Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A novel evaluation framework for improving trust level of Infrastructure as a Service

  • Published:
Cluster Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) industry, the decision-making to choose the prioritized trust improvement actions is significant as to ensure the trustworthiness and service continuity of the IaaS cloud providers. This is done by checking the trust control elements (TCEs) of IaaS cloud regularly so as to put together an efficient and effective improvement plan. However, it is very difficult to put such improvement plan unless it is based on the results of a preparatory evaluation. This paper, present rigorous and reliable evaluation framework based evaluation theory called trust evaluation of IaaS cloud framework. The main goal of this evaluation framework is to help IaaS cloud providers to identify the unimproved gaps according to particular TCEs. Diagrammatic trust tree and hybrid evaluation and ranking technique combining fuzzy set, simple additive weight, and important performance analysis (IPA) are the main components of this novel framework. The proposed framework is applied to evaluate the IaaS cloud of two providers. The results show that each provider has several different unimproved gaps that need urgent improvement actions. Moreover, based on the analysis results of IPA, several recommendations have been suggested to fill these gaps.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Manvi, S.S., Shyam, G.K.: Resource management for Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) in cloud computing: a survey. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 41, 424–440 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brodkin, J.: Gartner: seven cloud-computing security risks. Infoworld 2008, 1–3 (2008)

  3. Winkler, V.: Securing the Cloud: Cloud Computer Security Techniques and Tactics. Elsevier, Waltham (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Abbadi, I.M., Alawneh, M.: A framework for establishing trust in the cloud. Comput. Electr. Eng. 38(5), 1073–1087 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Khan, K.M., Malluhi, Q.: Establishing trust in cloud computing. IT Prof. 12(5), 20–27 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Garrison, G., Kim, S., Wakefield, R.L.: Success factors for deploying cloud computing. Commun. ACM 55(9), 62–68 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Adjei, J.K.: Explaining the role of trust in cloud computing services. info 17.1 (2015)

  8. Ares, J., García, R., Juristo, N., López, M., Moreno, A.M.: A more rigorous and comprehensive approach to software process assessment. Softw. Process. 5(1), 3–30 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lopez, M.: An evaluation theory perspective of the architecture tradeoff analysis method (ATAM). INST (2000)

  10. Subashini, S., Kavitha, V.: A survey on security issues in service delivery models of cloud computing. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 34(1), 1–11 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Xu, X.: From cloud computing to cloud manufacturing. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 28(1), 75–86 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fan, W., Perros, H.: A novel trust management framework for multi-cloud environments based on trust service providers. Knowl Syst 70, 392–406 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huo, Y., Zhuang, Y., Ni, S.: Fuzzy trust evaluation based on consistency intensity for cloud services. Kybernetes 44(1), 7–24 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alhamad, M., Dillon, T., Chang, E.: A trust-evaluation metric for cloud applications. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Comput. 1(4), 416–421 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Garg, S.K., Versteeg, S., Buyya, R.: A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 29(4), 1012–1023 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tzeng, G.-H., Huang, J.-J.: Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Pedrycz, W., Ekel, P., Parreiras, R.: Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making: Models, Methods and Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2011)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Habib, S.M., et al.: Trust as a facilitator in cloud computing: a survey. J. Cloud Comput. 1(1), 1–18 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Alabool, H.M., Mahmood, A.K.: Trust-based service selection in public cloud computing using fuzzy modified VIKOR method. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7(9), 211–220 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Abbadi, I.M., Martin, A.: Trust in the cloud. Inf. Secur. Tech. Rep. 16(3), 108–114 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sahri, S., et al.: DBaaS-Expert: A Recommender for the Selection of the Right Cloud Database. Foundations of Intelligent Systems, pp. 315–324. Springer, Roskilde (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Menzel, M., et al.: Cloudgenius: A hybrid decision support method for automating the migration of webapplication clusters to public clouds. IEEE Trans. Comput. 64, 1336–1348 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang, C.-Y., Hsu, P.-C., Tzeng, G.-H.: Evaluating Cloud Computing Based Telecommunications Service Quality Enhancement by Using a New Hybrid MCDM Model. Intelligent Decision Technologies. Springer, Berlin (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lo, C.-C., et al.: Service selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS method. In: IEEE 24th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA), IEEE (2010)

  25. Han, S.-M., et al.: Efficient service recommendation system for cloud computing market. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interaction Sciences: Information Technology, Culture and Human. ACM (2009)

  26. Su, C.-H., Tzeng, G.-H., Hao-Lin Tseng: Improving cloud computing service in fuzzy environment—combining fuzzy DANP and fuzzy VIKOR with a new hybrid FMCDM model. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Theory and it’s Applications (iFUZZY), 2012

  27. Reixa, M., Costa, C., Aparicio, M.: Cloud services evaluation framework. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Open Source and Design of Communication, ACM (2012)

  28. Saripalli, P., Gopal P.: Madmac: Multiple attribute decision methodology for adoption of clouds. In: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2011

  29. Alabool, H.M., Ahmad K.M.: Review on cloud service evaluation and selection methods. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), 2013

  30. Munier, N.: A Strategy for Using Multicriteria Analysis in Decision-Making: A Guide for Simple and Complex Environmental Projects. Springer, Dordrecht (2011)

  31. Alabool, H.M., Ahmad K.M.: Common trust criteria for IaaS cloud evaluation and selection. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCOINS), 2014

  32. Iankoulova, I., Maya D.: Cloud computing security requirements: A systematic review. In: 2012 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), 2012

  33. Zissis, Dimitrios, Lekkas, Dimitrios: Addressing cloud computing security issues. Future Gen. Comput. Syst. 28(3), 583–592 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Corbitt, Brian J., Thanasankit, Theerasak, Yi, Han: Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumer perceptions. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2(3), 203–215 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Corritore, Cynthia L., Kracher, Beverly, Wiedenbeck, Susan: On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 58(6), 737–758 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wu, Jyh-Jeng, Chen, Ying-Hueih, Chung, Yu-Shuo: Trust factors influencing virtual community members: a study of transaction communities. J. Bus. Res. 63(9), 1025–1032 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McKnight, H.D., Chervany, N.L.: What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 6(2), 35–59 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fombrun, Charles, and Cees Van Riel. “The reputational landscape.” Corporate reputation review (1997): 1-16

  39. Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Khan Jr, and Daniel C. Howe. “Trust online.”Communications of the ACM 43.12 (2000): 34-40

  40. Quinn, Stephen D., et al.: National Checklist Program for IT Products—Guidelines for Checklist Users and Developers. NIST Special Publication 800-70 (2011)

  41. Zadeh, Lotfi A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Klir, George, Yuan, Bo: Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic, vol. 4. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Churchman, C.W., Ackoff, R.L.: An approximate measure of value. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Am. 2(2), 172–187 (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods. Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods. A Comparative Study. Springer, New York (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Zanakis, S.H., et al.: Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 107(3), 507–529 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Chang, Y.-H., Yeh, C.-H.: Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making. Omega 29(5), 405–415 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Martilla, J.A., James, J.C.: Importance-performance analysis. J. Mark. 41, 77–79 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Opricovic, Serafim, Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung: Defuzzification within a multicriteria decision model. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 11(05), 635–652 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Kaufmann, A., Gupta, M.M.: Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic: Theory and Applications. Arden Shakespeare, London (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Lloyd, W., et al.: Don’t settle for eventual: scalable causal consistency for wide-area storage with COPS. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. ACM, 2011

  51. Mahajan, P., Alvisi, L., Dahlin, M.: Consistency, availability, and convergence. University of Texas at Austin Tech Report 11 (2011)

  52. Bailis, P., et al. Bolt-on causal consistency. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM (2013)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Information Science, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia

    Hamzeh Mohammad Alabool & Ahmad Kamil Bin Mahmood

Authors
  1. Hamzeh Mohammad Alabool
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmad Kamil Bin Mahmood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamzeh Mohammad Alabool.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alabool, H.M., Mahmood, A.K.B. A novel evaluation framework for improving trust level of Infrastructure as a Service. Cluster Comput 19, 389–410 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-015-0493-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-015-0493-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation