Starting with the work of Juels and Kaliski (CCS '07), all prior solutions to this problem crucially assume that the client data is static and do not allow it to be efficiently updated. Indeed, they all store a redundant encoding of the data on the server, so that the server must delete a large fraction of its storage to `lose' any actual content. Unfortunately, this means that even a single bit modification to the original data will need to modify a large fraction of the server storage, which makes updates highly inefficient. Overcoming this limitation was left as the main open problem by all prior works.
In this work, we give the first solution providing proofs of retrievability for dynamic storage, where the client can perform arbitrary reads/writes on any location within her data by running an efficient protocol with the server. At any point in time, the client can execute an efficient audit protocol to ensure that the server maintains the latest version of the client data. The computation and communication complexity of the server and client in our protocols is only polylogarithmic in the size of the client's data. The starting point of our solution is to split up the data into small blocks and redundantly encode each block of data individually, so that an update inside any data block only affects a few codeword symbols. The main difficulty is to prevent the server from identifying and deleting too many codeword symbols belonging to any single data block. We do so by hiding where the various codeword symbols for any individual data lock are stored on the server and when they are being accessed by the client, using the algorithmic techniques of oblivious RAM.Category / Keywords: cryptographic protocols / Proofs of Retrievability, PoR, Oblivious RAM, ORAM Date: received 21 Sep 2012, last revised 15 Mar 2013 Contact author: wichs at cs nyu edu Available format(s): PDF | BibTeX Citation Version: 20130315:202417 (All versions of this report) Short URL: ia.cr/2012/550 Discussion forum: Show discussion | Start new discussion