Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

PM-Dedup: Secure Deduplication with Partial Migration from Cloud to Edge Servers

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PM-Dedup cuts secure cloud deduplication latency by moving deduplication checks and proof-of-ownership from the cloud to SGX-protected edge servers, with up to 81.8% lower upload latency than DupLESS on a backup-heavy dataset.

desk verdict Architecture is new and plausible, but the headline latency reduction is an artifact of an assumed cloud/edge multiplier rather than a measured result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02350 v1 pith:PI4Y4QNQ submitted 2025-01-04 cs.CR cs.NI

Zhaokang Ke , Haoyu Gong , David H.C. Du This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.NI
keywords securededuplicationencryptedtrustedexecutionenvironmentIntelSGXedgecomputingproofofownershipshareindexcloudstorage
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

PM-Dedup tries to solve a three-way tension in encrypted cloud storage: deduplication requires identical data to produce identical ciphertexts, but the standard source-based approach that saves bandwidth adds latency and cloud-side computation because every upload requires a deduplication check and a proof-of-ownership (PoW) round trip. The paper's proposal is to move part of that work from the cloud to an organization's edge servers, inside Intel SGX enclaves, using a cloud-selected share-index and precomputed challenge-response pairs. If the central claim is right, clients in redundant, branch-office workloads will see much lower upload latency—up to 81.8% less than the DupLESS baseline on the LAB dataset—without giving up the bandwidth savings of source-based deduplication or the confidentiality of client-side encryption.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a tiered deduplication checkpoint at the edge, guarded by SGX. The cloud maintains a full-index of encrypted-chunk fingerprints and periodically selects a share-index using Count-Min Sketch, a space-efficient frequency estimator, optionally combined with logical-locality scoring from file recipes; this share-index and a set of precomputed challenge-response pairs for file- and chunk-level Proof of Ownership are stored inside the edge server's SGX enclave. When a client uploads, the edge server first checks a local LRU index, then the share-index, then escalates to the cloud only on a miss. Precomputed challenges let the edge verify ownership without real-time cryptographic computation, which is what makes the edge offload feasible given the enclave's limited compute.

What would settle it

Deploy the prototype with real WAN links between client, edge, and cloud and measure upload latency for the LAB workload; if the measured cloud-to-edge latency ratio is close to 1, the latency reduction versus DupLESS should drop well below 81.8%, showing how much of the result depends on the assumed latency model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that most of the latency and cloud overhead in secure source-based deduplication comes from cloud round trips for duplicate checking and PoW verification, and that these round trips can be largely eliminated by relocating the check to a client-side edge server while keeping the security properties intact. PM-Dedup does this by having the cloud precompute PoW challenges and responses for frequently accessed files and chunks, select a compact share-index of high-value fingerprints, and ship both to an SGX enclave on the edge server. The client then proves ownership and checks duplicates against the edge server first, using a local LRU index, then the share-index, then the cloud only as fallback. The paper reports that on backup-style datasets with high redundancy this design cuts overall upload latency by up to 81.8% versus DupLESS, and by smaller but positive margins on lower-redundancy datasets, while preserving deduplication effectiveness.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that the cloud-to-edge latency ratio measured in a public study, with an average of 50.96 and median of 17.79, applies to the target deployment and uses that ratio to scale cloud latency instead of measuring real WAN latency; if the true ratio is much lower, the reported latency gains shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In high-redundancy backup workloads, most deduplication checks and PoW verifications complete at the edge, so cloud round trips stop being the latency bottleneck.
  • Cloud-side computational load from duplicate checks, challenge generation, and response verification is reduced because the cloud only handles share-index misses and periodic precomputation.
  • The same security model as server-aided message-locked encryption with PoW is preserved: clients still encrypt with key-server-derived keys and must prove ownership before deduplicating.
  • Because only unique chunks are uploaded, bandwidth savings are retained while latency drops, which is the combination target-based deduplication cannot offer.
  • The share-index plus locality selection keeps deduplication effectiveness close to exact frequency-based selection while using less memory and generation time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 81.8% figure is tied to the assumed cloud-to-edge latency ratio, with an average ratio of about 51 from a public measurement study; in deployments where the cloud is only a few times slower than the edge, the latency savings will shrink and may not justify the extra edge hop.
  • The scheme inherits SGX's security boundary, so a practical SGX side-channel or denial-of-service attack would undercut the confidentiality argument that the migration relies on; the paper explicitly acknowledges this assumption.
  • The share-index is a heuristic, so its hit ratio depends on workload stability; workloads dominated by brand-new data could see negative returns from the extra edge checkpoint.
  • A natural extension would be adaptive share-index updates based on measured hit ratios, and a real-WAN evaluation across multiple branches to validate the latency model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The paper proposes PM-Dedup, a source-based encrypted deduplication system that migrates part of the deduplication-checking and Proof-of-Ownership (PoW) workload from the cloud to SGX enclaves on organization edge servers. The cloud pre-computes challenges and responses, builds a share-index, and pushes these to edge enclaves; the edge server performs local and share-index checks and PoW verification, escalating only misses to the cloud. The authors evaluate a prototype on five real-world datasets and report latency reductions versus DupLESS and SGXDedup, with a headline 81.8% reduction in overall upload latency on the LAB dataset while preserving deduplication effectiveness and confidentiality.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are substantiated, PM-Dedup would be a useful practical step for secure deduplication in multi-branch organizations: the system is fully implemented (~3.2K lines of C), evaluated on five real-world traces, and the design is clearly motivated. The paper is also honest about its SGX security assumptions. The main contribution is credible as an architecture, but the central latency-reduction numbers currently rest on two fragile evaluation choices: an unvalidated cloud/edge latency multiplier and non-implemented comparison baselines. The share-index selection study is a genuine strength, especially the comparison of CMS, CMS+locality, and exact-frequency selection on real traces.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1, Table 2 and Figure 2; Section 6.2, Figures 3-5] The overall latency results, including the headline 81.8% reduction versus DupLESS on the LAB dataset, are computed by scaling cloud interactions with the external average latency ratio of 50.96 from the Charyyev et al. study; no WAN latency is measured in the testbed, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. Since Figure 2 shows a strongly right-skewed distribution (over 75% of users have ratios above 8.5 while the average is 50.96), the reported savings are not robust to the choice of multiplier. The authors should either measure cloud-to-edge latency in their deployment or present Figures 3-5 for a range of representative ratios (e.g., 8.5, 17.79, 50.96) and report how the latency reductions vary.
  2. [Section 6.2] The comparison with DupLESS and SGXDedup is explicitly described as "based on the conceptual frameworks and methodologies outlined in these approaches," meaning the baseline latencies in Figures 3-5 are not measured from running these systems. The claimed reductions are therefore model-based estimates whose accuracy depends on unstated assumptions about the number of cloud round trips, PoW costs, and transfer costs in those baselines. The authors should either implement or run the baselines, or clearly present the comparison as an analytical model and validate the model's per-stage cost components against direct measurements.
  3. [Section 4.2, Algorithm 4] The pseudocode in Algorithm 4 returns false when the file hash d is not found in the file-level map F, whereas the surrounding text states that the edge server then proceeds to verify each chunk at chunk level. The VerifyChunks function is only invoked when file-level verification fails, not when the file is absent from F. This internal inconsistency means the dual-level PoW procedure cannot be executed as described. The algorithm should call VerifyChunks (or an equivalent chunk-level routine) in the else branch, and the seed sent to the client should be drawn from the challenge array rather than the response array.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Section 7] The conclusion claims PM-Dedup works "without compromising security," but the security argument relies entirely on the assumption that the SGX enclave operates as intended, with the paper explicitly acknowledging that SGX is vulnerable to denial-of-service and side-channel attacks. No security evaluation, formal analysis, or experimental validation is provided for the threat model. This is especially important because source-based deduplication is known to be vulnerable to side-channel attacks from malicious clients. The authors should temper the security claim or add a concrete analysis of the residual risks and the conditions under which the confidentiality guarantees hold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Algorithm 4] The variable "idu" used in Algorithm 4 is not defined in the data structure description; the text defines "idc" and "cidc" as the index counters. The algorithm should use the defined counters consistently.
  2. [Section 6.3] The sentence "Figure 8 shows that the CMS approach yields the highest generation speed" appears to refer to the generation-speed results, which are plotted in Figure 7; Figure 8 shows the MS deduplication ratio. The cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Sections 1, 4, and 6.2] There are several typos and heading issues: Section 1 is titled "Introductions," Section 4 is titled "Design ISSUES," and Section 6.2 contains "lcoal-index" in the paragraph before Figure 3. These should be fixed.
  4. [Section 6.2] The latency measurements are reported as single-point values from ten runs without confidence intervals or variances. Reporting the spread would make the comparisons more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the latency-reduction claim is a conditional evaluation under an externally assumed cloud/edge latency ratio, not a self-referential fit.

full rationale

PM-Dedup's central claim is that moving deduplication checks and PoW to edge servers reduces latency. The evaluation in Section 6.2 measures local processing on a prototype and models WAN interactions using the Charyyev et al. latency ratio as an external baseline (Section 6.1, Table 2). This is a conditional, scenario-dependent evaluation, not a circular derivation: the ratio is not fitted to the paper's own outputs, no parameter learned from the target metric is renamed as a prediction, and the deduplication ratios and edge-side timings are independently measured. The 81.8% figure is best read as 'under the assumed 50.96x cloud/edge latency ratio and the observed LAB deduplication pattern, the computed saving is 81.8%'; the paper is explicit that the ratio is used as a baseline for subsequent experiments. The unvalidated ratio and the acknowledged SGX security assumption (Section 3.3) are validity and robustness limitations, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. The only self-citation, reference [5] as the source of the GCC dataset, is not load-bearing. Therefore no circular step rises to the level required by the rubric.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or cryptographic entity is introduced; the share-index and pre-computed challenge structures are system components, not ontologically new entities. The ledger records the assumptions and hand-chosen parameters that the central performance and security claims rest on.

free parameters (4)
  • K (PoW challenge bits) = unspecified; proportional to file/chunk size
    Security parameter for ownership verification, chosen by system designers; no concrete value or analysis of the trade-off is given (Section 4.2).
  • CMS/locality split = 90% CMS, 10% locality
    In the share-index evaluation, the combined selector uses a fixed 90/10 allocation (Section 6.3); no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Proximity threshold T = not specified
    Algorithm 2 takes T as input, but the paper never states a value or how it is set.
  • Share-index update period = updates at snapshots 10 and 20
    In dedup ratio experiments, the share-index is refreshed only twice; update thresholds are not derived (Section 6.3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SGX enclave provides isolation, attestation, and sealing against a partially trusted edge host
    Section 3.3 states 'Secure SGX Operation' as an assumption despite known SGX side channels; the entire security migration depends on it.
  • domain assumption The cloud/edge latency ratio measured by Charyyev et al. is representative of the target multi-branch deployment
    Section 6.1 uses these ratios as a baseline to scale cloud latency in all subsequent latency experiments.
  • standard math A malicious client cannot guess K random bits of a file/chunk it does not own
    Section 4.2 relies on this cryptographic assumption for PoW, citing [7]; no formal proof is given.
  • domain assumption The MLE key generation via the key server is resilient to brute-force attacks
    Explicitly assumed in Section 3.3; the system inherits server-aided MLE security from the key server design.
  • domain assumption The five datasets represent realistic deduplication workloads
    Used for evaluation; LAB is a self-collected dataset not publicly available (Table 1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PM-Dedup: Secure Deduplication with Partial Migration from Cloud to Edge Servers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PI4Y4QNQ

@misc{pith2026250102350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PM-Dedup: Secure Deduplication with Partial Migration from Cloud to Edge Servers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PI4Y4QNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02350}
}
read the original abstract

Currently, an increasing number of users and enterprises are storing their data in the cloud but do not fully trust cloud providers with their data in plaintext form. To address this concern, they encrypt their data before uploading it to the cloud. However, encryption with different keys means that even identical data will become different ciphertexts, making deduplication less effective. Encrypted deduplication avoids this issue by ensuring that identical data chunks generate the same ciphertext with content-based keys, enabling the cloud to efficiently identify and remove duplicates even in encrypted form. Current encrypted data deduplication work can be classified into two types: target-based and source-based. Target-based encrypted deduplication requires clients to upload all encrypted chunks (the basic unit of deduplication) to the cloud with high network bandwidth overhead. Source-based deduplication involves clients uploading fingerprints (hashes) of encrypted chunks for duplicate checking and only uploading unique encrypted chunks, which reduces network transfer but introduces high latency and potential side-channel attacks, which need to be mitigated by Proof of Ownership (PoW), and high computing overhead of the cloud. So, reducing the latency and the overheads of network and cloud while ensuring security has become a significant challenge for secure data deduplication in cloud storage. In response to this challenge, we present PM-Dedup, a novel secure source-based deduplication approach that relocates a portion of the deduplication checking process and PoW tasks from the cloud to the trusted execution environments (TEEs) in the client-side edge servers. We also propose various designs to enhance the security and efficiency of data deduplication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PM-Dedup architecture. patterns evolve. 3.3 Threat Model In this section, we detail the threat model and security as￾sumptions of PM-Dedup. Honest-but-Curious Cloud Server: The cloud server is trusted to perform its operations correctly, such as managing storage and handling deduplication processes [3]. However, it is considered curious, meaning it may attempt to infer in￾formation from the data it stores. To protec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overall latency comparison ecuted the experiments 10 times. Each time, we randomly selected several snapshots pre-uploaded to the cloud and up￾loaded a different snapshot to measure its latency. We stan￾dardized all latency results to the equivalent of 1 GB of data upload for consistency. The following sections will analyze how PM-Dedup optimizes each stage of the data upload pro￾cess to improve overall latency redu… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Ownership verfication latency 0.44 0.73 1.64 1.72 0.51 0.88 1.61 1.68 0.68 0.99 1.81 1.93 1.97 2.15 2.04 2.06 0 1 2 3 LAB UBUNTU MS GCC Deduplicate Check Latency(s) PM−Dedup PM−Dedup_Without_Local SGXDedup DupLESS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Deduplication check latency verfication latency, including the challenge-response protocol at both the edge and cloud servers. The evaluation focuses on the average latency per chunk across the dataset uploaded by the client. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MS Dataset 70 80 90 100 70 80 90 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CMS CMS+locality Frequency Snapshot Deduplication Ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Elimination ratio analysis stored at the edge server. This ratio is calculated by dividing the total size of avoidable chunks by the overall size of chunks within each trace. Our observations shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Available: https://old-releases

    Ubuntu Releases. Available: https://old-releases. ubuntu.com/releases/, 2024. Accessed: 2024-02- 26

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Message-locked encryption and secure deduplica- tion

    Mihir Bellare, Sriram Keelveedhi, and Thomas Risten- part. Message-locked encryption and secure deduplica- tion. In Annual international conference on the theory and applications of cryptographic techniques , pages 296–312. Springer, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Verifiable symmetric searchable encryption for semi-honest-but-curious cloud servers

    Qi Chai and Guang Gong. Verifiable symmetric searchable encryption for semi-honest-but-curious cloud servers. In 2012 IEEE international conference on com- munications (ICC), pages 917–922. IEEE, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Latency comparison of cloud datacenters and edge servers

    Batyr Charyyev, Engin Arslan, and Mehmet Hadi Gunes. Latency comparison of cloud datacenters and edge servers. In GLOBECOM 2020-2020 IEEE Global Com- munications Conference, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Coupling right-provisioned cold storage data centers with deduplication

    Liangfeng Cheng, Yuchong Hu, Zhaokang Ke, and Zhongjie Wu. Coupling right-provisioned cold storage data centers with deduplication. In Proceedings of the 50th International Conference on Parallel Processing, pages 1–11, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    An im- proved data stream summary: the count-min sketch and its applications

    Graham Cormode and Shan Muthukrishnan. An im- proved data stream summary: the count-min sketch and its applications. Journal of Algorithms, 55(1):58–75, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Boosting efficiency and security in proof of ownership for dedu- plication

    Roberto Di Pietro and Alessandro Sorniotti. Boosting efficiency and security in proof of ownership for dedu- plication. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM symposium on information, computer and communications security, pages 81–82, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Proof of ownership for deduplication systems: a secure, scal- able, and efficient solution

    Roberto Di Pietro and Alessandro Sorniotti. Proof of ownership for deduplication systems: a secure, scal- able, and efficient solution. Computer Communications, 82:71–82, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Distributed key generation for encrypted deduplication: Achieving the strongest privacy

    Yitao Duan. Distributed key generation for encrypted deduplication: Achieving the strongest privacy. In Proceedings of the 6th edition of the ACM Workshop on Cloud Computing Security, pages 57–68, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Proofs of ownership in remote storage systems

    Shai Halevi, Danny Harnik, Benny Pinkas, and Alexan- dra Shulman-Peleg. Proofs of ownership in remote storage systems. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM confer- ence on Computer and communications security, pages 491–500, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Side channels in cloud services: Deduplication in cloud storage

    Danny Harnik, Benny Pinkas, and Alexandra Shulman- Peleg. Side channels in cloud services: Deduplication in cloud storage. IEEE Security & Privacy, 8(6):40–47, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Securing the storage data path with sgx enclaves

    Danny Harnik, Eliad Tsfadia, Doron Chen, and Ronen Kat. Securing the storage data path with sgx enclaves. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.10883, 2018. 16

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The evolution of storage service providers: techniques and challenges to outsourcing storage

    Ragib Hasan, William Yurcik, and Suvda Myagmar. The evolution of storage service providers: techniques and challenges to outsourcing storage. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Storage Security and Survivability, pages 1–8, 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    Trusted execution environments: properties, applications, and challenges

    Patrick Jauernig, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, and Emmanuel Stapf. Trusted execution environments: properties, applications, and challenges. IEEE Security & Privacy, 18(2):56–60, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Cryptographic cloud storage

    Seny Kamara and Kristin Lauter. Cryptographic cloud storage. In International Conference on Financial Cryp- tography and Data Security, pages 136–149. Springer, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Ice- clave: A trusted execution environment for in-storage computing

    Luyi Kang, Yuqi Xue, Weiwei Jia, Xiaohao Wang, Jon- gryool Kim, Changhwan Youn, Myeong Joon Kang, Hyung Jin Lim, Bruce Jacob, and Jian Huang. Ice- clave: A trusted execution environment for in-storage computing. In MICRO-54: 54th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Micr...

    2021

  9. [17]

    {DupLESS}:{Server-Aided} encryption for dedu- plicated storage

    Sriram Keelveedhi, Mihir Bellare, and Thomas Risten- part. {DupLESS}:{Server-Aided} encryption for dedu- plicated storage. In 22nd USENIX security symposium (USENIX security 13), pages 179–194, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Shieldstore: Shielded in- memory key-value storage with sgx

    Taehoon Kim, Joongun Park, Jaewook Woo, Seungheun Jeon, and Jaehyuk Huh. Shieldstore: Shielded in- memory key-value storage with sgx. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth EuroSys Conference 2019, pages 1–15, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Safestore: A durable and practical storage system

    Ramakrishna Kotla, Lorenzo Alvisi, and Mike Dahlin. Safestore: A durable and practical storage system. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pages 129–142, 2007

    2007

  12. [20]

    Resource scheduling in edge com- puting: A survey

    Quyuan Luo, Shihong Hu, Changle Li, Guanghui Li, and Weisong Shi. Resource scheduling in edge com- puting: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 23(4):2131–2165, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Honest-but-curious nets: Sensitive attributes of private inputs can be secretly coded into the classifiers’ outputs

    Mohammad Malekzadeh, Anastasia Borovykh, and Deniz Gündüz. Honest-but-curious nets: Sensitive attributes of private inputs can be secretly coded into the classifiers’ outputs. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 825–844, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    A study of practical deduplication

    Dutch T Meyer and William J Bolosky. A study of practical deduplication. ACM Transactions on Storage (ToS), 7(4):1–20, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Secure multi-server-aided data deduplication in cloud computing

    Meixia Miao, Jianfeng Wang, Hui Li, and Xiaofeng Chen. Secure multi-server-aided data deduplication in cloud computing. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 24:129–137, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Number-theoretic con- structions of efficient pseudo-random functions.Journal of the ACM (JACM), 51(2):231–262, 2004

    Moni Naor and Omer Reingold. Number-theoretic con- structions of efficient pseudo-random functions.Journal of the ACM (JACM), 51(2):231–262, 2004

    2004

  17. [25]

    Trustore: Side- channel resistant storage for sgx using intel hybrid cpu- fpga

    Hyunyoung Oh, Adil Ahmad, Seonghyun Park, By- oungyoung Lee, and Yunheung Paek. Trustore: Side- channel resistant storage for sgx using intel hybrid cpu- fpga. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Confer- ence on Computer and Communications Security, pages 1903–1918, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Accelerating encrypted dedupli- cation via {SGX}

    Yanjing Ren, Jingwei Li, Zuoru Yang, Patrick PC Lee, and Xiaosong Zhang. Accelerating encrypted dedupli- cation via {SGX}. In 2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 21), pages 957–971, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Trusted execution environment: What it is, and what it is not

    Mohamed Sabt, Mohammed Achemlal, and Abdel- madjid Bouabdallah. Trusted execution environment: What it is, and what it is not. In 2015 IEEE Trust- com/BigDataSE/Ispa, volume 1, pages 57–64. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Capo: Recapitulating storage for virtual desk- tops

    Mohammad Shamma, Dutch T Meyer, Jake Wires, Maria Ivanova, Norman C Hutchinson, and Andrew Warfield. Capo: Recapitulating storage for virtual desk- tops. In 9th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 11), 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    A survey of secure data deduplication schemes for cloud storage systems

    Youngjoo Shin, Dongyoung Koo, and Junbeom Hur. A survey of secure data deduplication schemes for cloud storage systems. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) , 49(4):1–38, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Cisco Cloud Infrastructure

    Avinash Shukla, Jalpa Patel, Komal Panzade, and Hi- manshu Sardana. Cisco Cloud Infrastructure. Cisco Press, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Privacy-preserving and verifiable src-based face recognition with cloud/edge server assistance

    Xin Sun, Chengliang Tian, Changhui Hu, Weizhong Tian, Hanlin Zhang, and Jia Yu. Privacy-preserving and verifiable src-based face recognition with cloud/edge server assistance. Computers & Security, 118:102740, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    A long-term user-centric analysis of deduplication patterns

    Zhen Sun, Geoff Kuenning, Sonam Mandal, Philip Shi- lane, Vasily Tarasov, Nong Xiao, et al. A long-term user-centric analysis of deduplication patterns. In 2016 32nd Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Tech- nologies (MSST), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Cumulus: Filesystem backup to the cloud

    Michael Vrable, Stefan Savage, and Geoffrey M V oelker. Cumulus: Filesystem backup to the cloud. ACM Trans- actions on Storage (TOS), 5(4):1–28, 2009. 17

    2009

  26. [34]

    Characteristics of backup workloads in production systems

    Grant Wallace, Fred Douglis, Hangwei Qian, Philip Shi- lane, Stephen Smaldone, Mark Chamness, and Windsor Hsu. Characteristics of backup workloads in production systems. In FAST, volume 12, pages 4–4, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Secure ranked keyword search over encrypted cloud data

    Cong Wang, Ning Cao, Jin Li, Kui Ren, and Wenjing Lou. Secure ranked keyword search over encrypted cloud data. In 2010 IEEE 30th international confer- ence on distributed computing systems, pages 253–262. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Svtpm: Sgx-based virtual trusted platform modules for cloud computing

    Juan Wang, Jie Wang, Chengyang Fan, Fei Yan, Yue- qiang Cheng, Yinqian Zhang, Wenhui Zhang, Mengda Yang, and Hongxin Hu. Svtpm: Sgx-based virtual trusted platform modules for cloud computing. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Edge server placement in mobile edge computing

    Shangguang Wang, Yali Zhao, Jinlinag Xu, Jie Yuan, and Ching-Hsien Hsu. Edge server placement in mobile edge computing. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 127:160–168, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    {FastCDC}: A fast and efficient {Content-Defined} chunking approach for data deduplication

    Wen Xia, Yukun Zhou, Hong Jiang, Dan Feng, Yu Hua, Yuchong Hu, Qing Liu, and Yucheng Zhang. {FastCDC}: A fast and efficient {Content-Defined} chunking approach for data deduplication. In 2016 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 16), pages 101–114, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Data security and privacy protection for cloud storage: A survey

    Pan Yang, Naixue Xiong, and Jingli Ren. Data security and privacy protection for cloud storage: A survey. Ieee Access, 8:131723–131740, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Se- cure and lightweight deduplicated storage via shielded {deduplication-before-encryption}

    Zuoru Yang, Jingwei Li, and Patrick PC Lee. Se- cure and lightweight deduplicated storage via shielded {deduplication-before-encryption}. In 2022 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 22), pages 37–52, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Avoiding the disk bottleneck in the data domain deduplication file system

    Benjamin Zhu, Kai Li, and R Hugo Patterson. Avoiding the disk bottleneck in the data domain deduplication file system. In Fast, volume 8, pages 1–14, 2008. 18

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.