Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2008/346

Remote Integrity Check with Dishonest Storage Server

Ee-Chien Chang and Jia Xu

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 $\mathbf{x}$. A dishonest server, by adapting the challenges and responses, tries to discard partial information of $\mathbf{x}$ and yet evades detection. Besides the security requirements, there are considerations on communication, storage size and computation time. Juels et al. \cite{Pors} gave a security model for {\em Proof of Retrievability} ({\POR}) system. The model imposes a requirement that the original ${\bf x}$ can be recovered from multiple challenges-responses. Such requirement is not necessary in our problem. Hence, we propose an alternative security model for {\em Remote Integrity Check} ({\RIC}). We study a few schemes and analyze their efficiency and security. In particular, we prove the security of a proposed scheme {\simplePIR}. This scheme can be deployed as a {\POR} system and it also serves as an example of an effective {\POR} system whose ``extraction'' is not verifiable. We also propose a combination of the RSA-based scheme by Filho et al. \cite{DDPs} and the ECC-based authenticator by Naor et al. \cite{complex_memcheck}, which achieves good asymptotic performance. This scheme is not a {\POR} system and seems to be a secure {\RIC}. In-so-far, all schemes that have been proven secure can also be adopted as {\POR} systems. This brings out the question of whether there are fundamental differences between the two models. To highlight the differences, we introduce a notion, {\em trap-door compression}, that captures a property on compressibility.

Category / Keywords: cryptographic protocols / Integrity Check, Peer-2-peer applications

Date: received 6 Aug 2008, last revised 2 Nov 2008

Contact author: xujia at comp nus edu sg

Available format(s): PDF | BibTeX Citation

Note: Some minor changes.

Version: 20081103:042651 (All versions of this report)

Discussion forum: Show discussion | Start new discussion


[ Cryptology ePrint archive ]