A new trust management framework based on the experience of users in industrial cloud computing using multi-criteria decision making

Abstract

PurposeNowadays, cloud platforms are used in many fields, including e-commerce, web applications, data storage, healthcare, gaming, mobile social networks, etc. However, security and privacy are still two significant concerns in this area. The target of this paper is to present a system for trust management in industrial cloud computing using the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach. MCDM techniques have been developed to accommodate a wide range of applications. As a result, hundreds of approaches have been generated with even minor variations on current approaches spawning new study fields.Design/methodology/approachCloud computing provides a fully scalable, accessible and flexible computing platform for various applications. Due to the multiple applications that cloud computing has found in numerous life features, users and providers have considered providing security in cloud communications. Due to its distributive nature, dynamic space and lack of transparency in performing cloud computing, it faces many challenges in providing security. For security improvement, trust management can play a very influential role. This paper proposes a generic analytical methodology that uses a series of assessment criteria to evaluate current trust management testing prototypes in industrial cloud computing and related fields. The authors utilize a MCDM approach in the present article. Due to the multi-dimensionality of the sustainability objective and the complexities of socio-economic and biophysical processes, MCDM approaches have become progressively common in decision-making for sustainable energy.FindingsThe results of comparing and evaluating the performance of this model show its ability to manage trust and the ability to adapt to changes in the behavior of service providers quickly. Using a simulation, all results are confirmed. The results of simulations and evaluation of the present paper indicate that the proposed model provides a more accurate evaluation of the credibility of cloud service providers than other models.Practical implicationsThe number of cloud services and customers is vast and extremely competitive in cloud environments, where novel cloud services and customers can join at any time, while others can withdraw whenever they want. Because of cloud services' highly dynamic and dispersed design, trust management mechanisms must be highly flexible to obtain feedback and update trust outcomes as quickly as possible. The model presented in this article tries to improve users' trust in the cloud industry.Originality/valueUsing a method (MCDM) to find the best trust management solution based on user experience in industrial cloud computing is the novelty of this paper.

Analytical hierarchy process model for managing cloud security

“…Therefore, this paper attempts to address this gap through a thematic analysis of published literature from 2010 to 2022 to find management actions pertaining to cloud security management. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was applied as multi-criteria decision-making model (Khoruzhy et al , 2022) to narrow down key actions for decision-makers (Saaty, 2008).…”

“…In addition, clients have heterogeneous cloud solutions consisting of multiple vendors because of the advent of containerization and serverless computing (Varghese and Buyya, 2018). This results in unprecedented questions about accountability and jurisdiction over data (Lynn et al , 2021; Khoruzhy et al , 2022).…”

“…In security management, controls are the actions that need to be taken to ensure the security of organizational assets. Information security management requires that appropriate controls are in place, and the output of these controls is used to monitor the organizations’ information systems assets and ensure business continuity (Khoruzhy et al , 2022). These information security controls/actions are often technical, but at least some pertain to management aspects as well (NIST, 2013).…”