Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Isolation in Cloud Computing and Privacy-Enhancing Technologies

Suitability of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies for Separating Data Usage in Business Processes

  • State of the Art
  • Published:
Business & Information Systems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cloud Computing lifts the borders between the access control domain of individuals’ and companies’ IT systems by processing their data within the application frameworks and virtualized runtime environments of Cloud service providers. A deployment of traditional security policies for enforcing confidentiality of Cloud users’ data would lead to a conflict with the availability of the Cloud’s software services: confidentiality of data would be assured but Cloud services would not be available for every user of a Cloud. This state-of-the-art contribution shows the analogy of the confidentiality of external data processing by Cloud services with mechanisms known and applied in privacy. Sustainability in Cloud is a matter of privacy, which in Cloud is called “isolation”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Accorsi A (2008) Automated privacy audits to complement the notion of control for identity management. In: Fischer-Hübner S, Tseng JC, Borking J (eds) Proc of first IFIP conference on policies and research in identity management (IDMAN’07), Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpern B, Schneider F (1985) Defining liveness. Inf Process Lett 21(4):181–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JP (1972) Computer security technology planning study. Technical report ESD-TR-73-51, Electronic system division/AFSC, Bedford, MA

  • Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R, Joseph A, Katz R, Konwinski A, Lee G, Patterson D, Rabkin A, Stoica I, Zaharia M (2010) A view of cloud computing. Commun ACM 53(4):50–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley P, Hada S, Karjoth G, Powers C, Schunter M (2003) Enterprise privacy authorization language (EPAL 1.2). http://www.w3.org/Submission/EPAL/. Accessed 2011-02-10

  • Blaze M, Feigenbaum J, Lacy J (1996) Decentralized trust management. In: Symposium on security and privacy, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogetoft P, Christensen DL, Damgard I, Geisler M, Jakobsen T, Krogaard M, Nielsen JD, Nielsen JB, Nielsen K, Pagter J, Schwartzbach M, Toft T (2009) Secure multiparty computation goes live. In: Dingledine R, Golle P (eds) Financial cryptography and data security, Barbados

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesverfassungsgericht (1983) Volkszählungsurteil. In: Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Urteil vom 1983-12-15.Az.: 1 BvR 209/83; NJW 84, 419

  • Buneman P, Khanna S, Tan WC (2001) Why and where: a characterization of data provenance. In: 8th int conf on database theory, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Camenisch J, van Herreweghen E (2002) Design and implementation of the idemix anonymous credential system. In: Proc of the 9th ACM conf on computer and communications security, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Camenisch J, Shelat A, Sommer D, Fischer-Hübner S, Hansen M, Krasemann H, Lacoste G, Leenes R, Tseng J (2005) Privacy and identity management for everyone. In: Proc of the 2005 workshop on digital identity management, DIM 05, Fairfax, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Casassa MM, Pearson S (2005) An adaptive privacy management system for data repositories. In: Katsikas SK, Lopez J, Pernul G (eds) TrustBus 2005, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaum D (1985) Security without identification: transaction systems to make big brother obsolete. Commun ACM 28(10):1030–1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox IJ, Miller ML, Bloom JA, Fridrich J, Kalker T (2008) Digital watermarking and steganography. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranor L, Langheinrich M, Marchiori M, Presler-Marshall M, Reagle J (2002) The platform for privacy preferences 1.0 (P3P1.0) specification. http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P. Accessed 2011-02-10

  • Ellison G (ed) (2005) Liberty. ID-WSF security mechanisms version: 1.2. Liberty alliance project. http://www.projectliberty.org/specs/liberty-idwsf-security-mechanisms-v1.2.pdf. Accessed 2011-02-10

  • Erdos M, Cantor S (2004) Shibboleth-Architecture DRAFT v05. http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/docs/draft-internet2-shibboleth-arch-v05.pdf. Accessed 2011-02-10

  • Etalle S, Winsborough WH (2007) A posteriori compliance control. In: ACM SACMAT’07, Nice-Sophia Antipolis

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (1995) Directive 95/46/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 281(395L0046):31–50

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2002) Directive 2002/58/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 12 July 2002 concerning the protection of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (directive on privacy and electronic communications). Official Journal of the European Commission L201:37–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford W, Baum M (1997) Secure electronic commerce. Prentice-Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldreich O, Micali S, Wigderson A (1987) How to play ANY mental game. In: Aho AV (ed) Proc of the 19th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC’87), New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas S, Wohlgemuth S, Echizen I, Sonehara N, Müller G (2010) Aspects of privacy for electronic health records. International Journal of Medical Informatics for its special issue on security. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.10.001

  • Harrison MA, Ruzzo WL, Ullman JD (1976) Protection in operating systems. Commun ACM 19(8):461–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilty M, Basin D, Pretschner A (2005) On obligations. In: European symp on research in computer security (ESORICS 2005), Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Karjoth G, Schunter M, Waidner M (2002) Privacy-enabled services for enterprises. In: 13th int workshop on database and expert systems applications, Aix-En-Provence

    Google Scholar 

  • Karjoth G, Schunter M, Waidner M (2003) Platform for enterprise privacy practices: privacy-enabled management of customer data. In: 2nd workshop on privacy enhancing technologies (PET 2002), San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerschbaum F (2008) Building a privacy-preserving benchmarking enterprise system. Enterprise Information Systems 2(4):421–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namiri K, Stojanovic N (2007) Using control patterns in business processes compliance. In: Int conf on web information systems engineering (WISE), New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather T, Kumaraswamy S, Latif S (2009) Cloud security and privacy: an enterprise perspective on risks and compliance. O’Reilly, Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller G, Accorsi R, Höhn S, Sackmann S (2010) Sichere Nutzungskontrolle für mehr Transparenz in Finanzmärkten. Informatik-Spektrum 33(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1980) OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data. http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,2340,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html. Accessed 2011-02-10

  • Park J, Sandhu R (2004) The UCONABC usage control model. 24th ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 7(1):128–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Povey D (1999) Optimistic security: a new access control paradigm. In: ACM new security paradigm workshop’99, Caledon Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretschner A, Hilty M, Basin D (2006) Distributed usage control. Commun ACM 49(9):39–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roßnagel A (2005) Modernisierung des Datenschutzrechts für eine Welt allgegenwärtiger Datenverarbeitung Multimedia und Recht 8(2)

  • Sackmann S, Strüker J, Accorsi R (2006) Personalization in privacy-aware highly dynamic systems. Commun ACM 49(9):32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackmann S (2007) Personalization and privacy in ubiquitous computing – resolving the conflict by legally binding commitments. In: IEEE conference on E-commerce technology (CEC’07), Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of health & human services (1996) Health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 privacy rule. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/HIPAAGenInfo. Accessed 2011-02-10

  • Smith RE (1993) The law of privacy in a nutshell. Privacy Journal 19(6):50–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Wason T (ed) (2004) Liberty ID-FF architecture overview version: 1.2. Liberty alliance project. http://www.projectliberty.org/specs/liberty-idff-arch-overview-v1.2.pdf. Accessed 2011-02-10

  • Westin A (1967) Privacy and freedom. Atheneum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlgemuth S (2008) Privatsphäre durch die Delegation von Rechten. Vieweg+Teubner, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlgemuth S, Jendricke U, Gerd tom Markotten D, Dorner F, Müller G (2004) Sicherheit und Benutzbarkeit durch Identitätsmanagement. In: Spath D, Haasis K (eds) Tagungsband zum doIT Software-Forschungstag 2003, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlgemuth S, Müller G, (2006) Privacy with delegation of rights by identity management. In: Emerging trends in information and communication security (ETRICS 2006), Freiburg i.Br.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the FIT-NII-Postdoctoral-Program of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and is a result of the Japanese-European Institute for Security (JEISec) at the National Institute of Informatics (Japan). The authors also gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions of the reviewers, which have improved the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Informatics, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8430, Japan

    Noboru Sonehara,  Isao Echizen &  Sven Wohlgemuth

Authors
  1. Noboru Sonehara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isao Echizen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sven Wohlgemuth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Wohlgemuth.

Additional information

Accepted after four revisions by Prof. Dr. Buxmann.

This article is also available in German in print and via http://www.wirtschaftsinformatik.de: Sonehara N, Echizen I, Wohlgemuth S (2011) Isolation in Cloud-Computing und Mechanismen zum Schutz der Privatsphäre. Eignung von Mechanismen zum Schutz der Privatsphäre für die Trennung der Datenverarbeitung in Geschäftsprozessen. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK. doi: 10.1007/s11576-011-0274-2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sonehara, N., Echizen, I. & Wohlgemuth, S. Isolation in Cloud Computing and Privacy-Enhancing Technologies. Bus Inf Syst Eng 3, 155–162 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-011-0160-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-011-0160-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation