Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 67 references

Microbenchmarking Cloud Cryptographic Workloads for Privacy-Preserving Healthcare IoT

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Microbenchmarking identifies optimal configurations for cryptographic workloads in FaaS environments for healthcare IoT.

desk verdict The FaaS claim doesn't match the IaaS experiments, so the main results don't apply to the stated use case. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.24063 v1 pith:D7SUBGH6 submitted 2026-05-22 cs.CR

Jeremiah L. Webb , Laxima Niure Kandel , Deepti Gupta , Lavanya Elluri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords cloudsecuritycryptographicbenchmarksFaaShealthcareIoTAWSAzureperformanceevaluationprivacypreservation
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

The paper conducts a detailed performance evaluation of key cryptographic operations like SHA HMAC generation, AES encryption and decryption, ECC signature generation and verification, and RSA encryption and decryption. It tests these across FaaS platforms from AWS and Azure, using x86_64 and Arm64 architectures, six programming languages, multiple memory allocations, and burst-optimized instance types. A sympathetic reader would care because healthcare IoT devices require strong encryption that does not compromise speed or add excessive cloud costs. The work shows how specific choices in language, architecture, and resources can balance protection with practical performance. If correct, this allows designers to select setups that deliver secure and timely data handling in privacy-preserving medical applications.

What carries the argument

The multi-dimensional microbenchmark analysis that spans cloud providers, CPU architectures, programming languages, memory allocations, and instance types to measure cryptographic operation performance.

What would settle it

A production healthcare IoT system using one of the reported optimal configurations that shows no measurable improvement in latency or cost compared to non-optimal choices would falsify the identification of optima.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This study presents an extensive microbenchmark evaluating the performance of core cryptographic workloads including SHA HMAC generation, AES encryption and decryption, ECC signature generation and verification, and RSA encryption and decryption across FaaS integrated with KMS from AWS and Azure on EC2 instances and Azure Virtual Machines. The evaluation covers two CPU architectures, six programming languages, multiple memory configurations, and diverse instance types to capture interactions under typical cloud workload patterns. The central claim is that this analysis identifies optimal configurations that improve performance and cost efficiency while enabling secure and timely data protect

Load-bearing premise

The selected cryptographic workloads, FaaS platforms, programming languages, and instance types are representative of those used in real privacy-preserving healthcare IoT cloud architectures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optimal configurations improve performance and cost efficiency for cryptographic workloads in FaaS environments.
  • The benchmarks enable secure and timely data protection for healthcare IoT applications.
  • Performance varies significantly with choices of programming language, CPU architecture, and memory allocation.
  • Burst-optimized instance types capture realistic cloud workload patterns for the tested operations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same benchmarking approach could be extended to additional cloud providers or other cryptographic primitives not tested here.
  • Results might guide selection of language and architecture when deploying similar security layers in non-healthcare IoT domains.
  • Integration of these findings into automated configuration tools could reduce manual tuning for developers building cloud-backed IoT systems.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a microbenchmark study of cryptographic workloads (SHA HMAC, AES encrypt/decrypt, ECC sign/verify, RSA encrypt/decrypt) on AWS and Azure, evaluating performance across x86_64/Arm64 architectures, six languages (Rust/Go/Python/Java/C#/TypeScript), memory sizes, and burst-optimized instance types. It claims to identify optimal configurations for FaaS environments integrated with KMS to support privacy-preserving healthcare IoT.

Significance. If the platform scope were corrected, the direct empirical measurements could supply useful performance and cost data for crypto primitives in cloud healthcare settings; the work contains no derivations or invented entities that would introduce circularity.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim requires results to apply to FaaS (e.g., Lambda/Azure Functions), yet the text states 'We evaluate FaaS platforms using Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) instances and Azure Virtual Machines'. EC2 and Azure VMs are IaaS, not serverless FaaS; this mismatch means the reported 'optimal configurations' do not address the stated FaaS target and undermine applicability to healthcare IoT architectures.
  2. [Abstract] Methods/Experimental Design (implied by abstract): no details are supplied on number of repetitions, statistical tests, variance reporting, or raw data release, preventing verification that measured differences support the optimality claims.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrasing 'FaaS platforms using EC2 instances' is internally contradictory and should be clarified or corrected in the title, abstract, and introduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important issues of clarity in the abstract that we will address through revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim requires results to apply to FaaS (e.g., Lambda/Azure Functions), yet the text states 'We evaluate FaaS platforms using Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) instances and Azure Virtual Machines'. EC2 and Azure VMs are IaaS, not serverless FaaS; this mismatch means the reported 'optimal configurations' do not address the stated FaaS target and undermine applicability to healthcare IoT architectures.

    Authors: We agree the abstract wording is imprecise and creates an unintended mismatch. The experiments use burst-optimized EC2 and Azure VM instances specifically to capture performance characteristics relevant to FaaS workloads when integrated with KMS under bursty patterns typical of IoT data flows. We will revise the abstract to describe the platform accurately as virtualized instances configured for FaaS-like burst behavior, while preserving the focus on optimal configurations for privacy-preserving healthcare IoT. This correction will align the claims with the experimental setup. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Methods/Experimental Design (implied by abstract): no details are supplied on number of repetitions, statistical tests, variance reporting, or raw data release, preventing verification that measured differences support the optimality claims.

    Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise and does not contain full methodological specifications; these are detailed in the Experimental Design and Results sections of the full manuscript, including repetition counts, statistical comparisons of performance differences, variance reporting, and data release plans. To improve accessibility, we will add a brief statement in the abstract noting the experimental rigor and directing readers to the supporting sections and data availability. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical microbenchmarking study exhibits no circularity

full rationale

The paper consists entirely of direct empirical measurements of cryptographic operation latencies across languages, architectures, and instance types. No derivation chain, first-principles result, fitted model, or prediction is present; optimal configurations are simply reported from the collected data. None of the enumerated circularity patterns apply.

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

This is an empirical benchmarking study. No parameters are fitted to data as the work measures performance rather than modeling it. No new axioms or entities are introduced beyond standard cryptographic primitives and cloud computing assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microbenchmarking Cloud Cryptographic Workloads for Privacy-Preserving Healthcare IoT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7SUBGH6

@misc{pith2026260524063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microbenchmarking Cloud Cryptographic Workloads for Privacy-Preserving Healthcare IoT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7SUBGH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.24063}
}
read the original abstract

Cryptographic operations are an essential component of cloud security architectures; their comprehensive performance characterization across different cloud services, hardware architectures, and programming language implementations remains unknown. Specifically, healthcare IoT devices are highly vulnerable and frequently targeted, yet the cryptographic performance trade offs in their cloud security architectures remain poorly understood. This research presents an extensive microbenchmark study evaluating the performance of core cryptographic workloads, including SHA HMAC generation, AES encryption, decryption, Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) signature generation and verification, and RSA encryption, decryption, across Function as a Service (FaaS) integrated with Key Management Services (KMS) from Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure. We evaluate FaaS platforms using Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) instances and Azure Virtual Machines, specifically using burst optimized instance types to analyze performance under typical cloud workload patterns. The benchmark encompasses a comprehensive multi dimensional analysis spanning two CPU architectures (x86 64 and Arm64), six widely adopted programming languages (Rust, Go, Python, Java, C#, and TypeScript), multiple memory allocation configurations, and diverse instance types to capture the complex interplay between these factors. This study identifies optimal configurations for cryptographic workloads in FaaS environments, improving performance and cost efficiency while enabling secure and timely data protection for healthcare IoT applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24063 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Azure and AWS FaaS microbenchmark architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The flow of execution and data collection for FaaS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FaaS SHA256 HMAC Generation Metrics. (a) Mean Execution Time (ms) by memory size, (b) Mean of max memory (MB) consumption by memory size, (c) Heat Map of Warm execution speed percentage difference between x86 64 and Arm64. However, this economic advantage is often counterbalanced by increased execution latency, which is especially pronounced in cryptographic operations with complex or larger key sizes (e.g., RSA2048… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FaaS AES256 Encrypt/Decrypt Metrics. (a)–(c) show Encrypt metrics: (a) Mean execution time (ms) by memory size, (b) Mean of max memory (MB) consumption by memory size, (c) Heat map of warm execution speed percentage difference between x86 64 and Arm64. (d)–(f) show the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FaaS ECC256 Sign/Verify Metrics. (a)–(c) show Sign metrics: (a) Mean execution time (ms) by memory size, (b) Mean of max memory (MB) consumption by memory size, (c) Heat map of warm execution speed percentage difference between x86 64 and Arm64. (d)–(f) show the corres…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FaaS RSA2048 Encrypt/Decrypt Metrics. (a)–(c) show the Encrypt metrics: (a) Mean execution time (ms) by memory size, (b) Mean of max memory (MB) consumption by memory size, (c) Heat map of warm execution speed percentage difference between x86 64 and Arm64. (d)–(f) sho…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The nist definition of cloud computing,

    P. Mell and T. Grance, “The nist definition of cloud computing,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security Division, Information Technology Laboratory, Tech. Rep., 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Pricing cloud iaas computing services,

    N. Dimitri, “Pricing cloud iaas computing services,”Journal of Cloud Computing, vol. 9, no. 1, Dec 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Optimization of resource provision- ing cost in cloud computing,

    S. Chaisiri, B. Lee, and D. Niyato, “Optimization of resource provision- ing cost in cloud computing,”IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 5, pp. 164–177, Feb 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Configuring aws lambda memory,

    I. Amazon Web Services, “Configuring aws lambda memory,” AWS Documentation, 2025, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/ lambda/latest/dg/configuration-memory.html. Accessed: Feb 21, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Sebs: A serverless benchmark suite for function-as-a-service comput- ing,

    M. Copik, G. Kwasniewski, M. Besta, M. Podstawski, and T. Hoefler, “Sebs: A serverless benchmark suite for function-as-a-service comput- ing,” inProceedings of the 22nd International Middleware Conference, Qu´ebec City, Canada, 2021, pp. 64–78

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Estimating cloud application performance based on micro-benchmark profiling,

    J. Scheuner and P. Leitner, “Estimating cloud application performance based on micro-benchmark profiling,” in2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), San Francisco, CA, USA, 2018, pp. 90–97

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Design of a secure encryption model (sem) for cloud data storage using hadamard transforms,

    S. Srisakthi and A. P. Shanthi, “Design of a secure encryption model (sem) for cloud data storage using hadamard transforms,”Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 1727–1741, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Nist special publication 800-57 part 1 revision 5 recommen- dation for key management: Part 1-general,

    E. Barker, “Nist special publication 800-57 part 1 revision 5 recommen- dation for key management: Part 1-general,” NIST, Tech. Rep., May 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Comparative analysis of key management service performance on aws, google cloud, and oracle cloud with performance testing,

    A. Susanto, A. H. Fathulloh, Nuryasin, and A. Fitriyani, “Comparative analysis of key management service performance on aws, google cloud, and oracle cloud with performance testing,” in2023 11th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM), Makassar, Ind...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Xfbench: A cross-cloud benchmark suite for evalu- ating faas workflow platforms,

    V . Kulkarniet al., “Xfbench: A cross-cloud benchmark suite for evalu- ating faas workflow platforms,” inIEEE 24th International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing (CCGrid), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2024, pp. 543–556

    2024

  3. [11]

    Practical cloud workloads for serverless faas,

    J. Kim and K. Lee, “Practical cloud workloads for serverless faas,” in Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SoCC ’19). New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, p. 477

    2019

  4. [12]

    Configuring function memory (aws lambda),

    I. Amazon Web Services, “Configuring function memory (aws lambda),” AWS Documentation, Feb 21 2025, online. Available: https:// docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/configuration-memory.html. Ac- cessed: March 3, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Consumption plan hosting,

    M. Corporation, “Consumption plan hosting,” Microsoft Learn, Feb 21 2025, online. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ azure-functions/consumption-plan. Accessed: March 3, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Functionbench: A suite of workloads for serverless cloud function service,

    J. Kim and K. Lee, “Functionbench: A suite of workloads for serverless cloud function service,” in2019 IEEE 12th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Milan, Italy, 2019, pp. 502–504

    2019

  7. [15]

    Comparing aws lambda arm vs. x86 performance, cost, and analysis,

    J. Roig, D. Choudhury, J. DeMuth, and R. Singla, “Comparing aws lambda arm vs. x86 performance, cost, and analysis,” AWS Partner Network (APN), Oct 24 2023, online. Available: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/apn/ comparing-aws-lambda-arm-vs-x86-performance-cost-and-analysis-2/. A...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Task scheduling in cloud computing using particle swarm optimization with time varying inertia weight strategies,

    X. Huang, C. Li, H. Chenet al., “Task scheduling in cloud computing using particle swarm optimization with time varying inertia weight strategies,”Cluster Computing, vol. 23, pp. 1137–1147, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Beyond microbenchmarks: The spec-rg vision for a comprehensive serverless benchmark,

    E. van Eyk, J. Scheuner, S. Eismann, C. L. Abad, and A. Iosup, “Beyond microbenchmarks: The spec-rg vision for a comprehensive serverless benchmark,” ser. ICPE ’20. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, p. 26–31. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10...

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Patterns in the chaos – a study of performance variation and predictability in public iaas clouds,

    P. Leitner and J. Cito, “Patterns in the chaos – a study of performance variation and predictability in public iaas clouds,”ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 15:1–15:23, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Software microbenchmarking in the cloud. how bad is it really?

    C. Laaber, J. Scheuner, and P. Leitner, “Software microbenchmarking in the cloud. how bad is it really?”Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2469–2508, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Cloud work bench – infrastructure-as-code based cloud benchmarking,

    J. Scheuner, P. Leitner, J. Cito, and H. Gall, “Cloud work bench – infrastructure-as-code based cloud benchmarking,” in2014 IEEE 6th International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science, Singapore, 2014, pp. 246–253

    2014

  13. [21]

    Automated in- frastructure as code program testing,

    D. Sokolowski, D. Spielmann, and G. Salvaneschi, “Automated in- frastructure as code program testing,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1585–1599, June 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Cryptography on untrustworthy cloud storage for healthcare applications: A performance analysis,

    L. H. Reis, M. T. De Oliveira, J. Bowden, D. Krefting, S. D. Olabarriaga, and D. M. Mattos, “Cryptography on untrustworthy cloud storage for healthcare applications: A performance analysis,” in2021 XI Brazilian Symposium on Computing Systems Engineering (SBESC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8

    2021

  15. [23]

    A new cryptog- raphy algorithm to protect cloud-based healthcare services,

    M. Aledhari, A. Marhoon, A. Hamad, and F. Saeed, “A new cryptog- raphy algorithm to protect cloud-based healthcare services,” in2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Connected Health: Applica- tions, Systems and Engineering Technologies (CHASE). IEEE, 2017, pp. 37–43

    2017

  16. [24]

    Hybrid workload enabled and secure healthcare monitoring sensing framework in distributed fog-cloud network,

    A. Lakhan, Q.-u.-a. Mastoi, M. A. Dootio, F. Alqahtani, I. R. Alzahrani, F. Baothman, S. Y . Shah, S. A. Shah, N. Anjum, Q. H. Abbasiet al., “Hybrid workload enabled and secure healthcare monitoring sensing framework in distributed fog-cloud network,”Electronics, vol. 10, no. ...

    1974

  17. [25]

    Healthfaas: Ai-based smart healthcare system for heart patients using serverless computing,

    M. Golec, S. S. Gill, A. K. Parlikad, and S. Uhlig, “Healthfaas: Ai-based smart healthcare system for heart patients using serverless computing,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 21, pp. 18 469–18 476, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    From agent failure paths to quantified residual risk: A compositional framework for resilient agentic ai,

    H. Karim, S. Sitharaman, D. Gupta, and D. B. Rawat, “From agent failure paths to quantified residual risk: A compositional framework for resilient agentic ai,” 2026

    2026

  19. [27]

    Agentic ai for continuous intelligence in future smart connected systems,

    L. A. Kavuri, D. Gupta, and E. Hammad, “Agentic ai for continuous intelligence in future smart connected systems,” 2026

    2026

  20. [28]

    Securefed: A two-phase framework for detecting malicious clients in federated learning,

    L. A. Kavuriet al., “Securefed: A two-phase framework for detecting malicious clients in federated learning,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration and Data Science (IRI). IEEE, 2025, pp. 190–195

    2025

  21. [29]

    Androids: Android-based intrusion detection system using federated learning,

    A. K. Nairet al., “Androids: Android-based intrusion detection system using federated learning,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration and Data Science (IRI). IEEE, 2025, pp. 172–177

    2025

  22. [30]

    Hierarchical federated learning based anomaly de- tection using digital twins for smart healthcare,

    D. Guptaet al., “Hierarchical federated learning based anomaly de- tection using digital twins for smart healthcare,” in2021 IEEE 7th international conference on collaboration and internet computing (CIC)

  23. [31]

    Aws developer tools – sdks,

    A. W. Services, “Aws developer tools – sdks,” AWS, online. Avail- able: https://aws.amazon.com/developer/tools/#SDKs. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Microsoft azure downloads,

    Microsoft, “Microsoft azure downloads,” Microsoft, online. Available: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Guide to storage encryp- tion technologies for end user devices,

    K. Scarfone, M. Souppaya, and A. Orebaugh, “Guide to storage encryp- tion technologies for end user devices,” NIST, Tech. Rep. Special Pub- lication 800-111, Nov 2007, online. Available: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/ nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-111.pdf. Accessed: ...

    2007

  26. [34]

    Six steps toward more secure cloud computing,

    F. T. Commission, “Six steps toward more secure cloud computing,” FTC Business Blog, Jun 2020, online. Avail- able: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/ six-steps-toward-more-secure-cloud-computing. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2020

  27. [35]

    Choosing a kms key type,

    A. W. Services, “Choosing a kms key type,” Feb 2025, on- line. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kms/latest/developerguide/ symm-asymm-choose-key-spec.html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Supported algorithms,

    ——, “Supported algorithms,” AWS Encryption SDK Developer Guide, Feb 20 2025, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon. com/encryption-sdk/latest/developer-guide/supported-algorithms.html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Hmac in aws kms,

    ——, “Hmac in aws kms,” AWS Key Management Service Devel- oper Guide, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kms/latest/ developerguide/hmac.html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Using iam policies with aws kms,

    ——, “Using iam policies with aws kms,” 2025, online. Available: https: //docs.aws.amazon.com/kms/latest/developerguide/iam-policies.html Accessed: March 8, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Control access to aws kms using iam roles,

    ——, “Control access to aws kms using iam roles,” AWS Documenta- tion, Feb 22 2025, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kms/ latest/developerguide/rbac.html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Key vault keys – about keys,

    Microsoft, “Key vault keys – about keys,” Feb 2025, on- line. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/key-vault/keys/ about-keys-details. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Azure key vault overview,

    ——, “Azure key vault overview,” Microsoft Azure, online. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/key-vault/general/overview. Ac- cessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Azure key vault security features,

    ——, “Azure key vault security features,” 2025, online. Available: https: //learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/key-vault/general/security-features. Accessed: March 9, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    About azure key vault keys,

    ——, “About azure key vault keys,” 2025, online. Available: https: //learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/key-vault/keys/about-keys. Accessed: March 9, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Encryption at rest,

    ——, “Encryption at rest,” Microsoft Azure, online. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/security/fundamentals/ encryption-atrest. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    How to use aws kms rsa keys for offline encryption,

    A. W. Services, “How to use aws kms rsa keys for offline encryption,” Aug 2023, online. Available: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/ how-to-use-aws-kms-rsa-keys-for-offline-encryption/. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2023

  38. [46]

    Humble and D

    J. Humble and D. Farley,Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation, 1st ed. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2010

    2010

  39. [47]

    Security features of azure key vault,

    Microsoft, “Security features of azure key vault,” Microsoft Learn, Feb 22 2025, online. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ key-vault/general/security-features. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Aws lambda pricing,

    A. W. Services, “Aws lambda pricing,” 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/ lambda/pricing/. Accessed: March, 3, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    Azure functions pricing,

    M. Azure, “Azure functions pricing,” 2025, online. Available: https: //azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/functions/. Accessed: March, 3, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Configuring aws lambda memory and storage,

    I. Amazon Web Services, “Configuring aws lambda memory and storage,” AWS Documentation, 2025, online. Available: https:// docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/configuration-memory.html. Ac- cessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Aws cloud development kit (cdk) documenta- tion,

    A. W. Services, “Aws cloud development kit (cdk) documenta- tion,” AWS, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cdk/v2/ guide/home.html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    Aws lambda function deployment packages,

    ——, “Aws lambda function deployment packages,” AWS Documen- tation, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/ configuration-function-zip.html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  45. [53]

    Configuring aws lambda function urls,

    ——, “Configuring aws lambda function urls,” AWS, online. Avail- able: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/urls-configuration. html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  46. [54]

    Aws lambda environment variable encryption,

    ——, “Aws lambda environment variable encryption,” 2025, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/ configuration-envvars-encryption.html. Accessed: March 3, 2025

    2025

  47. [55]

    Overview of bicep,

    Microsoft, “Overview of bicep,” Microsoft, online. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/bicep/ overview?tabs=bicep. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Deploy code with a zip package,

    ——, “Deploy code with a zip package,” Microsoft Learn, on- line. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/ deployment-zip-push. Accessed: Feb 23, 2025

    2025

  49. [57]

    Azure functions scale and hosting plans,

    ——, “Azure functions scale and hosting plans,” Microsoft Learn, Feb 21 2024, online. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ azure-functions/functions-scale. Accessed: Feb 25, 2025

    2024

  50. [58]

    Azure functions consumption plan,

    M. Corporation, “Azure functions consumption plan,” Microsoft Learn, 2025, online. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ azure-functions/consumption-plan. Accessed: February 27, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    How to use azure functions app settings,

    Microsoft, “How to use azure functions app settings,” 2025, online. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/ functions-how-to-use-azure-function-app-settings?tabs=azure-portal% 2Cto-premium. Accessed: March 3, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    Configure monitoring for azure functions,

    ——, “Configure monitoring for azure functions,” 2025, on- line. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/ configure-monitoring?tabs=v2. Accessed: March 9, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    Operating lambda performance optimization – part 1,

    A. W. Services, “Operating lambda performance optimization – part 1,” AWS, online. Available: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/ operating-lambda-performance-optimization-part-1/. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  54. [62]

    Analyzing docker vulnerabilities through static and dynamic methods and enhancing iot security with aws iot core, cloudwatch, and guardduty,

    V . Ajith, T. Cyriac, C. Chavda, T. K. Anum, V . Chennareddy, and K. Ali, “Analyzing docker vulnerabilities through static and dynamic methods and enhancing iot security with aws iot core, cloudwatch, and guardduty,”IoT, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 592, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Create an alarm that sends an email notification,

    A. W. Services, “Create an alarm that sends an email notification,” Amazon CloudWatch Documentation, 2025, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudWatch/latest/monitoring/ AlarmThatSendsEmail.html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  56. [64]

    Aws lambda function metrics,

    I. Amazon Web Services, “Aws lambda function metrics,” AWS Documentation, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/ latest/dg/monitoring-metrics.html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  57. [65]

    Aws lambda function metrics,

    ——, “Aws lambda function metrics,” AWS Documentation, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/ monitoring-metrics-types.html. Accessed: Feb 22, 2025

    2025

  58. [66]

    Azure monitor metrics overview,

    Microsoft, “Azure monitor metrics overview,” 2024, online. Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/essentials/ data-platform-metrics. Accessed: March 12, 2025

    2024

  59. [67]

    Hmac keys in aws kms,

    A. W. Services, “Hmac keys in aws kms,” 2025, online. Available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kms/latest/developerguide/hmac.html. Ac- cessed: March 10, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.