On preserving privacy in content-oriented networks

Abstract

The recent literature has hailed the benefits of content-oriented network architectures. However, such designs pose a threat to privacy by revealing a user's content requests. In this paper, we study how to ameliorate privacy in such designs. We present an approach that does not require any special infrastructure or shared secrets between the publishers and consumers of content. In lieu of any informational asymmetry, the approach leverages computational asymmetry by forcing the adversary to perform sizable computations to reconstruct each request. This approach does not provide ideal privacy, but makes it hard for an adversary to effectively monitor the content requests of a large number of users.

LIVE: Lightweight Integrity Verification and Content Access Control for Named Data Networking

“…The security of clean-slate Internet designs is extensively discussed in the literature [29], [30]. Some features proposed in these designs are similar to LIVE.…”

“…They only consider integrity verification by users by leveraging traditional public-key cryptography. Arianfar et al [29] leverage cooperation between CPs, and use unrelated contents, called "cover" contents, to mix sensitive contents. Although the approach eliminates the computation overhead incurred by cryptographic operations, it requires CPs to cooperate and store a large volume of "cover" contents, which may introduce heavy communication overheads between CPs.…”

PIT overload analysis in content centric networks

“…Concerning the security threats in a CCN network, the available literature mainly covers privacy, data authentication, and data integrity issues. For example, [15] addresses the privacy problem deriving from the stateful operation of CCN routers, while data authentication and integrity have been considered since the seminal CCN papers [7,8]. Instead, a comprehensive study of the possible PIT overload issue deriving from a DDoS attack is missing.…”

Scale content centric networks via reactive routing

“…CCN and NDN define an open framework built upon not only name-oriented networking but also many other key building blocks. There are numerous lines of work in the CCN/NDN framework, just to name a few, naming and name resolution (e.g., [7], [8]), data transfer (e.g., [9]), flow and traffic control (e.g., [10]), caching (e.g., [11]- [13]), routing and router design (e.g., [14]- [19]), mobile and ad hoc networks (e.g., [20], [21]), privacy (e.g., [22], [23]), and applications (e.g., [24], [25]). Among these efforts, the line of work on routing (e.g., [14]- [18], [20], [21]) is the most relevant to our studies.…”