VOLUME: 07, Special Issue 08, Paper id-IJIERM-VII-VIII, December 2020 64
IMPLEMENTATION AND RESEARCH ANALYSIS FOR DISTRIBUTED & INDEPENDENTACCESS TO ENCRYPTED CLOUD: REVIEW Gaurav Kumar
M.Tech (Computer Science & Engineering), RKDF College of Engineering, Bhopal Sanjay Kumar Brahman
Dept. of Computer Science, RKDF College of Engineering, Bhopal 1 INTRODUCTION
In a cloud context, where basic data is set ion foundations of entrusted third parties.
Ensuring information secrecy is of fundamental significance. These prerequisite forces clear information administration choices: original plain information must be available just by trusted parties that do exclude cloud suppliers, intermediaries, and Internet; in any entrusted setting, information must be encrypted. Fulfilling these objectives has distinctive levels of multifaceted nature relying upon the sort of cloud benefit. There are a few arrangements guaranteeing secrecy for the capacity as an administration worldview (e.g., [3], [4], [5]), while guaranteeing privacy in the database as an administration (DBaaS) worldview [6] is as yet an open research territory.
In this specific circumstance, we propose SecureDBaaS as the main arrangement that permits cloud occupants to take full favorable position of DBaaS qualities, for example, accessibility, dependability, and versatile adaptability, without presenting decoded information to the cloud supplier. The configuration was inspired by a triple objective: to permit different, autonomous, and topographically appropriated customers to execute simultaneous operations on scrambled information, including SQL articulations that adjust the database structure; to save information confidentiality and consistency at the customer and cloud level; to kill any middle of the road server between the cloud customer and the cloud supplier.
1.1 Objective of the Project
Putting basic information in the hands of a cloud supplier should accompany the certification of security and accessibility for information very still, in movement, and being used. A few choices exist for capacity administrations, while
information classification answers for the database as an administration worldview are as yet youthful. We propose a novel engineering that coordinates cloud database administrations with information secrecy and the likelihood of executing simultaneous operations on scrambled information. This is the primary arrangement supporting topographically dispersed customers to associate specifically to an encoded cloud database, and to execute simultaneous and autonomous operations including those altering the database structure.
The proposed design has the further favorable position of dispensing with transitional intermediaries that point of confinement the flexibility, accessibility, and versatility properties that are natural in cloud-based arrangements.
1.2 Problem Domain
Each column metadata contain the following information.
Plain Name: the name of the corresponding column of the plaintext table.
Coded Name: the name of the column of the secure table. This is the only information that links a column to the corresponding plaintext column because e column names of secure tables are and only generated.
Secure Type: the secure type of the column. This allows SecureDBaaS client to be informed about the data type and the encryption policies associated with a column.
Encryption Key: the key used to encrypt and decryptall the data stored in the column
1.3 Limitation and Scope
Application- This module contains the application of system to the cloud. How we will Apply these all on cloud this module explains it. We use master key to
VOLUME: 07, Special Issue 08, Paper id-IJIERM-VII-VIII, December 2020 65
access cloud data after data is uploadedon data. First we will get encrypted data if our key is correct then by using random decryption keys we will get the final output in the form of plaintext data.
0Input is taken from user in the form of sqlquerry.
2 A REVIEW OF CLOUD COMPUTING Distributed computing, the long-held dream of figuring as an utility, can possibly change a substantial piece of the IT business, making programming considerably more appealing as an administration and forming the way IT equipment is outlined and bought.
Engineers with imaginative thoughts for new Internet benefits never again require the vast capital costs in equipment to convey their administration or the human cost to work it. They require not be worried about finished provisioning for an administration whose prevalence does not meet their expectations, consequently squandering expensive assets, or under- provisioning for one that turns out to be uncontrollably mainstream, along these lines missing potential clients and income.
In addition, organizations with expansive cluster arranged undertakings can get comes about as fast as their projects can scale, since utilizing 1000 servers for one hour costs close to utilizing one server for 1000 hours. This flexibility of assets, without paying a premium for expansive scale, is exceptional ever. Therefore, Cloud Computing is a well known theme for blogging and white papers and been highlighted in the title of workshops, gatherings, and even magazines. In any case, perplexity stays about precisely what it is and when it's helpful, causing Oracle's CEO Larry Ellison to vent his disappointment: The fascinating thing about Cloud Computing is that we've re- imagined Cloud Computing to incorporate everything that we as of now do. . . . I don't comprehend what we would do any other way in the light of Cloud Computing other than change the wording of some of our promotions.
“A View of Cloud Computing” M.
Armbrust [1], has developed with innovative ideas for new Internet services no longer require the large Capital
outlays in hardware to deploy their service or the human expense to operate it. Cloud Computing will grow, so developers should take it into account.
Moreover:
1. Applications Software needs to both scale down rapidly as well as scale up, which is a new requirement.
Such software also needs a pay-for- use licensing model to match needs of Cloud Computing.
2. Infrastructure Software needs to be aware that itis no longer running on bare metal but on VMs. Moreover, billing needs build in from the start.
3. Hardware Systems should be designed at the scale of a container (at least a dozen racks), which will be is the minimum purchase size.
“SPORC: Group Collaboration Using Untrusted Cloud Resources”
A.J. Feldman, W.P. Zeller, M.J.
Freedman, and E.W. Felten [3], have described Cloud-based services arean attractive deployment model for user-facing applications like word processing and calendaring.
In SPORC, a server observes only encrypted data and cannot deviate from correct execution without being detected.
SPORC allows concurrent, low-latency editing of shared state, permits disconnected operation, and supports dynamic access control even in the presence of concurrency.
2.1 Acknowledgments
“Secure Untrusted Data Repository (SUNDR)” J. Li, M. Krohn, D. Mazie` es, and D. Shasha, [4] have proposed SUNDR is a network file system Designed to store data securely on untreated servers.
SUNDR’s protocol achieves a property called fork consistency, which guarantees that clients can detect any integrity or consistency failures as long as they see each other’s file modifications.
Measurements of our implementation show performance that is usually close to and sometimes better than the popular NFS file system.
“Depot: Cloud Storage with Minimal Trust” P. Mahajan, S. Setty, S.
Lee, A. Clement, L. Alvisi, M. Dahlin, and M. Walfish [15]have described the Design, implementation, and evaluation of Depot, a cloud storage system that minimizes
VOLUME: 07, Special Issue 08, Paper id-IJIERM-VII-VIII, December 2020 66
trust assumptions. Depot began with anattempt to explore a radical point in the design space for cloud storage: trust no one. “Providing Database as a Service” H.
Hacigü mu ̈ s, B. Iyer, and S. Mehrotra [16], have proposed a new paradigm for data management in which a third party service provider hosts “database as a service” providing its customers seamless mechanisms to create, store, and access their databases at the host site. The authors introduced NetDB2, an internet- based database service built on top of DB2 that provides Users with tools for application development, creating and loading tables, and performing queries and transactions.
2.2 Fully Homomorphic Encryption Using Ideal Lattices” C. Gentry [17], has proposed a fully homomorphism encryption scheme i.e., a scheme that allows one to evaluate circuits over encrypted data without being able to decrypt. The circuit privacy of E2immediately implies the (leveled) circuit privacy of our (leveled) fully homomorphism encryption scheme.
“Crypt: Protecting Confidentiality ith Encrypted Query Processing” R. A. Popa, C.M.S. Redfield, N. Zeldovich, and H.
Balakrishnan [7], have described, Crypt is a system that provides practical and provable confidentiality in the face of these attacks for applications backed by SQL databases. It works by executing SQL queries over encrypted data using a collection of efficient SQL-aware encryption schemes. “Efficiency and Security Trade Off in Supporting Range Queries on Encrypted Databases’. Li and E. Omiecinski [8], hadiscussedoncerns about protecting sensitive information of data and queries from adversaries in the DAS model. Data and queries need to been cryptic, While the database service provider should be able to efficiently answer queries Used on encrypted data and queries.
2.3 “Distributing Data for Secure Database Services,”
V. Ganapathy, D. Thomas, T. Feder, H.
Garcia-Molina, and R. Motwani [9] have proposed, the advent of database services has resulted in privacy concerns on the part of the client storing data with third
party database service providers. This paper provide algorithms for (1) distributing data: our results include hardness of approximation results and hence a heuristic greedy algorithm for the distribution problem (2) partitioning the query at the client to queries for the servers is done by a bottom
up state based algorithm.
2.4 Finally The Results
At the servers are integrated to obtain the answer at the client. “How to Share a Secret,” A. Shamir[10], has described how to divide data D into n pieces in such a way that D is easily reconstruct able from any k pieces, but even complete knowledge of k-1 pieces reveals absolutely no information about D. This technique enables the construction of robust key management schemes for cryptographic systems that can function securely and reliably even when misfortunes destroy half the pieces and security breaches expose all but one of the remaining pieces.
3 CONCLUSION
We propose a creative design that ensures secrecy of information put away in broad daylight cloud databases. Dissimilar to cutting edge approaches, our answer does not depend on a moderate intermediary that we consider a solitary purpose of disappointment and a bottleneck constraining accessibility and versatility of run of the mill cloud database administrations. A huge piece of the examination incorporates answers for help simultaneous SQL operations (counting proclamations changing the database structure) on scrambled information issued by heterogeneous and potentially topographically scattered customers.
In the first set of experiments, we evaluate the overhead introduced when one SecureDBaaS client executes SQL operations on the encrypted database.
Client and database server are connected through a LAN where no network latency is added. To evaluate encryption costs, the client measures the execution time of the 44 SQL commands of the TPC-C benchmark.
TPC-C operations are grouped on the basis of the class of transaction:
VOLUME: 07, Special Issue 08, Paper id-IJIERM-VII-VIII, December 2020 67
Order Status, Delivery, Stock Level, Pay-ment, and New Order. From this figure, we can appreciate that the encryption time is below 0.1 ms for the majority of operations and below 1 ms for almost all operations but two. The exceptions are represented by two operations of the Stock Level and Payment transactions where the encryption time is two orders of magnitude higher.
This high overhead is caused by the use of the order pre-serving encryption that is necessary for range queries. We focus on the most frequently executed SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE commands of the TPC-C bench- marking order to evaluate the performance overhead of encrypted SQL operations.
REFERENCES
1. M. Armbrust et al., "A View of Cloud Computing," Comm. of the ACM, vol. 53, no.
4, pp. 50-58, 2010.
2. W. Jansen and T. Grance, "Rules on Security and Privacy in Public Cloud Computing,"
Technical Report Special Publication 800- 144, NIST, 2011.
3. A.J. Feldman, W.P. Zeller, M.J. Freedman, and E.W. Felten, "SPORC: Group Collaboration Using Untrusted Cloud Resources," Proc. Ninth USENIX Conf.
Working Systems Design and Implementation, Oct. 2010.
4. J. Li, M. Krohn, D. Mazie` res, and D.
Shasha, "Secure Untrusted Data Repository (SUNDR)," Proc. 6th USENIX Conf. Opearting Systems Design and Implementation, Oct.
2004.
5. P. Mahajan, S. Setty, S. Lee, A. Lenient, L.
Alvisi, M. Dahlin, and M. Walfish, "Terminal:
Cloud Storage with Minimal Trust," ACM Trans. PC Systems, vol. 29, no. 4, article 12, 2011.
6. H. Hacigu¨ mu¨ s¸, B. Iyer, and S. Mehrotra,
"Giving Database as a Service," Proc.
eighteenth IEEE Int'l Conf. Information Eng., Feb. 2002.
7. C. Nobility, "Completely Homomorphic Encryption Using Ideal Lattices," Proc. 41st Ann. ACM Symp. Hypothesis of Computing, May 2009.
8. R.A. Popa, C.M.S. Redfield, N. Zeldovich, and H. Balakrishnan, "CryptDB: Protecting Confidentiality with Encrypted Query Processing," Proc. 23rd ACM Symp. Working Systems Principles, Oct. 2011.
9. H. Hacigu¨ mu¨ s¸, B. Iyer, C. Li, and S.
Mehrotra, "Executing SQL over Encrypted Data in the Database-Service-Provider Model," Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int'l Conf.
Administration Data, June2002.
10. J. Li and E. Omiecinski, "Productivity and Security Trade-Off in Supporting Range Queries on Encrypted Databases," Proc.
nineteenth Ann. IFIP WG 11.3 Working Conf.
Information and Applications Security, Aug.
2005..
11. M. Armbrust et al., “A View of Cloud Computing,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 53, no.
4, pp. 50-58, 2010.
12. W. Jansen and T. Grance, “Guidelines on Security and Privacy in Public Cloud Computing,” Technical Report Special Publication800-144, NIST, 2011.
13. A.J. Feldman, W.P. Zeller, M.J. Freedman, and E.W. Felten, “SPORC: Group Collaboration Using Untrusted Cloud Re- sources,” Proc. Ninth USENIX Conf.
Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Oct. 2010.
14. J. Li, M. Krohn, D. Mazie`res, and D. Shasha,
“Secure Untrusted Data Repository (SUNDR),”Proc. Sixth USENIX Conf.
Opearting Systems Design and Implementation, Oct. 2004.
15. P. Mahajan, S. Setty, S. Lee, A. Clement, L.
Alvisi, M. Dahlin, and M. Walfish, “Depot:
Cloud Storage with Minimal Trust,” ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 29, no. 4, article 12, 2011.[6]
16. H. Haciguimüş, B. Iyer, and S. Mehrotra,
“Providing Database as a Service,” Proc. 18th IEEE Int’l Conf. Data Eng., Feb. 2002.
17. C. Gentry, “Fully Homomorphic Encryption Using Ideal Lattices,” Proc. 41st Ann. CM Symp. Theory of Computing, May 2009.
18. R.A. Popa, C.M.S. Redfield, N. Zeldovich, and H. Balakrishnan, “CryptDB: Protecting Confidentiality with Encrypted Query Processing,” Proc. 23rd ACM Symp. Operating Systems Principles, Oct. 2011.
19. H. Hacigümüş, B. Iyer, C. Li, and S.
Mehrotra, “Executing SQL over Encrypted Data in the Database-Service-Provider Model,” Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int’l Conf.
Management Data, June2002.
20. J. Li and E. Omiecinski, “Efficiency and Security Trade-Off in Supporting Range Queries on Encrypted Databases,” Proc.
19thAnn. IFIP WG 11.3 Working Conf. Data and Applications Security,Aug. 2005.
21. E. Mykletun and G. Tsudik, “Aggregation Queries in the Database-as-a-Service Model,”Proc. 20th Ann. IFIP WG 11.3Working Conf. Data and Applications Security, July/Aug. 2006.
22. D. Agrawal, A.E. Abbadi, F. Emekci, and A.
Metwally, “Database Management as a
Service: Challenges and
Opportunities,”Proc.25th IEEE Int’l Conf.
Data Eng., Mar.-Apr. 2009.
23. V. Ganapathy, D. Thomas, T. Feder, H.
Garcia-Molina, and R. Motwani, “Distributing Data for Secure Database Services,” Proc .Fourth ACM Int’l Workshop Privacy and Anonymity in the Information Soc., Mar. 201 24. A Shamir, “How to Share a Secret,” Comm. of
the ACM, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 612-613, 1979.
25. M. Hadavi, E. Damiani, R. Jalili, S. Cimato, and Z. Ganjei, “AS5: A Secureearchable Secret Sharing Scheme for Privacy Preserving Database Outsourcing,” Proc. Fifth Int’l Workshop Autonomous and Spontaneous Security, Sept. 2013.
26. “Oracle Advanced Security,” Oracle Corporation,
VOLUME: 07, Special Issue 08, Paper id-IJIERM-VII-VIII, December 2020 68
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/databa se/options/advanced-security, Apr. 2013.
27. G. Cattaneo, L. Catuogno, A.D. Sorbo, and P.
Persiano, “The Design and Implementation of a Transparent Cryptographic File System For Unix,” Proc. FREENIX Track: 2001 USENIX Ann. Technical Conf., Apr. 2001.
28. E. Damiani, S.D.C. Vimercati, S. Jajodia, S.
Paraboschi, and P. Samarati, “Balancing Confidentiality and Efficiency in Untrusted Relational Dbmss,” Proc. Tenth ACM Conf.
Computer and Comm. Security, Oct. 2003.
29. L. Ferretti, M. Colajanni, and M. Marchetti,
“Supporting Securityand Consistency for Cloud Database,” Proc. Fourth Int’l Symp.
Cyberspace Safety and Security, Dec. 2012.
30. “Transaction Processing Performance Council,” TPC-C, http://www.tpc.org, Apr.
2013.
31. H. Berenson, P. Bernstein, J. Gray, J. Melton, E. O’Neil, and P.O’ Neil, “A Critique of AnsiSql Isolation Levels,” Proc. ACMSIGMOD, June 1995.
32. “Xeround: The Cloud Database,” Xeround, http://xeround.com, Apr. 2013.[23]“ Postgres Plus Cloud Database,” Enterprise DB, http://enterprisedb.com/cloud-database, Apr. 2013.
33. “Windows Azure,” Microsoft corporation, http://www.windowsazure.com, Apr. 2013.
34. “Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon Ec2),”Amazon Web Services (AWS), http://aws.amazon.com/ec2, Apr. 2013.
35. B. White, J. Lepreau, L. Stoller, R. Ricci, S.
Guruprasad, M. Newbold, M. Hibler, C. Barb, and A. Joglekar, “An Integrated Experimental Environment for Distributed Systems and Net-works,” Proc. Fifth USENIX Conf.
Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Dec. 2002.
36. Fekete, D. Liarokapis, E. O’Neil, P. O’Neil, and D. Shasha, “Making Snapshot solation Serializable,” ACM Trans. Database Systems, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 492-528, 2005.
37. Boldyreva, N. Chenette, and A. O’Neill,
“Order-Preserving Encryption Revisited:
Improved Security Analysis and Alternative Solutions,” Proc. 31st Ann. Conf. Advances in Cryptology (CRYPTO’11),Aug. 2011
38. M. Armbrust et al., “A View of Cloud Computing,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 53, no.
4, pp. 50 -58, 2010.
39. A.J. Feldman, W.P. Zeller, M.J. Freedman, and E.W. Felten, “SPORC: Group Collaboration Using Untrusted Cloud Resources,” Proc. Ninth USENIX Conf.
Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Oct. 2010.
40. J. Li, M. Krohn, D. Mazie` res, and D.
Shasha, “Secure Untrusted Data Repository (SUNDR),”Proc. Sixth USENIX Conf.
Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Oct. 2004.
41. P. Mahajan, S. Setty, S. Lee, A. Clement, L.
Alvisi, M. Dahlin, and M. Walfish, “Depot:
Cloud Storage with Minimal Trust”, ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 29, no. 4, article 12, 2011.
42. H. Hacigü mu ̈s ̧, B. Iyer, and S. Mehrotra,
“Providing Database as a Service Proc. 18th IEEEInt’l Conf. Data Eng. Feb.2002.
43. C. Gentry, “Fully Homomorphic Encryption Using Ideal Lattices”, Proc. 41st Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing May 2009 44. R.A. Popa, C.M.S. Redfield, N. Zeldovich, and
H. Balakrishnan, “Crypt DB: Protecting Confidentiality with Encrypted Query Processing,” Proc. 23rd ACM Symp. Operating Systems Principles, Oct.2011.
45. J. Li and E. Omiecinski, “Efficiency and Security Trade- Off in Supporting Range Queries on Encrypted Databases,”Proc.19th Ann. IFIP WG11.3 Working Conf. Data and Applications Security, Aug. 2005.
46. V. Ganapathy, D. Thomas, T. Feder, H.
Garcia-Molina, and R. Motwani, “Distributing Data for Secure Database Services,” Proc.
Fourth ACM Int’l Workshop Privacy and Anonymity in the Information Soc., Mar.
2011.
