The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Proofs of ownership in remote storage systems
Abstract
Cloud storage systems are becoming increasingly popular. A promising technology that keeps their cost down is deduplication, which stores only a single copy of repeating data. Client-side deduplication attempts to identify deduplication opportunities already at the client and save the bandwidth of uploading copies of existing files to the server. In this work we identify attacks that exploit client-side deduplication, allowing an attacker to gain access to arbitrary-size files of other users based on a very small hash signatures of these files. More specifically, an attacker who knows the hash signature of a file can convince the storage service that it owns that file, hence the server lets the attacker download the entire file. (In parallel to our work, a subset of these attacks were recently introduced in the wild with respect to the Dropbox file synchronization service.) To overcome such attacks, we introduce the notion of proofs-of-ownership (PoWs), which lets a client efficiently prove to a server that that the client holds a file, rather than just some short information about it. We formalize the concept of proof-of-ownership, under rigorous security definitions, and rigorous efficiency requirements of Petabyte scale storage systems. We then present solutions based on Merkle trees and specific encodings, and analyze their security. We implemented one variant of the scheme. Our performance measurements indicate that the scheme incurs only a small overhead compared to naive client-side deduplication.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Peters, G. W., & Panayi, E. (2016) · New Economic Windows · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42448-4_13 · Cited by 686
Message-Locked Encryption and Secure Deduplication
Bellare, M., Keelveedhi, S., & Ristenpart, T. (2013) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_18 · Cited by 632
Secure Deduplication with Efficient and Reliable Convergent Key Management
Li, J., Chen, X., Li, M., Li, J., Lee, P. P. C., & Lou, W. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2013.284 · Cited by 549
Investigating the Adoption of Hybrid Encrypted Cloud Data Deduplication With Game Theory
Liang, X., Yan, Z., Deng, R. H., & Zheng, Q. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2020.3028685 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Halevi, S., Harnik, D., Pinkas, B., & Shulman-Peleg, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-10-17
- Pages
- 491-500
- ISSN
- 1543-7221 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2020928798
- Cited by
- 562
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.70
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Proofs of ownership in remote storage systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2046707.2046765
- The paper
- Halevi, S., Harnik, D., Pinkas, B., & Shulman-Peleg, A. (2011). Proofs of ownership in remote storage systems. Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. https://doi.org/10.1145/2046707.2046765
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.