Searchable attribute-based encryption scheme with attribute revocation in cloud storage

Abstract

Attribute based encryption (ABE) is a good way to achieve flexible and secure access control to data, and attribute revocation is the extension of the attribute-based encryption, and the keyword search is an indispensable part for cloud storage. The combination of both has an important application in the cloud storage. In this paper, we construct a searchable attribute-based encryption scheme with attribute revocation in cloud storage, the keyword search in our scheme is attribute based with access control, when the search succeeds, the cloud server returns the corresponding cipher text to user and the user can decrypt the cipher text definitely. Besides, our scheme supports multiple keywords search, which makes the scheme more practical. Under the assumption of decisional bilinear Diffie-Hellman exponent (q-BDHE) and decisional Diffie-Hellman (DDH) in the selective security model, we prove that our scheme is secure.

Multiuser access control searchable privacy‐preserving scheme in cloud storage

“…Thus, the computation time of the users in MUACSPP scheme are lower than that of Ye et al 28 and Wang et al 29 …”

“…Table 3 shows the computation time comparisons of the data owner and the user about the scheme of Ye et al, 28 the scheme of Wang et al, 29 and our MUACSPP scheme. Since the attribute key composition of the user U i (i ∈ {0, 1, 2, · · · , m}) is {k i |k i = N i s i ; i ∈ {0, 1, 2, · · · , m} ; = 1, 2, · · · , i }, suppose the attribute key composition number of these m + 1 users is j 0 + j 1 + · · · + j i = .…”

“…In Wang et al, 29 the data owner needs to spend (m + 1)T d computation time to generate the keyword index, 4(m + 1)T d + T d = (4m + 4 + )T d computation time to generate the attribute keys, and T d + T e computation time to encrypt the data file. Moreover, m + 1 users need (m + 1)T d computation time to calculate the trap door, (m + 3 + 1)T e computation time to decrypt the ciphertext.…”

“…We evaluate the computation time cost of the data owner, user, TTP, CSPs, and proxy server among the MUACSPP scheme and the schemes of Ye et al 28 and Wang et al 29 When the number of the keywords is sequentially chosen from 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and the average number of each user's attribute is 4, Figure 3A shows the experiment result comparison of the scheme in Ye et al, 28 the scheme in Wang et al, 29 and MUACSPP scheme. The operating system is the Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise; the number of users is set to 50.…”

“…We evaluate the computation time cost of the data owner, user, TTP, CSPs, and proxy server among the MUACSPP scheme and the schemes of Ye et al 28 and Wang et al 29 When the number of the keywords is sequentially chosen from 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and the average number of each user's attribute is 4, Figure 3A shows the experiment result comparison of the scheme in Ye et al, 28 the scheme in Wang et al, 29 and MUACSPP scheme. In this case, MUACSPP scheme is more efficient than the schemes of Ye et al 28 and Wang et al 29 The computation time, which the proxy server predecrypts the searched ciphertex with the size of the data increasing from 2 to 6 GB, is shown in Figure 3E; we can find that MUACSPP scheme takes less time than the schemes of Ye et al 28 Figure 3D shows the computation time that CSPs verifies the user's attributes by the keyword trap door, where the number of attributes increases from 2 to 12.…”