skip to main content
10.1145/3176258.3176327acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Forgetting with Puzzles: Using Cryptographic Puzzles to support Digital Forgetting

Published:13 March 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Digital forgetting deals with the unavailability of content uploaded to web and storage servers after the data has served its purpose. The content on the servers can be deleted manually, but this does not prevent data archival and access at different storage locations. This is problematic since then the data may be accessed for unintended or even malicious purposes long after the owners have decided to abandon the public availability of their data. Approaches which assign a lifetime value to data or use heuristics like interest in data to make it inaccessible after some time have been proposed, but digital forgetting is still in its infancy and there are a number of open problems with the proposed approaches.

In this paper, we outline a general use case of cryptographic puzzles in the context of digital forgetting which---to the best of our knowledge---has not been proposed or explored before. One problem with recent proposals for digital forgetting is that attackers could collect or even delete anyone's public data during their lifetime. In our approach, we deal with these problems by making it hard for the attacker to delete large quantities of data while making sure that the proposed solutions will not adversely deteriorate user experience in a disturbing manner. As a proof-of-concept, we propose a system with cryptographic (time-lock) puzzles that deals with malicious users while ensuring the permanent deletion of data when interest in it dies down. We have implemented a prototype and evaluate it thoroughly with promising results.

References

  1. Adam Back. 2002. Hashcash -- A Denial of Service Counter-Measure. (2002). http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Dan Boneh and Richard J. Lipton. {n. d.}. A Revocable Backup System. In Proceedings of the 6th USENIX Security Symposium, San Jose, CA, USA, July 22--25, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Castelluccia, E. De Cristofaro, A. Francillon, and M.-A. Kaafar. 2011. EphPub: Toward robust Ephemeral Publishing. In 19th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP). 165--175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Domo. 2017. Data never sleeps 5.0. https://www.domo.com/learn/data-never-sleeps-5. (June. 2017). https://www.domo.com/learn/data-never-sleeps-5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Sujata Doshi, Fabian Monrose, and Aviel D. Rubin. 2006. Efficient Memory Bound Puzzles Using Pattern Databases Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security (ACNS). 98--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Roxana Geambasu, Tadayoshi Kohno, Arvind Krishnamurthy, Amit Levy, Henry Levy, Paul Gardner, and Vinnie Moscaritolo. 2011. New Directions for Self-Destructing Data Systems. Technical Report UW-CSE-11-08-01. University of Washington.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Roxana Geambasu, Tadayoshi Kohno, Amit A. Levy, and Henry M. Levy. 2009. Vanish: Increasing Data Privacy with Self-destructing Data Proceedings of the 18th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, 299--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Peter Gutmann. 1996. Secure deletion of data from magnetic and solid-state memory Proceedings of the 6th USENIX Security Symposium, Focusing on Applications of Cryptography. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, 77--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Owen Harrison and John Waldron. 2009. Efficient Acceleration of Asymmetric Cryptography on Graphics Hardware Proceedings of the 2Nd International Conference on Cryptology in Africa: Progress in Cryptology (AFRICACRYPT '09). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 350--367. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ari Juels and John G. Brainard. 1999. Client Puzzles: A Cryptographic Countermeasure Against Connection Depletion Attacks Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghassan Karame and Srdjan Capkun. 2010. Low-Cost Client Puzzles Based on Modular Exponentiation Proceedings of the 15th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS). 679--697. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jaeheung Lee, Sangho Yi, Junyoung Heo, Hyungbae Park, Sung Y. Shin, and Yookun Cho. 2010. An Efficient Secure Deletion Scheme for Flash File Systems. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, Vol. 26, 1 (2010), 27--38. http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/page/jise/2010/201001_03.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Frank Li, Prateek Mittal, Matthew Caesar, and Nikita Borisov. 2012. SybilControl: Practical Sybil Defense with Computational Puzzles Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Workshop on Scalable Trusted Computing (STC'12). 67--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Pär Persson Mattsson. 2013. Why Haven't CPU Clock Speeds Increased in the Last Few Years? (Nov. 2013). https://www.comsol.com/blogs/havent-cpu-clock-speeds-increased-last-years/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger. 2011. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Mainack Mondal, Johnnatan Messias, Saptarshi Ghosh, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Aniket Kate. 2016. Forgetting in Social Media: Understanding and Controlling Longitudinal Exposure of Socially Shared Data. In Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2016, Denver, CO, USA, June 22-24, 2016. 287--299.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Joel Reardon, David A. Basin, and Srdjan Capkun. 2013. SoK: Secure Data Deletion. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), Berkeley, CA, USA. 301--315. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Joel Reardon, Srdjan Capkun, and David A. Basin. 2012. Data Node Encrypted File System: Efficient Secure Deletion for Flash Memory Proceedings of the 21th USENIX Security Symposium. 333--348. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Sirke Reimann and Markus Dürmuth. 2012. Timed revocation of user data: long expiration times from existing infrastructure WPES. 65--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ronald. L. Rivest, Adi Shamir, and David A. Wagner. 1996. Time-lock Puzzles and Timed-release Crypto. Technical Report. Cambridge, MA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Esther Shein. 2013. Ephemeral Data. Commun. ACM Vol. 56, 9 (Sept. . 2013), 20--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Forgetting with Puzzles: Using Cryptographic Puzzles to support Digital Forgetting

      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
        CODASPY '18: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy
        March 2018
        401 pages
        ISBN:9781450356329
        DOI:10.1145/3176258

        Copyright © 2018 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 the author(s) 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: 13 March 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CODASPY '18 Paper Acceptance Rate23of110submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate149of789submissions,19%

        Upcoming Conference

        CODASPY '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader