Comparison on Computation Cost of the Cloud

Comparison on Computation Cost of the CloudIn this chapter, we list the compare on computation comprise of the drove for show upload between and our intent.computational CostData entryway issues in the field of the becloud computing provide a good measurement-based executing as menti oned along this research, and hence, the security features base be improved apply the new proposed model as well as a suited computational cost. However, the proposed protocol provides these advantages and evaluates the achievement based on computational cost and security requirements.The performance of our proposed scheme is evaluated using the existing experimental in 33 34 35 for a variety of cryptographical operations using MIRACLE 36 in PIV 3 GHZ processor with Windows XP operating system and 512 MB memory. From 33 34 35 the relative caterpillar tread time for the operations we adopted in our proposed scheme and we define or so preconditions for the running time calculationsTp= Pairi ng operation= 20.01 msTh= Hash function= 3.04 msTpm= Pairing-based scalar multiplication= 6.38 msresearcher= ECC-based scalar multiplication= 0.83 msOther operations omittedThe spare-time activity tables illustrates the performance efficiency based on running time which is focus on user side including data ownerTable 1 Computational Cost-based Performance capacityPhasesOperationsRunning time (ms)Key contemporariesTec+2Th6.91UploadTp+Th23.05Download (Transformation Key)Tpm6.38TotalTp+ Tpm+Tec+3Th36.34The fol wiped out(p)ing table shows comparison between 37 38 and our scheme in the major process which is file upload/download, with file in any size (not affected) and for one userTable 2 Comparison of Computational Cost-based Performance Efficiency reviewerereeerencesRef 37Ref 38 Our schemeUpload872.0933.2423.05Download400.2139.256.38Total1272.3072.4929.43From the in a higher place tables we clearly can observe that our proposed model is more efficient and has low running time in deed. The following figure can simplify this comparisonFigure 1 Comparison of performance efficiency-based running timecertificate requirement In the security aspects of our proposed model, we can notice that this model can achieve AC, FR, DC, IG, security requirements. Furthermore, this model not only provide a cost-based efficient scheme, but also provide a high tell and robust model against claps such as Anti-collusion, Replay, MITM, and DoS attacks as followsAnti-collusion attack Some unauthorized users or members whose attributes do not satisfy the access policy, they may also try to access the data by colluding together with other users or even the service provider to compromise some(prenominal) data owners privacy. Our scheme is considered it to be somber against this attack due when a user is revoked, the group manager updates the revocation list (RL) stored in the cloud with a new. In addition, the group manager adds a time attender to the data files and business fi rms, to make sure that the cloud updates the data files.New DF = sign ts ( =(,() -), group id, CT )Replay attack Replay attacks are earnings attacks in which the aggressor spies the conversation between the sender and receiver and takes the attest information e.g. sharing key and then contact to the receiver with that key. Moreover, our scheme is considered it to be secure against this attack due to temporary session by using timestamp for encrypted data.Man-in-the-Middle Attack (MITM) Man-in-the-middle attack has become quite popular in the SaaS environment. Here the attacker intercepts the communication channel established between legitimate users and modifies the communication between client and server without their knowledge. Moreover, our scheme is considered it to be secure against this attack due to encrypted identities and the hash function used in the term of key generationDenial of Service Attack (DOS) Most of the serious attacks in cloud computing. In Denial of service attack an attacker prevent legitimate users of service from using the desired resources by pig out a network or by consuming bandwidth .So authentication is regard to distinguish legitimated clients from malicious clients, which can be performed through strong cryptographic verification. Moreover, our scheme is considered it to be secure against this attack due to the client creates a unique HMAC, or hash, per quest to the cloud by combing the request data and hashing that data, along with his id and sending it as part of a request. The cloud receives the request and regenerates its own unique HMAC. The cloud compares the two HMACs, and, if theyre equal, the client is rely and the request is executed.Request tk+ H(id)For convince, we define the following termsAC opening controlFR Flexible revocationDC Data confidentialityIG IntegritySym Symmetric AlgorithmCT Computational costTS TimestampODBERBE role based encryptionLGS leveraging group signatureDBE dynamic disperse encryp tionTable 3 Security requirement comparisonReferencesRef 38Ref 39Ref 40Our schemeTechniquesSymDBERBEABEFeatures AC, DCAC, DCACAC, FR, DC, IGCommentsHigh CT, No TSHigh CT, No TSHigh CT, No TS little CT,TSAnti-collusion attackReplay attackMITM attackDoS attack representation the scheme can achieve the corresponding goal.In general and from the above comparisons, our scheme can achieve data confidentiality, secure access control, oneness and flexible revocation. For clearly seeing the advantages of security of our proposed scheme, as explain in table 3, we list a table compared with ref 38, ref 39 and ref 40.