skip to main content
10.1145/2701126.2701226acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicuimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A stakeholder-oriented assessment index for cloud security auditing

Published:08 January 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cloud computing is an emerging computing model that provides numerous advantages to organizations (both service providers and customers) in terms of massive scalability, lower cost, and flexibility, to name a few. Despite these technical and economical advantages of cloud computing, many potential cloud consumers are still hesitant to adopt cloud computing due to security and privacy concerns. This paper describes some of the unique cloud computing security factors and subfactors that play a critical role in addressing cloud security and privacy concerns. To mitigate these concerns, we develop a security metric tool to provide information to cloud users about the security status of a given cloud vendor. The primary objective of the proposed metric is to produce a security index that describes the security level accomplished by an evaluated cloud computing vendor. The resultant security index will give confidence to different cloud stakeholders and is likely to help them in decision making, increase the predictability of the quality of service, and allow appropriate proactive planning if needed before migrating to the cloud. To show the practicality of the proposed metric, we provide two case studies based on the available security information about two well-known cloud service providers (CSP). The results of these case studies demonstrated the effectiveness of the security index in determining the overall security level of a CSP with respect to the security preferences of cloud users.

References

  1. Tariq, M. 2012. Towards information security metrics framework for cloud computing. International Journal of Cloud Computing and Services Science, 1(4), pp. 209--217, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Park, J., Spetka, E., Rasheed, H., Ratazzi, P., and Han, K. 2012. Near-real-time cloud auditing for rapid response. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, 1252--1257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sen, J. 2013. Security and privacy issues in cloud computing. Architectures and Protocols for Secure Information Technology, IGI-Global, USA, Available at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.4814.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler, B. 2013. What is Holding Back the Cloud Industry? Network World. Available at http://www.networkworld.com/article/2171297/cloud-computing/what-s-holding-back-the-cloud-industry-htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. "Cloud Security Survey," AccelOps, 2013. Available at: http://www.accelops.com/pdf/Cloud%20Security%20Survey%20Report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bender, D. 2012. Privacy and security issues in cloud computing. The Computer & Internet Lawyer, 29, 10 (October 2012), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Lionel Litty, H. Andrés Lagar-Cavilla, and David Lie. 2009. Computer meteorology: monitoring compute clouds. In Proceedings of the 12th conference on Hot topics in operating systems (HotOS'09). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, 4--4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. "Xen Hypervisor: the open source standard for hardware virtualization," Xen.org, 2013, Available at: http://xen.org/products/xenhyp.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Tholeti, B. 2011. Hypervisors, virtualization, and the cloud: learn about hypervisors, system virtualization, and how it works in a cloud environment. IBM Developer Works, Available at: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/cloud/library/cl-hypervisorcompare/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ali Sunyaev and Stephan Schneider. 2013. Cloud services certification. Commun. ACM 56, 2 (February 2013), 33--36. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2408776.2408789 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. F. Lombardi and R. Pietro, "Transparent Security for Cloud," in Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 414--415, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Lombardi, F. and Pietro, R. 2010. Transparent security for cloud. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 414--415. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1774088.1774176 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Modi, C., Patel, D., Borisaniya, B., Patel, A., and Rajarajan, M. 2013. A survey on security issues and solutions at different layers of cloud computing. Journal of Supercomputing, 63, 2, (February 2013), 561--592. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Boyle, R. and Panko, R. 2013. Corporate Computer Security. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Silva, C., Ferreira, A., and Geus, P. 2012. A methodology for management of cloud computing using security criteria. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Latin America Conference on Cloud Computing and Communications, 49--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayden, L. 2010. IT Security Metrics: A Practical Framework for Measuring Security & Protecting Data. Osborne, McGraw-Hill, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Juels, A. and Oprea, A. 2013. New approaches to security and availability for cloud data. Commun. ACM 56, 2 (February 2013), 64--73. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2408776.2408793 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Rees, R. 2011. PCI Virtualization SIG Releases Guidelines. InFocus, 2011. Available at: http://infocus.emc.com/richard_rees/pci-virtualization-sig-releases-guidelinesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Pauley, P. 2010. Cloud provider transparency: an empirical evaluation. IEEE Security & Privacy, 8, 6 (Dec. 2010), 32--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. McCormac et. al. 2012. Preventing and Profiling Malicious Insider Attacks. Australian Government Department of Defense, Defense Science and Technology Organization. April 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. C. S. Alliance. 2013. Top threats to cloud computing, version 1.0. Cloud Security Alliance, Tech. Rep., Feb 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Top Threats Working Group. 2013. The Notorious Nine: Cloud Computing Top Threats in 2013. The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), Feb 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Cappelli, D., Moore, A., and Trzeciak, R. 2012. The CERT Guide to Insider Threats: How to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Information Technology Crimes (Theft, Sabotage, Fraud). SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley Professional. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Rocha, F. and Correia, M. 2011. Lucy in the sky without diamonds: Stealing confidential data in the cloud. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE/IFIP 41st International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshops (DSNW '11). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 129--134. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DSNW.2011.5958798 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A stakeholder-oriented assessment index for cloud security auditing

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      IMCOM '15: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication
      January 2015
      674 pages
      ISBN:9781450333771
      DOI:10.1145/2701126

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 January 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate213of621submissions,34%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader