Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Blockchain based access control systems: State of the art and challenges

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The survey claims blockchain removes the trusted third party from access control and that surveyed systems show this works across healthcare, IoT, cloud, and multi-organization settings.

desk verdict A useful starting bibliography marred by an unstated corpus, missing table entries, and attribution errors; the 'state of the art' claim does not hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08503 v1 pith:BJ7377GG submitted 2019-08-22 cs.CR

Sara Rouhani , Ralph Deters This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords blockchainaccesscontrolsmartcontractsdistributedledgersattribute-basedencryptionrole-basedInternetofThingshealthcaredatasharing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper surveys blockchain-based access control to establish that moving policy storage and enforcement onto distributed ledgers can fix the three standard complaints about current systems: reliance on a third party that can leak data, single points of failure, and weak or coarse-grained enforcement. It works through roughly two dozen proposed systems, classifying each by domain (healthcare, IoT, cloud federation, multi-organization, and general data sharing), access-control method (attribute-based, role-based, fine-grained), and blockchain platform (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Hyperledger Fabric, MultiChain). The paper's position is that blockchain is best used as supplementary infrastructure: records and policies on-chain, bulk data off-chain, and smart contracts doing the enforcement, not as a wholesale replacement for access control. If the paper is right, the forward path in data-heavy domains is hybrid, with a ledger for trust and audit, a conventional storage stack for data, and smart contracts as the policy-enforcement layer. The remaining blockers are listed as smart-contract security, on-chain/off-chain integration, transaction transparency versus privacy, and performance that still cannot match centralized systems.

What carries the argument

The survey's carrying device is its classification table, which pins every surveyed system to a triple: domain, access-control method, and blockchain platform. The comparison is driven by a short list of blockchain properties: distributed consensus removes the single point of failure and the third party; immutability and auditability turn the ledger into a truthful history of permission decisions; smart contracts enforce policies automatically, including time-limited or conditional grants; and permissioned platforms buy back transaction privacy at the cost of pure decentralization. This classification does the argumentative work, showing that the same handful of blockchain features recurs across unrelated domains and exposing the open challenges (off-chain/on-chain integration, smart-contract security, transparency, performance) that do not belong to any single domain.

What would settle it

Set up a permissioned ledger in which a role-based policy is enforced by a smart contract, then ask one compromised validating peer to issue an access grant after the policy has been revoked. If that peer can still produce the grant and the audit log shows no disagreement, the paper's core claim that distributed consensus and immutability remove the single point of failure would fail in its own setting. On the completeness side, a systematic literature search with explicit inclusion criteria that finds a substantial cluster of excluded approaches, such as dynamic, self-generated policies, would undercut the survey's portrait of the gaps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that blockchain-based access control has settled into a recognizable design pattern. Early systems stored access policies directly in Bitcoin transactions using OP_RETURN and MULTISIG; later systems moved to smart contracts, which give policy enforcement enough flexibility to check complex conditions, revoke permissions, and log every grant or denial. Across domains the paper observes a split: attribute-based encryption dominates data-sharing and IoT proposals, while role-based control appears in hospital records (MedRec, Ancile, MediChain) and physical access control. User-centricity is an explicit goal of several systems, which let data owners define, monitor, and revoke their own policies, and auditability is the goal of others, which use the ledger purely as a trustworthy log. The paper also records what is not solved: performance still trails centralized systems, public transparency can clash with enterprise privacy, smart contracts are hard to write securely, and the boundary between on-chain and off-chain storage remains the weak seam.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the roughly two dozen papers surveyed, chosen without stated selection criteria, fairly represent the state of blockchain-based access control; if the selection is biased, the claimed design pattern and the list of open gaps may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Access-control deployments in healthcare, IoT, and cloud-federation settings can expect to move policy records and permission logs onto permissioned ledgers while keeping bulk data in off-chain storage.
  • Data owners, not platform administrators, can define, monitor, and revoke permissions directly because smart contracts automate enforcement and the ledger makes each decision auditable.
  • Permissioned platforms (for example, Hyperledger Fabric and MultiChain) will continue to outrank public ones for enterprise use, since transaction privacy is a requirement that public transparency cannot satisfy.
  • The next bottleneck will be smart-contract correctness and the on-chain/off-chain data seam rather than distributed consensus itself.
  • Performance comparisons in future studies will need to benchmark against centralized baselines, not only against other blockchain systems, if the efficiency claim is to be tested.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension of the paper's own gap list is that the field will converge on a hybrid architecture of on-chain policy records, off-chain data, and trusted-execution environments for policy evaluation; the paper lists the pieces but does not name this convergence.
  • If the smart-contract trend continues, the research frontier should shift from designing ledgers to formally verifying policy contracts, a step the paper flags as open but does not take.
  • A testable benchmark follows directly from the survey: implement one access-control scenario (role revocation plus audit-log retrieval) on a centralized server, a permissioned ledger, and a public ledger; the paper's own challenge list predicts the ledger designs lose on raw performance but win on auditability and resistance to single-point-of-failure.
  • A systematic corpus built with explicit inclusion criteria would test whether the gap list holds; such a corpus might add dynamic, self-generated policy systems that fall outside the surveyed pattern.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a short survey of blockchain-based access control systems. It motivates blockchain as a remedy for third-party dependence, inefficiency, and privacy problems in traditional access control; summarizes roughly two dozen systems in Table 2, categorized by domain, access-control method, and blockchain platform; and discusses challenges including off-chain/on-chain integration, smart-contract vulnerability, transaction transparency, and performance. It concludes with a summary and pointers to future work.

Significance. If the survey were reliable, it would provide a useful entry point for researchers entering the area: the categorization by domain, access-control method, and blockchain platform is clear, and Section 4 names several genuine challenges (off-chain/on-chain integration, smart-contract vulnerabilities, transparency vs. privacy, and performance). The paper also gives explicit credit to the systems it discusses. However, the central claim of presenting the state of the art is currently not supported, because the corpus is assembled without any stated selection methodology and the classification table is internally inconsistent with the text. As a result, the resource's value as a reference is limited until these issues are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 2-3 and Table 2] The paper never states how the surveyed corpus was assembled: no databases, query strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or time window are given. Since the abstract and introduction claim that the paper presents the state of the art, the absence of a reproducible selection method leaves the representativeness of the roughly 27 entries in Table 2 unsupported. The authors should either add a methodology subsection or explicitly narrow the claim to a selected overview rather than a state of the art.
  2. [Table 2 vs. Sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6] Table 2 omits systems that the paper itself describes as blockchain-based access-control systems in the body: RBAC-SC (Cruz et al. [13], Section 3.4), ChainAchor (Hardjono and Pentland [25], Section 3.5), and BC-PDS (Yan et al. [55], Section 3.6) have no rows in Table 2. Thus the classification table does not even cover the paper's own text, which undermines the claim that Table 2 is a summary of blockchain-based access-control applications.
  3. [Table 2, row for MedRec] The row labeled 'Asaph et al. [5]' for MedRec does not match bibliography entry [5], which lists 'Asaph Azaria, Ariel Ekblaw, Thiago Vieira, and Andrew Lippman' (i.e., Azaria et al.). The table uses the first author's first name as though it were the surname. This attribution error prevents a reader from independently verifying the entry and indicates that the table was not carefully checked against the reference list.
  4. [Abstract, Section 2, and Section 4 (Performance)] The abstract lists inefficiency as one of the problems that blockchain can address, and Section 2 frames blockchain as a solution to the problems of current access control systems. However, Section 4 states that 'the performance of the blockchain-based solutions cannot compete with the current centralized solutions.' The paper never reconciles this tension. The authors should qualify the efficiency claim or explain the specific conditions under which blockchain-based access control can be considered efficient despite this performance gap.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4] The function name 'addUsert' appears to be a typo for 'addUser', and the sentence says the challenge-response protocol 'has five steps' but then lists only four steps (declaration, information check, challenge response, response verification).
  2. [Sections 3.5 and reference [25]] The spelling 'ChainAchor' in the text differs from 'ChainAnchor' in the title of reference [25]; please use one consistent spelling.
  3. [References] Several bibliography entries have inconsistent formatting, such as 'jordi Subira' in [40] and the use of first names in [22]; a careful copyedit of the reference list is needed.
  4. [Section 5] The summary states that the paper 'explained the required concepts related to blockchain, smart contracts, platforms, and access control methods,' but the paper does not actually provide such an explanation in depth; the sentence should be adjusted to match the content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey's claims are descriptive and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a state-of-the-art survey rather than a derivation, so there is no chain of equations or fitted parameters whose output reduces to its input. The central claims—that current access control systems suffer from third-party dependence, inefficiency, and privacy leaks, and that blockchain-based systems are being explored across healthcare, IoT, cloud federation, and other domains—are stated as observations about the literature and are supported by a corpus that overwhelmingly consists of external, independently published systems. The authors do cite their own prior work: [43] is used to motivate the survey, and the authors' own systems appear in Table 2 as surveyed items ([16], [42], [44], [48]). However, none of these citations is the sole justification for a central premise, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction. The paper's internal shortcomings—the unstated corpus-selection methodology, the mismatch between Table 2 entries and the text (e.g., ChainAchor, BC-PDS, and RBAC-SC described but not tabled), the 'Asaph et al. [5]' attribution that does not match bibliographic entry [5], and the tension between the abstract's 'inefficiency' claim and Section 4's concession that blockchain cannot compete with centralized solutions—are correctness, clarity, and completeness concerns, not circular reasoning. Per the review rules, those concerns do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a survey, so the ledger of assumptions is short and mostly about corpus selection and trust in cited claims. There are no new free parameters, systems, or postulated entities. The load-bearing assumptions are that the chosen papers are representative, that their own claims are trustworthy, and that the survey's brief summaries are accurate.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The selected set of roughly two dozen papers is representative of the state of the art in blockchain-based access control.
    The survey draws general conclusions about problems, solutions, and gaps from an unstated selection of papers; no systematic search or inclusion criteria are provided.
  • domain assumption Blockchain features such as immutability, distributed consensus, and smart contracts provide the security and privacy benefits claimed by the surveyed systems.
    The paper accepts the surveyed papers' claims, such as privacy protection and absence of single point of failure, as valid without independent evaluation.
  • domain assumption The summaries of the cited systems accurately reflect the systems' actual designs.
    The review's classifications of access control method and platform are taken at face value from the cited papers, and the presence of citation and attribution errors reduces confidence in these summaries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blockchain based access control systems: State of the art and challenges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJ7377GG

@misc{pith2026190808503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blockchain based access control systems: State of the art and challenges},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJ7377GG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08503}
}
read the original abstract

Access to the system resources. The current access control systems face many problems, such as the presence of the third-party, inefficiency, and lack of privacy. These problems can be addressed by blockchain, the technology that received major attention in recent years and has many potentials. In this study, we overview the problems of the current access control systems, and then, we explain how blockchain can help to solve them. We also present an overview of access control studies and proposed platforms in different domains. This paper presents the state of the art and the challenges of blockchain-based access control systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08503 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Enigma framework [60] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Asaph Azaria, Ariel Ekblaw, Thiago Vieira, and Andrew Lippman. 2016. Medrec: Using blockchain for medical data access and permission management. In Open and Big Data (OBD), International Conference on . IEEE, 25–30

    work page 2016

  2. [13]

    Jason Paul Cruz, Yuichi Kaji, and Naoto Yanai. 2018. RBAC-SC: Role-Based Access Control Using Smart Contract. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 12240–12251

    work page 2018

  3. [25]

    Thomas Hardjono and Alex Sandy Pentland. 2016. Verifiable Anonymous Identi- ties and Access Control in Permissioned Blockchains. manuscript in preparation (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [55]

    Shangping Wang, Yinglong Zhang, and Yaling Zhang. 2018. A blockchain-based framework for data sharing with fine-grained access control in decentralized storage systems. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 38437–38450

    work page 2018

  5. [1]

    Shorouq Alansari, Federica Paci, Andrea Margheri, and Vladimiro Sassone. 2017. Privacy-preserving access control in cloud federations. In Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2017 IEEE 10th International Conference on . IEEE, 757–760

    work page 2017

  6. [2]

    Shorouq Alansari, Federica Paci, and Vladimiro Sassone. 2017. A distributed access control system for cloud federations. In Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on . IEEE, 2131–2136

    work page 2017

  7. [3]

    Sidney Amani, Myriam Bégel, Maksym Bortin, and Mark Staples. 2018. Towards verifying ethereum smart contract bytecode in Isabelle/HOL. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs . ACM, 66–77

    work page 2018

  8. [4]

    Parwat Singh Anjana, Sweta Kumari, Sathya Peri, Sachin Rathor, and Archit So- mani. 2018. An Efficient Framework for Concurrent Execution of Smart Contracts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01326 (2018)

    arXiv 2018

Show all 66 references
  1. [6]

    John Bethencourt, Amit Sahai, and Brent Waters. 2007. Ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption. In Security and Privacy, 2007. SP’07. IEEE Sympo- sium on. IEEE, 321–334

    2007

  2. [7]

    Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Antoine Delignat-Lavaud, Cédric Fournet, Anitha Gol- lamudi, Georges Gonthier, Nadim Kobeissi, Natalia Kulatova, Aseem Rastogi, Thomas Sibut-Pinote, Nikhil Swamy, et al. 2016. Formal verification of smart contracts: Short paper. In Proceedings of the 201...

    2016

  3. [8]

    Thomas Bocek, Bruno B Rodrigues, Tim Strasser, and Burkhard Stiller. 2017. Blockchains everywhere-a use-case of blockchains in the pharma supply-chain. In 2017 IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Network and Service Management (IM) . IEEE, 772–777

    2017

  4. [9]

    Santiago Bragagnolo, Henrique Rocha, Marcus Denker, and Stéphane Ducasse

  5. [10]

    Wei Cai, Zehua Wang, Jason B Ernst, Zhen Hong, Chen Feng, and Victor CM Leung. 2018. Decentralized applications: The blockchain-empowered software system. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 53019–53033

    2018

  6. [11]

    Seraphin Calo, Dinesh Verma, Supriyo Chakraborty, Elisa Bertino, Emil Lupu, and Gregory Cirincione. 2018. Self-Generation of Access Control Policies. (2018), 39–47

    2018

  7. [12]

    Si Chen, Rui Shi, Zhuangyu Ren, Jiaqi Yan, Yani Shi, and Jinyu Zhang. 2017. A blockchain-based supply chain quality management framework. In 2017 IEEE 14th International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE) . IEEE, 172–176

    2017

  8. [14]

    Gaby G Dagher, Jordan Mohler, Matea Milojkovic, and Praneeth Babu Marella

  9. [15]

    Yves-Alexandre De Montjoye, Erez Shmueli, Samuel S Wang, and Alex Sandy Pentland. 2014. openpds: Protecting the privacy of metadata through safeanswers. PloS one 9, 7 (2014), e98790

    2014

  10. [16]

    Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018), 283–297

    Ancile: Privacy-preserving framework for access control and interoperabil- ity of electronic health records using blockchain technology. Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018), 283–297

    2018

  11. [17]

    Damiano DI FRANCESCO MAESA, Paolo Mori, and LAURA EMILIA Ricci. 2018. Blockchain based access control services. In IEEE Symposium on Recent Advances on Blockchain and its Applications, Canada,

    2018

  12. [18]

    Ralph Deters. 2017. Decentralized Access Control with Distributed Ledgers. University of Saskatchewan Cloud Robotics (2017)

    2017

  13. [19]

    Sheng Ding, Jin Cao, Chen Li, Kai Fan, and Hui Li. 2019. A Novel Attribute- Based Access Control Scheme Using Blockchain for IoT. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 38431–38441

    2019

  14. [20]

    Thomas Dickerson, Paul Gazzillo, Maurice Herlihy, and Eric Koskinen. 2017. Adding concurrency to smart contracts. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing . ACM, 303–312

    2017

  15. [21]

    Chethana Dukkipati, Yunpeng Zhang, and Liang Chieh Cheng. 2018. Decen- tralized, BlockChain Based Access Control Framework for the Heterogeneous Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Workshop on Attribute-Based Access Control. ACM, 61–69

    2018

  16. [22]

    Yuhao Dong, Woojung Kim, and Raouf Boutaba. 2018. Conifer: centrally-managed PKI with blockchain-rooted trust. In IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain)

    2018

  17. [23]

    Md Sadek Ferdous, Andrea Margheri, Federica Paci, Mu Yang, and Vladimiro Sassone. 2017. Decentralised runtime monitoring for access control systems in cloud federations. In Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on. IEEE, 2632–2633

    2017

  18. [24]

    Hamza Es-Samaali, Aissam Outchakoucht, and J. P. Leroy. 2017. A Blockchain- based Access Control for Big Data

    2017

  19. [26]

    Simon Godik and Tim Moses. 2002. Oasis extensible access control markup language (xacml). OASIS Committee Secification cs-xacml-specification-1.0 (2002)

    2002

  20. [27]

    Junbeom Hur and Dong Kun Noh. 2011. Attribute-based access control with efficient revocation in data outsourcing systems. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 22, 7 (2011), 1214–1221

    2011

  21. [28]

    Shuang Hu, Lin Hou, Gongliang Chen, Jian Weng, and Jianhua Li. 2018. Reputation-based Distributed Knowledge Sharing System in Blockchain. In Pro- ceedings of the 15th EAI International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services . ACM, 476–481

    2018

  22. [29]

    Kari Korpela, Jukka Hallikas, and Tomi Dahlberg. 2017. Digital supply chain transformation toward blockchain integration. In proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences

    2017

  23. [30]

    Mayssa Jemel and Ahmed Serhrouchni. 2017. Decentralized access control mech- anism with temporal dimension based on blockchain. In 2017 IEEE 14th Interna- tional Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE) . IEEE, 177–182

    2017

  24. [31]

    Jiangtao Li and Ninghui Li. 2006. OACerts: Oblivious attribute certificates. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 3, 4 (2006), 340–352

    2006

  25. [32]

    Tam Le and Matt W Mutka. 2018. CapChain: A Privacy Preserving Access Control Framework Based on Blockchain for Pervasive Environments. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP) . IEEE, 57–64

    2018

  26. [33]

    Loi Luu, Duc-Hiep Chu, Hrishi Olickel, Prateek Saxena, and Aquinas Hobor

  27. [34]

    Dong Liu and Ralph Deters. 2008. Management of service-oriented systems. Service Oriented Computing and Applications 2, 2-3 (2008), 51–64

    2008

  28. [35]

    Damiano Di Francesco Maesa, Paolo Mori, and Laura Ricci. 2017. Blockchain based access control. In IFIP International Conference on Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems. Springer, 206–220

    2017

  29. [36]

    Damiano Di Francesco Maesa, Paolo Mori, and Laura Ricci. 2019. A blockchain based approach for the definition of auditable Access Control systems.Computers & Security (2019)

    2019

  30. [37]

    Mingxin Ma, Guozhen Shi, and Fenghua Li. 2019. Privacy-Oriented Blockchain- Based Distributed Key Management Architecture for Hierarchical Access Control in the IoT Scenario. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 34045–34059

    2019

  31. [38]

    Aafaf Ouaddah, Anas Abou Elkalam, and Abdellah Ait Ouahman. 2016. FairAc- cess: a new Blockchain-based access control framework for the Internet of Things. Security and Communication Networks 9, 18 (2016), 5943–5964

    2016

  32. [39]

    Aafaf Ouaddah, Anas Abou Elkalam, and Abdellah Ait Ouahman. 2017. To- wards a novel privacy-preserving access control model based on blockchain technology in IoT. In Europe and MENA Cooperation Advances in Information and Communication Technologies. Springer, 523–533

    2017

  33. [40]

    Oscar Novo. 2018. Blockchain meets IoT: An architecture for scalable access management in IoT. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 5, 2 (2018), 1184–1195

    2018

  34. [41]

    Otto Julio Ahlert Pinno, Andre Ricardo Abed Gregio, and Luis CE De Bona. 2017. ControlChain: Blockchain as a Central Enabler for Access Control Authorizations in the IoT. In GLOBECOM 2017-2017 IEEE Global Communications Conference . IEEE, 1–6

    2017

  35. [42]

    Rouhani, L

    S. Rouhani, L. Butterworth, A. D. Dimmond, D. G. Humphery, and R. Deters

  36. [43]

    Jordi Paillisse, jordi Subira, Alber Lopez, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Erma- gan, Fabio Maino, and Albert Cabellos. 2019. Distributed Access Control with Blockchain. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03568 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Sara Rouhani, Vahid pourheidari, and Ralph Deters. 2018. Physical Access Control Management System Based on Permissioned Blockchain. In 2018 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, P...

    2018

  38. [45]

    Amit Sahai and Brent Waters. 2005. Fuzzy identity-based encryption. In An- nual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 457–473

    2005

  39. [46]

    MediChainTM: A Secure Decentralized Medical Data Asset Management System. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (Sm...

    2018

  40. [47]

    Sara Rouhani and Ralph Deters. 2019. Security, Performance, and Applications of Smart Contracts: A Systematic Survey. IEEE ACCESS 7 (2019), 50759–50779

    2019

  41. [48]

    Mayra Samaniego, Cristian Espana, and Ralph Deters. 2019. Access Control Management for Plant Phenotyping Using Integrated Blockchain. In Proceed- ings of the 2019 ACM International Symposium on Blockchain and Secure Critical Infrastructure. ACM, 39–46. Web Intelligence ’19, O...

    2019

  42. [49]

    Ken Shirriff. 2014. Hidden surprises in the Bitcoin blockchain and how they are stored: Nelson Mandela, Wikileaks, photos, and Python software.Ken ShirriffâĂŹs blog (accessed July 2017) http://www. righto. com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks- photographs. html (2014)

    2014

  43. [50]

    Mayra Samaniego and Ralph Deters. 2016. Blockchain as a Service for IoT. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (Sma...

    2016

  44. [51]

    Mayra Samaniego and Ralph Deters. 2017. Internet of smart things-iost: Using blockchain and clips to make things autonomous. In 2017 IEEE international conference on cognitive computing (ICCC) . IEEE, 9–16

    2017

  45. [52]

    Qi Xia, Emmanuel Boateng Sifah, Kwame Omono Asamoah, Jianbin Gao, Xiao- jiang Du, and Mohsen Guizani. 2017. MeDShare: Trust-less medical data sharing among cloud service providers via blockchain.IEEE Access 5 (2017), 14757–14767

    2017

  46. [53]

    Bin Cedric Xing, Mark Shanahan, and Rebekah Leslie-Hurd. 2016. Intel® Soft- ware Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX) Software Support for Dynamic Memory Allocation inside an Enclave. In Proceedings of the Hardware and Architectural Support for Security and Privacy 2016 . ACM, 11

    2016

  47. [54]

    Alexandru Stanciu. 2017. Blockchain based distributed control system for edge computing. In 2017 21st International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science (CSCS). IEEE, 667–671

    2017

  48. [56]

    Shixiong Yao, Jing Chen, Kun He, Ruiying Du, Tianqing Zhu, and Xin Chen

  49. [57]

    Xiaoshuai Zhang and Stefan Poslad. 2018. Blockchain Support for Flexible Queries with Granular Access Control to Electronic Medical Records (EMR). In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) . IEEE, 1–6

    2018

  50. [58]

    Lei Xu, Nolan Shah, Lin Chen, Nour Diallo, Zhimin Gao, Yang Lu, and Wei- dong Shi. 2017. Enabling the sharing economy: Privacy respecting contract based on public blockchain. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies and Contracts. ACM, 15–21

    2017

  51. [59]

    Zhu Yan, Guhua Gan, and Khaled Riad. 2017. BC-PDS: protecting privacy and self-sovereignty through BlockChains for OpenPDS. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE) . IEEE, 138–144

    2017

  52. [60]

    Guy Zyskind, Oz Nathan, et al. 2015. Decentralizing privacy: Using blockchain to protect personal data. In Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), 2015 IEEE . IEEE, 180–184

    2015

  53. [63]

    Yan Zhu, Yao Qin, Guohua Gan, Yang Shuai, and William Cheng-Chung Chu

  54. [64]

    In 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Vol

    TBAC: transaction-based access control on blockchain for resource sharing with cryptographically decentralized authorization. In 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Vol. 1. IEEE, 535– 544

    2018

  55. [65]

    Yan Zhu, Yao Qin, Zhiyuan Zhou, Xiaoxu Song, Guowei Liu, and William Cheng- Chung Chu. 2018. Digital Asset Management with Distributed Permission over Blockchain and Attribute-Based Access Control. In 2018 IEEE International Con- ference on Services Computing (SCC) . IEEE, 193–200

    2018

  56. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    Making smart contracts smarter. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security . ACM, 254–269

    2016

  57. [2018]

    In 2018 International Work- shop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE)

    SmartInspect: solidity smart contract inspector. In 2018 International Work- shop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE) . IEEE, 9–18

    2018

  58. [2019]

    IEEE Access 7 (2019), 6117–6128

    PBCert: Privacy-Preserving Blockchain-Based Certificate Status Validation Toward Mass Storage Management. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 6117–6128

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.