored at the server increases * The client needs to store a constant small amount of data per file * They use sampling to reduce the load on the server. * Uploads are slow
Reviewer: Carol Williams
1. (10%) State the problem the paper is trying to solve.
The authors describe a way to probabilistically determine whether a file stored at a SSP exists and has not been modified, the results are: * Fast checks. They are I/O bound, not CPU bound * The size of the file stored at the server increases * The client needs to store a constant small amount of data per file * They use sampling to reduce the load on the server. * Uploads are slow because preprocessing is expensive on the order of 160kB/s 2. (20%) State the main contribution of the paper: solving a new problem, proposing a new algorithm, or presenting a new evaluation (analysis). If a new problem, why was the problem important? Is the problem still important today? Will the problem be important tomorrow? If a new algorithm or new evaluation (analysis), what are the improvements over previous algorithms or evaluations? How do they come up with the new algorithm or evaluation? * Formally define protocols for provable data possession (PDP) that provide probabilistic proof that a third party stores a file. * Introduce the first provably-secure and practical PDP schemes that guarantee data possession. * Implement one of our PDP schemes and show experimentally that probabilistic possession guarantees make it practical to verify possession of large data sets.
3. (15%) Summarize the (at most) 3 key main ideas (each in 1 sentence.)
The authors describe a way to probabilistically determine whether a file stored at a SSP exists and has not been modified. I don't quite understand the crypto, but the results are: * Fast checks. They are I/O bound, not CPU bound * The size of the file stored at the server increases * The client needs to store a constant small amount of data per file * They use sampling to reduce the load on the server. * Uploads are slow