Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies 2016
DOI: 10.1145/2905055.2905330
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Feedback based Trust Management for Cloud Environment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This section includes assessing the credibility of HR and comparing the proposed method in mean squared error (MSE), average response time, latency average, and degree of time criteria to other methods. The proposed method in this paper is compared to the proposed methods in Awan et al (2020), Machhi and Jethava (2016), Habib et al (2011), and Chen and Wang (2017). Awan et al (2020) introduced a new trust management process that uses trust parameters to distinguish malicious and vulnerable nodes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This section includes assessing the credibility of HR and comparing the proposed method in mean squared error (MSE), average response time, latency average, and degree of time criteria to other methods. The proposed method in this paper is compared to the proposed methods in Awan et al (2020), Machhi and Jethava (2016), Habib et al (2011), and Chen and Wang (2017). Awan et al (2020) introduced a new trust management process that uses trust parameters to distinguish malicious and vulnerable nodes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PEPA excels at compositionality and parsimony, allowing it to model structures of layered architectures and complex behaviors effectively. Machhi and Jethava (2016) suggested a trust management system that would easily root out inaccurate feedback based on cloud user behavior, aging aspect, plurality feedback and exogenous process, and calculate the service provider's trustworthiness. Besides, for a cloud computing marketplace, Habib et al (2011) suggested a multi-faceted trust management system structure.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Unlike the SLA-focused measurements discussed earlier, SMI includes reputation metrics based on feedback from users, user experience and certification of compliance with industry best practice and regulations. In a similar vein, Machhi and Jethava (2016) present a trust management framework that measures service provider trustworthiness based on feedback, aging factor, and other parameters, while eliminating or otherwise discounting unreliable feedback. Indeed a number of works have sought to combine SLA metrics with feedback systems as a means of communicating trust in the service and vendor (see, for example, Nguyen et al 2010;Habib et al 2011;Yau and Yin 2011;Garg et al 2013;Noor, et al 2015;Tang et al 2017).…”
Section: Business Integritymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Feedback (or reputation) scores are then calculated by subtracting the total negative ratings from the total positive ones for each user. However, because of incorrect ratings, feedback scores are not fully reliable [18,20]. In essence, some users may try to increase their feedback scores with deceptive means [24].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%