Welcome to Open Science
Contact Us
Home Books Journals Submission Open Science Join Us News
End User Centric Quantitative Trust Model in Cloud Computing
Current Issue
Volume 7, 2021
Issue 1 (May)
Pages: 1-7   |   Vol. 7, No. 1, May 2021   |   Follow on         
Paper in PDF Downloads: 54   Since May 14, 2021 Views: 447   Since May 14, 2021
Authors
[1]
Frankline Makokha, School of Computing and Informatics, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
[2]
Christopher Kipchumba Chepken, School of Computing and Informatics, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
[3]
Elisha Toyne Opiyo, School of Computing and Informatics, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Abstract
Current quantitative trust measurement models for computing platforms suffer from inherent subjectivity, during assignment of weights used in trust computation, limitation in portability of the models to different computing platforms, and the need to predefine all possible trustable states by some models that use multi agent systems. This paper proposes a quantification model that addresses the identified challenges. Explored models include QoS trust Model that computes Availability (AV), Reliability (RE), Data Integrity (DI) and Turnaround Efficiency (TE) of a resource. The values generated from these metrics are computed against assigned weights to arrive at the final trust value of the computing resource. A Computationally Grounded Quantitative Trust with Time which uses local and global defined trustworthy states has also been explored. The trustable states are predefined and using multi agents concepts, the agents are said to be trustworthy if they transit from local to global states that have been defined as trustworthy. This paper also explores a Quantitative Framework for accessing Cloud Security as a trust metric, using a dependency model that validates both the offered services and customer’s requirements, validated by checking service conflicts and different Service Level Obligation compatibility issues. The framework is composed of Security requirements definition, Requirements Quantification, Dependency management approach, Structuring security SLA services using Dependency Structure Matrix and Cloud Service Provider Evaluation. A model based on measurement theory relying on composite metrics, impression and confidence was also explored. It relies on user reviews, likes and dislikes posts. As a contribution to these existing models, this paper addresses the shortcomings of the existing models, in particular subjectivity in the derived trust, by proposing a quantitative trust model based on Confidence Interval. The model relies on QoS measurements from two systems, namely, the cloud provider integrated QoS monitoring system and a vendor neutral QoS monitoring model. Using a confidence interval of 95%, trust is computed based on whether the cloud provider’s QoS system results are within the range of the Vendor Neutral model results. The proposed model was applied to QoS results from two cloud computing providers, Microsoft and Google. From the results, users can build trust for the services from Microsoft and Google since the QoS results provided by the cloud provider integrated tool and the Vendor Neutral tool, during the experimentation period were within range, showing trustworthiness of the providers with regards to reporting the QoS of their platforms.
Keywords
Trust, Trust Value, Modeling, Cloud Computing, Confidence Interval, Vendor Neutral, QoS
Reference
[1]
Avizienis, A., Laprie, J., Randell, B. and Landwehr, C. Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2004.
[2]
Gefen D, Benbasat I, Pavlou P. A research agenda for trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (4): 275–286, 2008.
[3]
Gambetta, D. Can We Trust Trust? In D. Gambetta, editor, Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pages 213–238. Basil Blackwell. Oxford, 1990.
[4]
McKnight, D. H. and Chervany N. L. The Meanings of Trust. Technical Report MISRC Working Paper Series 96-04, University of Minnesota, Management Information Systems Research Center, 1996.
[5]
Bako R. A view of trust and information system security under the perspective of critical infrastructure protection. Revue des Sciences et Technologies de l’Information - Série ISI: Ingénierie des Systèmes d’Information, Lavoisier, 2017, 22 (1), pp. 109.
[6]
Bhattacherjee, A. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices (2012). Textbooks Collection. 3. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3.
[7]
Zainab, A., Perry, M. and Capretz, M. A (2011). Trust Metrics for Services and Service Providers in The Sixth International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services ICIW 2011 March 20-25, 2011 - St. Maarten, The Netherlands Antilles.
[8]
Muchahari, K., M., and Sinha, K., S. (2012) A New Trust Management Architecture for Cloud Computing Environment in International Symposium on Cloud and Services Computing, Mangalore. 2012, pp. 136-140.
[9]
Habib, S., M., Ries, S. and Muhlhauser, M.(2010) Cloud computing landscape and research challenges regarding trust and reputation, in Proceedings of the 2010 Symposia and Workshops on Ubiquitous, Autonomic and Trusted Computing. IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 410–415.
[10]
Manuel, P. A trust model of cloud computing based on Quality of Service. Annals of Operations Research, Volume 205, 2013.
[11]
Nagat, D., Jamal B. and Hongyang Q. Computationally Grounded Quantitative Trust with Time. Proc. of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2020), B. An, N. Yorke-Smith, A. El Fallah Seghrouchni, G. Sukthankar (eds.), May 9–13, 2020, Auckland, New Zealand. © 2020.
[12]
Taha, A. (2018) Quantitative Trust Assessment in the Cloud. MSc, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany.
[13]
Yefeng R., Ping Z., Lina A. and Arjan D. Measurement Theory-Based Trust Management Framework for Online Social Communities. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, Vol. 17, No. 2, Article 16, Publication date: March 2017.
[14]
Makokha, F., Opiyo, E. and Chepken, C. Browser Integrated Vendor Neutral Cloud QoS Monitoring System. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, Vol 8, No 6 (2019).
[15]
Sanchez-Rola, I., Santos, I., and Balzarotti, D. (2017). Extension Breakdown: Security Analysis of Browsers Extension Resources Control Policies: Proceedings of the 26th USENIX Security symposium (2017), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
[16]
Amaresan, S. (online) The Top 30 SaaS Companies & Products to Watch in 2019. https://blog.hubspot.com/service/top-saas-companies accessed on 9th December 2019.
[17]
Hazra, A. Using the Confidence Interval Confidently. Journal of Thoracic Disease, Volume 9 Issue 10, 2017.
[18]
Dragoni, N. Toward trustworthy web services - approaches, weaknesses and trust-by-contract framework. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, Volume 3, pp. 599–606, 2009.
[19]
Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Kaluscha, A. E.. (2008). Consumer trust in electronic commerce: Conceptualization and classification of trust building measures, in Teemu K. and Heikki K. (Eds.) Trust and New Technologies. Edward Elgar Publishing 2008, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.
Open Science Scholarly Journals
Open Science is a peer-reviewed platform, the journals of which cover a wide range of academic disciplines and serve the world's research and scholarly communities. Upon acceptance, Open Science Journals will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.
CONTACT US
Office Address:
228 Park Ave., S#45956, New York, NY 10003
Phone: +(001)(347)535 0661
E-mail:
LET'S GET IN TOUCH
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message
SEND MASSAGE
Copyright © 2013-, Open Science Publishers - All Rights Reserved