Facilitating plausible deniability for cloud providers regarding tenants’ activities using trusted execution

Dan O'Keeffe, Thomas Pasquier, Asma Vranaki, D. Eyers
{"title":"Facilitating plausible deniability for cloud providers regarding tenants’ activities using trusted execution","authors":"Dan O'Keeffe, Thomas Pasquier, Asma Vranaki, D. Eyers","doi":"10.1109/IC2E48712.2020.00013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A cloud provider that can technically determine tenants’ operations may be compelled to disclose such activities by law enforcement agencies (LEAs). The situation gets even more complex when multiple LEAs across different jurisdictions are involved, e.g., because of the distributed locations of cloud servers and data storage. Yet cloud providers typically do not need or want to know about their tenants’ activities, other than measuring how such activities incur expenses for using cloud resources.Thus mechanisms should be developed for cloud providers to have sufficient plausible deniability with regards to the processing being carried out by tenants on their platform, in jurisdictions that permit cloud providers to avoid liabilities in this way. Symmetrically, such mechanisms could protect tenants from legal over-reach, for example, when the country in which the cloud provider is incorporated could force disclosure of the processing carried out by cloud tenants.But to what extent can cloud providers acquire plausible deniability? Current discussions regarding risk have focused on data confidentiality and integrity. We argue that processing operations can equally reveal sensitive information—such as trade secrets and business processes—and that for some classes of application both data protection and algorithm protection are necessary.In this paper, we examine the legal and technical motivations for achieving plausible deniability in cloud interactions. We demonstrate the likely performance overhead of using containers secured with technologies such as Intel SGX. Further, we examine the current limitations of our proposed plausible deniability mechanisms, and outline a potential approach for enabling lawful access to enclaves subject to appropriate judicial oversight.","PeriodicalId":173494,"journal":{"name":"2020 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E)","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/IC2E48712.2020.00013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A cloud provider that can technically determine tenants’ operations may be compelled to disclose such activities by law enforcement agencies (LEAs). The situation gets even more complex when multiple LEAs across different jurisdictions are involved, e.g., because of the distributed locations of cloud servers and data storage. Yet cloud providers typically do not need or want to know about their tenants’ activities, other than measuring how such activities incur expenses for using cloud resources.Thus mechanisms should be developed for cloud providers to have sufficient plausible deniability with regards to the processing being carried out by tenants on their platform, in jurisdictions that permit cloud providers to avoid liabilities in this way. Symmetrically, such mechanisms could protect tenants from legal over-reach, for example, when the country in which the cloud provider is incorporated could force disclosure of the processing carried out by cloud tenants.But to what extent can cloud providers acquire plausible deniability? Current discussions regarding risk have focused on data confidentiality and integrity. We argue that processing operations can equally reveal sensitive information—such as trade secrets and business processes—and that for some classes of application both data protection and algorithm protection are necessary.In this paper, we examine the legal and technical motivations for achieving plausible deniability in cloud interactions. We demonstrate the likely performance overhead of using containers secured with technologies such as Intel SGX. Further, we examine the current limitations of our proposed plausible deniability mechanisms, and outline a potential approach for enabling lawful access to enclaves subject to appropriate judicial oversight.
使用可信执行,为云提供商提供有关租户活动的合理推诿
能够从技术上确定租户运营的云提供商可能会被执法机构(LEAs)强制披露此类活动。当涉及到跨不同辖区的多个LEAs时,情况会变得更加复杂,例如,由于云服务器和数据存储的分布式位置。然而,云提供商通常不需要也不想知道其租户的活动,而只是衡量这些活动如何因使用云资源而产生费用。因此,应制定机制,使云提供商在允许云提供商以这种方式避免责任的司法管辖区,对租户在其平台上进行的处理有充分的合理推诿。同样,这种机制可以保护租户免受法律越权的影响,例如,云提供商所在的国家可以强制披露云租户进行的处理。但是,云提供商在多大程度上能够获得合理的推诿?目前关于风险的讨论主要集中在数据保密性和完整性上。我们认为,处理操作同样可以泄露敏感信息,如商业秘密和业务流程,并且对于某些类型的应用程序,数据保护和算法保护都是必要的。在本文中,我们研究了在云交互中实现合理的可否认性的法律和技术动机。我们将演示使用由英特尔SGX等技术保护的容器可能带来的性能开销。此外,我们审查了我们提出的合理推脱机制目前的局限性,并概述了在适当的司法监督下合法进入飞地的潜在方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信