Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Risk-Aware Sensitive Property-Driven Resource Management in Cloud Datacenters

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that assigning cloud access-control roles to virtual machines can be optimized to minimize the risk that tenants infer sensitive statistical properties of shared data, and supports that claim with an NP-completeness…

desk verdict Real problem and a reasonable KLD/MI-based extension, but the NP-completeness proof is invalid and the evaluation is too thin to carry the paper as it stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02720 v1 pith:WZVM2KLS submitted 2025-02-04 cs.CR

Muhamad Felemban , Abdulrahman Almutairi , Arif Ghafoor This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords cloudcomputingrisk-awareschedulingrole-basedaccesscontrolsensitivepropertyKLdivergencemutualinformationNP-completenessheuristicassignment
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

Cloud tenants sharing physical machines can infer statistical properties of each other's data even when access control is enforced. This paper claims that the resulting risk can be formulated as an assignment problem, RSPAP, in which roles from a role-based access control policy are placed onto virtual machines to minimize the maximum information gain about a global sensitive property. The authors model sensitive properties with KL divergence and mutual information, prove RSPAP is NP-complete, and propose two heuristics, TDH and NBH. Simulations on a real check-in dataset indicate that the top-down heuristic TDH consistently achieves lower disclosure risk than the neighbor-based NBH. If correct, the work gives cloud providers a practical scheduling method that treats statistical data confidentiality as a first-class resource management objective.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Sensitive Property Profile (SPP), a vector $W$ indexed by non-empty subsets of roles, where each entry $w_p$ stores the cardinality $C(w_p)$, the number of data objects shared by exactly those roles, and a set of characteristics supplied by a property function $f$ that quantifies how much a subset's local probability distribution differs from the global one. The risk objective in Eq. (5) is the sum over roles of the maximum, over role-sets $A$ containing the role, of the disclosure gap times the product of inter-VM leakage probabilities. This objective drives the aggregated-risk clustering logic of TDH and the pairwise best-fit logic of NBH.

What would settle it

Take a small TSP instance with $m$ cities and distances $h(\cdot,\cdot)$, set the vulnerability matrix $d_{ij}=h(i,j)$, define $f(A)=1$ when $A=\{r_i,r_j\}$ with $|i-j|\bmod n = 1$ and $0$ otherwise, and compare the optimal RSPAP risk to the optimal TSP tour cost. If the two values do not coincide across all small instances, the reduction's claimed equivalence fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that minimizing risk of sensitive-property disclosure in a multitenant cloud reduces to a cost-driven assignment problem, RSPAP, and that this problem is NP-complete (Theorem 3.1). The risk of a role is the maximum, over all subsets of roles that include it, of the product of the property-disclosure gap $g_i^A = |f(A)-f(r_i)|$ and the vulnerabilities $d_{I(r_i),I(r_j)}$ between the virtual machines hosting the roles in the subset. Sensitive properties are encoded by two information-theoretic quantities: Kullback-Leibler divergence $f(A)=D(P_A||P_G)$ and mutual information $f(A)=|MI_A(X;Y)-MI_G(X;Y)|$. Two heuristics, the top-down heuristic (TDH) and the neighbor-based heuristic (NBH), are proposed and evaluated under high- and low-sensitivity datacenter workloads; in the reported simulations TDH outperforms NBH on total risk and risk-reduction quality.

Load-bearing premise

The NP-completeness proof assumes that the sensitive property function $f$ can be defined so that the RSPAP objective exactly mirrors the total cost of a TSP tour; if that correspondence does not hold, the hardness claim is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If RSPAP is as hard as claimed, no exact polynomial algorithm exists, so heuristics are the practical route for real datacenter scales.
  • TDH's aggregated-risk clustering means that providers can keep the strongest-disclosure role groups on the least vulnerable VMs.
  • The information-theoretic framing extends the notion of leakage beyond raw data access to statistical inferential disclosure.
  • The datacenter sensitivity classification (HSD, MSD, LSD) gives operators a workload-level parameter for choosing between scheduling strategies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same SPP objective could be adapted to protect other statistical aggregates, such as correlations or distribution moments, as long as the property function $f$ is computable over role subsets.
  • The reported monotonic decrease of divergence with dataset size is observed in one dataset; a natural check is whether the heuristics' advantage persists when monotonicity fails.
  • The discriminator index, used here as a fairness diagnostic, may double as a per-role risk-equity constraint in SLA-aware scheduling.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a risk-aware assignment of RBAC roles to virtual machines in multitenant cloud datacenters. It represents sensitive properties of a dataset using two information-theoretic measures (KL-divergence and mutual information), defines the Risk-aware Sensitive Property-driven Assignment Problem (RSPAP) with the objective in Eq. (5), claims that RSPAP is NP-complete via a reduction from TSP (Theorem 3.1), and introduces two heuristics, TDH and NBH, with a simulation study on a Gowalla check-in dataset. The paper concludes that TDH generally outperforms NBH in reducing the disclosure risk.

Significance. The topic is timely and the proposed sensitive-property profile is a concrete modeling idea, but the central theoretical and empirical claims are not currently established. The paper's strengths are its use of a real check-in dataset, the explicit complexity analyses of the two heuristics (Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2), and the attempt to connect vulnerability matrices with an information-theoretic disclosure measure. However, the NP-completeness proof in Theorem 3.1 is invalid as written, and the evaluation lacks independent baselines, error bars, and a fully specified vulnerability model. The comparison between TDH and NBH is an empirical result and not circular, but it is not sufficient by itself to support the paper's overall contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem 3.1] The TSP reduction is invalid. With f(A)=1 only for adjacent role pairs {ri, rj} and f({ri})=0 for every singleton, the factor g_i^A = |f(A) - f({ri})| is 1 exactly for adjacent pairs and 0 otherwise. The objective in Eq. (5) therefore collapses to Risk = sum_i max_{j adjacent to i} d_{I(ri), I(rj)}, which is a sum of per-role maxima of incident leakage probabilities, not the TSP cycle cost sum_i d_{I(ri), I(r_{i+1})}. The construction also does not specify n=m or require I to be a bijection, so the claimed equivalence to a Hamiltonian cycle ordering does not hold. For a triangle with edge costs 1, 2, 3, both role-to-vertex bijections give the same RSPAP value (8) while all TSP tours have cost 6, so the reduction cannot select a TSP-optimal tour. Theorem 3.1 is therefore unproven, and the NP-completeness claim, a key contribution, is unsupported.
  2. [Section 5.2, Eq. (5)-(7)] The primary performance metric Risk is exactly the objective function that TDH and NBH are designed to minimize, and the risk-reduction metric Delta is defined as (PA - Risk)/PA with PA = sum_i f(ri). Consequently, the reported improvements in Risk and Delta are partly built into the optimization target rather than measuring an independent security property. The head-to-head comparison between TDH and NBH is meaningful as an empirical algorithmic comparison, but the absolute statements about risk reduction in Sections 5.4.1 and 5.5 should be framed as properties of the chosen cost function, not as validated security guarantees.
  3. [Section 5.3 and Section 5.4] The experimental study provides no baseline scheduler (e.g., random assignment, load-balanced assignment, or the earlier risk-aware methods cited as [9], [10]), and Figures 7-17 show no error bars despite the stochastic generation of the vulnerability matrix and the random check-in subsampling described in Section 5.1.2. The vulnerability matrix generation is specified only as 'randomly generated' in Section 5.3, without a distribution, range, or seed, so the experiments are not reproducible and the claim that TDH outperforms NBH is not statistically supported.
  4. [Section 4, Algorithms 2 and 3] The pseudocode contains defects that prevent reproduction. In Algorithm 2, Line 10 writes 'C2 = C2 ∩ ri' (set intersection with a role) where the text describes moving ri from C1 to C2, so it should be a union; Line 8 evaluates f(C1 - ri) + f(C2 ∪ ri) < dis, but after several moves the local variable dis may not reflect the total disclosure of the resulting clusters. In Algorithm 3, Line 13 reads 'Find (vq, vl) with minimum di,j where vl ∈ F', but F is the set of free roles, not free VMs (which is G); and the inner loop in Lines 19-22 uses Ci,j with j not bound in that scope, making the computation of Bi,q undefined. These issues need to be corrected before the heuristics can be implemented from the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The introduction says 'Section 10 outlines the conclusion' but the conclusion is actually Section 7.
  2. [Equation (5)] The subscript on d is malformed: 'd_{kℓdI(ri),I(rj)}' should be d_{I(ri),I(rj)}.
  3. [Section 5.1.2] The monotonicity of divergence and mutual information is demonstrated for a single dataset and the authors acknowledge this caveat. However, the explanation of HSD versus LSD behavior in Section 5.4.1 relies on this monotonicity, so the generalization should be stated as an assumption rather than an observed property.
  4. [Figure 14] The x-axis label says 'Number of roles (n)' but the experiment described in the text varies the number of virtual resources m; the caption should be updated for consistency with Figure 8.
  5. [Theorem 3.1 proof] The acronym is written as 'SPRAP' in two places in the proof; it should be RSPAP.
  6. [Section 5.5] Figure 17 is referenced as 'Figure 6.17' in the text; the figure numbering should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the risk metric is the heuristic objective (standard evaluation, not a fitted prediction) and the self-citations are not load-bearing; the NP-completeness proof has a correctness gap, which is not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivations do not reduce to their inputs. Theorem 3.1's TSP reduction is mathematically dubious: with f(A)=1 only for adjacent role pairs, Eq. 5 becomes a sum of per-role maxima over incident leakage probabilities rather than a TSP tour cost. This is a correctness/falsifiability defect, not a circularity defect, because the objective is not being defined in terms of the theorem's conclusion. Section 5.2 defines the primary metric as the disclosure risk of Eq. 5, the same objective TDH and NBH are designed to minimize; however, this is standard solution-quality evaluation. No parameter is fitted to the reported risk outcomes, and the TDH-versus-NBH comparison is an empirical simulation result rather than a quantity forced by construction. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors ([9], [10], [16]) for the spectral model, architecture, and risk-aware assignment background, but these citations are not load-bearing for the NP-completeness claim or the heuristic comparison; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in by citation. No limitation statement in the text asserts a missing proof or circular step. Overall: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The risk model is an assumption-based framework; no new physical entities are introduced. The SPP is a mathematical construct, not an entity. The simulation parameter s and the randomly generated vulnerability matrix are evaluation inputs, not fitted to data.

free parameters (1)
  • Zipfian sensitivity parameter s = 1, 1.5, 2
    Hand-chosen simulation parameter used to generate RBAC workloads and classify datacenters into HSD, MSD, LSD; the performance results depend on this choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Data objects in the datacenter follow a Zipfian distribution (Eq. 2).
    Used in Section 2.4 to generate heterogeneous RBAC workloads for evaluation; not justified by real datacenter traces.
  • domain assumption Threat is set to 1 for all roles (worst-case).
    Section 2.1, simplifies the risk model to vulnerability and assets, ignoring differences in attacker capability.
  • domain assumption Inter-VM vulnerabilities across clusters are zero; intra-VM vulnerabilities are nonzero and randomly generated.
    Section 5.3, assumes physical isolation is more secure than VM isolation, but no concrete vulnerability distribution is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Risk-Aware Sensitive Property-Driven Resource Management in Cloud Datacenters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WZVM2KLS

@misc{pith2026250202720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Risk-Aware Sensitive Property-Driven Resource Management in Cloud Datacenters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WZVM2KLS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02720}
}
read the original abstract

Organizations are increasingly moving towards the cloud computing paradigm, in which an on-demand access to a pool of shared configurable resources is provided. However, security challenges, which are particularly exacerbated by the multitenancy and virtualization features of cloud computing, present a major obstacle. In particular, sharing of resources among potentially untrusted tenants in access controlled cloud datacenters can result in increased risk of data leakage. To address such risk, we propose an efficient risk-aware sensitive property-driven virtual resource assignment mechanism for cloud datacenters. We have used two information-theoretic measures, i.e., KL-divergence and mutual information, to represent sensitive properties in the dataset. Based on the vulnerabilities of cloud architecture and the sensitive property profile, we have formulated the problem as a cost-drive optimization problem. The problem is shown to be NP-complete. Accordingly, we have proposed two heuristics and presented simulation based performance results for cloud datacenters with multiple sensitivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02720 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Virtual resource management architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. RBAC policy representation. authorization to perform the action. In [16], a distributed access control architecture that assigns virtual resources to cloud customers is proposed. The assignment is performed such that the cost of provisioning for PaaS cloud providers is minimized while satisfying the SLA for each cloud cus￾tomer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. A statistical characterization of sensitivity of cloud [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Global and local p.m.f. proposed heuristics. The experiments have been conducted using a real life check-in dataset collected from Gowalla so￾cial networking website 2 . The Gowalla dataset has around 6.5 million check-in entries for about 200,000 users around the worl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Monotonicity of the divergence and mutual informa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: In other words, for the same value of divergence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The reason being that by increasing the value of n, P A of the RBAC policy increases relatively at a faster rate than the rate at which RISKKLD increases. In addition, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Quality of Risk-Reduction ∆ with a problem size of 150 roles for LSD and HSD datacenters. of HSD and LSD in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mutual Information Risk (RISKM I ) with a problem size of 30 VMs for LSD and HSD datacenters. 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 10 20 30 40 50 MI risk Number of roles (n) NBH_HSD TDH_HSD NBH_LSD TDH_LSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Discrimination Index DI with a problem size of 150 roles for LSD and HSD datacenters. As we increase the number of VMs for both LSD and HSD datacenters, NBH tends to improve its DI perfor￾mance as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Quality of Risk-Reduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Quality of Risk-Reduction ∆ with a problem size of 30 VMs for LSD, and HSD datacenters. 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 30 50 70 100 DI Number of roles (n) NBH_HSD TDH_HSD NBH_LSD TDH_LSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Discrimination Index DI with a problem size of 30 VMs for LSD and HSD datacenters. of the DI graph of the HSD case. Similarly, for the case of LSD, as can be noticed from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Attackability per role vs. DI for LSD datacenter with mutual information sensitive property. vulnerability discovery. A Static-analysis of vulnerability indicator tool to assess the risk of software built by external deleopers is proposed in [34], while [35] proposes …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Attackability per role vs. DI for HSD datacenter with mutual information sensitive property. for cloud computing have been reported. In [39], an algo￾rithm to deploy workflow application over federated cloud is proposed. The proposed algorithm guarantees reliability a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SQUIRO: A Framework for Security-Aware Quantum-Classical Scheduling on Kubernetes

    cs.ET 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SQUIRO enforces security posture as hard scheduling constraints and ranks quantum backends by coherence margin and queue pressure, reporting up to 51% cost and 63% energy savings on synthetic underloaded Kubernetes clusters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [9]

    Risk-aware virtual resource management for multitenant cloud datacenters,

    A. Almutairi, A. Ghafoor et al. , “Risk-aware virtual resource management for multitenant cloud datacenters,” Cloud Computing, IEEE, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 34–44, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [10]

    Risk-aware manage- ment of virtual resources in access controlled service-oriented cloud datacenters,

    A. Almutairi, M. Sarfraz, and A. Ghafoor, “Risk-aware manage- ment of virtual resources in access controlled service-oriented cloud datacenters,” IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [16]

    A distributed access control architecture for cloud computing,

    A. Almutairi, M. Sarfraz, S. Basalamah, W. Aref, and A. Ghafoor, “A distributed access control architecture for cloud computing,” Software, IEEE, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 36–44, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [1]

    A review on cloud computing: Design challenges in architecture and security,

    F. Hu, M. Qiu, J. Li, T. Grant, D. Tylor, S. McCaleb, L. Butler, and R. Hamner, “A review on cloud computing: Design challenges in architecture and security,” Journal of Computing and Information Technology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 25–55, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [2]

    The rnc files: Inside the largest us voter data leak,

    D. O’Sullivan, “The rnc files: Inside the largest us voter data leak,” UpGuard, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [3]

    Security and privacy challenges in cloud computing environments,

    H. Takabi, J. B. Joshi, and G.-J. Ahn, “Security and privacy challenges in cloud computing environments,” Security & Privacy, IEEE, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 24–31, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [4]

    Ensuring security and privacy preservation for cloud data services,

    J. Tang, Y. Cui, Q. Li, K. Ren, J. Liu, and R. Buyya, “Ensuring security and privacy preservation for cloud data services,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 49, no. 1, p. 13, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [5]

    Trusted virtual domains–design, implementation and lessons learned,

    L. Catuogno, A. Dmitrienko, K. Eriksson, D. Kuhlmann, G. Ra- munno, A.-R. Sadeghi, S. Schulz, M. Schunter, M. Winandy, and J. Zhan, “Trusted virtual domains–design, implementation and lessons learned,” in Trusted Systems. Springer, 2010, pp. 156–179

    work page 2010

Show all 41 references
  1. [6]

    Nova: a microhypervisor-based se- cure virtualization architecture,

    U. Steinberg and B. Kauer, “Nova: a microhypervisor-based se- cure virtualization architecture,” in Proceedings of the 5th European conference on Computer systems. ACM, 2010, pp. 209–222

    2010

  2. [7]

    Se- curity for the cloud infrastructure: Trusted virtual data center implementation,

    S. Berger, R. C ´aceres, K. Goldman, D. Pendarakis, R. Perez, J. R. Rao, E. Rom, R. Sailer, W. Schildhauer, D. Srinivasan et al. , “Se- curity for the cloud infrastructure: Trusted virtual data center implementation,” IBM Journal of Research and Development , vol. 53, no. 4, p...

    2009

  3. [8]

    Toward a multi-tenancy authorization system for cloud services,

    J. Alcaraz Calero, N. Edwards, J. Kirschnick, L. Wilcock, and M. Wray, “Toward a multi-tenancy authorization system for cloud services,” Security Privacy, IEEE, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 48–55, 2010

    2010

  4. [11]

    Friendship and mobility: user movement in location-based social networks,

    E. Cho, S. A. Myers, and J. Leskovec, “Friendship and mobility: user movement in location-based social networks,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 2011, pp. 1082–1090

    2011

  5. [12]

    Association rule hiding,

    V . S. Verykios, A. K. Elmagarmid, E. Bertino, Y. Saygin, and E. Dasseni, “Association rule hiding,” IEEE Transactions on knowl- edge and data engineering, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 434–447, 2004. 14

    2004

  6. [13]

    Prospective infectious disease outbreak detection using markov switching models,

    H.-M. Lu, D. Zeng, and H. Chen, “Prospective infectious disease outbreak detection using markov switching models,” IEEE Trans- actions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 565– 577, 2010

    2010

  7. [14]

    Infer- ring user demographics and social strategies in mobile social networks,

    Y. Dong, Y. Yang, J. Tang, Y. Yang, and N. V . Chawla, “Infer- ring user demographics and social strategies in mobile social networks,” in Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 2014, pp. 15–24

    2014

  8. [15]

    Big-data applications in the government sector,

    G.-H. Kim, S. Trimi, and J.-H. Chung, “Big-data applications in the government sector,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 78–85, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    A risk assessment framework for cloud computing,

    K. Djemame, D. Armstrong, J. Guitart, and M. Macias, “A risk assessment framework for cloud computing,” IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 265–278, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Virtualization: Issues, se- curity threats, and solutions,

    M. Pearce, S. Zeadally, and R. Hunt, “Virtualization: Issues, se- curity threats, and solutions,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , vol. 45, no. 2, p. 17, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Understanding cloud computing vulnerabilities,

    B. Grobauer, T. Walloschek, and E. Stocker, “Understanding cloud computing vulnerabilities,” Security & Privacy, IEEE , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 50–57, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Hey, you, get off of my cloud: exploring information leakage in third-party compute clouds,

    T. Ristenpart, E. Tromer, H. Shacham, and S. Savage, “Hey, you, get off of my cloud: exploring information leakage in third-party compute clouds,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. ACM, 2009, pp. 199–212

    2009

  13. [21]

    Proposed nist standard for role-based access control,

    D. F. Ferraiolo, R. Sandhu, S. Gavrila, D. R. Kuhn, and R. Chan- dramouli, “Proposed nist standard for role-based access control,” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 224–274, 2001

    2001

  14. [22]

    J. Hall. (2015) Role-based access control in the microsoft azure portal. [Online]. Available: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/ documentation/articles/role-based-access-control-configure/

    2015

  15. [23]

    Connaire, J

    S. Connaire, J. Weiss, S. Dunn, and S. Kinkead. (2015) Oracle ¨ sales cloud securing oracle sales cloud. [Online]. Available: http://docs.oracle.com/cloud/latest/salescs gs/OSCUS.pdf

    2015

  16. [24]

    Context-aware adaptation of access-control policies,

    A. Samuel, A. Ghafoor, and E. Bertino, “Context-aware adaptation of access-control policies,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 12, no. 1, 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    Context-based access control systems for mobile devices,

    B. Shebaro, O. Oluwatimi, and E. Bertino, “Context-based access control systems for mobile devices,” Dependable and Secure Com- puting, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 150–163, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    A framework for composition and enforcement of privacy-aware and context-driven authorization mechanism for multimedia big data,

    A. Samuel, M. I. Sarfraz, H. Haseeb, S. M. Basalamah, and A. Ghafoor, “A framework for composition and enforcement of privacy-aware and context-driven authorization mechanism for multimedia big data,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia , vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1484–1494, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Psalm: Cardinality estimation in the presence of fine-grained access controls,

    H. Zhang, I. F. Ilyas, and K. Salem, “Psalm: Cardinality estimation in the presence of fine-grained access controls,” in Data Engineer- ing, 2009. ICDE’09. IEEE 25th International Conference on . IEEE, 2009, pp. 505–516

    2009

  20. [28]

    Benchmarking cloud serving systems with ycsb,

    B. F. Cooper, A. Silberstein, E. Tam, R. Ramakrishnan, and R. Sears, “Benchmarking cloud serving systems with ycsb,” in Proceedings of the 1st ACM symposium on Cloud computing . ACM, 2010, pp. 143–154

    2010

  21. [29]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of information theory. John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Jain, D.-M

    R. Jain, D.-M. Chiu, and W. R. Hawe, A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared computer system, 1984

    1984

  23. [31]

    The eucalyptus open-source cloud-computing system,

    D. Nurmi, R. Wolski, C. Grzegorczyk, G. Obertelli, S. Soman, L. Youseff, and D. Zagorodnov, “The eucalyptus open-source cloud-computing system,” in Cluster Computing and the Grid, 2009. CCGRID’09. 9th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on . IEEE, 2009, pp. 124–131

    2009

  24. [32]

    An attack surface metric,

    P . K. Manadhata and J. M. Wing, “An attack surface metric,” Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on , vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 371– 386, 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    Measuring, analyzing and predicting security vulnerabilities in software systems,

    O. H. Alhazmi, Y. K. Malaiya, and I. Ray, “Measuring, analyzing and predicting security vulnerabilities in software systems,” Com- puters & Security, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 219–228, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Savi: Static-analysis vulnerability indi- cator,

    J. Walden and M. Doyle, “Savi: Static-analysis vulnerability indi- cator,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 32–39, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Web application vul- nerability prediction using hybrid program analysis and machine learning,

    L. K. Shar, L. C. Briand, and H. B. K. Tan, “Web application vul- nerability prediction using hybrid program analysis and machine learning,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 688–707, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    An empirical methodology to evaluate vulnerability discovery models,

    F. Massacci and V . H. Nguyen, “An empirical methodology to evaluate vulnerability discovery models,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 1147–1162, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Vulnerability scrying method for software vulnerability discovery prediction without a vulnerabil- ity database,

    S. Rahimi and M. Zargham, “Vulnerability scrying method for software vulnerability discovery prediction without a vulnerabil- ity database,” Reliability, IEEE Transactions on , vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 395–407, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    A complete guide to the common vulnerability scoring system version 2.0,

    P . Mell, K. Scarfone, and S. Romanosky, “A complete guide to the common vulnerability scoring system version 2.0,” in Published by FIRST-Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, 2007, pp. 1–23

    2007

  31. [39]

    Cost effective, reliable and secure workflow deployment over federated clouds,

    Z. Wen, J. Cala, P . Watson, and A. Romanovsky, “Cost effective, reliable and secure workflow deployment over federated clouds,” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Scheduling for workflows with security-sensitive intermediate data by selective tasks duplication in clouds,

    H. Chen, X. Zhu, D. Qiu, L. Liu, and Z. Du, “Scheduling for workflows with security-sensitive intermediate data by selective tasks duplication in clouds,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    A scalable approach to joint cyber insurance and security-as-a-service provi- sioning in cloud computing,

    J. Chase, D. Niyato, P . Wang, S. Chaisiri, and R. Ko, “A scalable approach to joint cyber insurance and security-as-a-service provi- sioning in cloud computing,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.