skip to main content
10.1145/566726.566745acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesewConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Deferring trust in fluid replication

Published:17 September 2000Publication History

ABSTRACT

Mobile nodes rely on external services to provide safety, sharing, and additional resources. Unfortunately, as mobile nodes move through the networking infrastructure, the costs of accessing servers change. Fluid replication allows mobile clients to create replicas where and when they are needed. Unfortunately, one must trust the nodes holding these replicas, and establishing trust in autonomously administered nodes is a difficult task. Instead, we argue that trust should be deferred. In this position paper, we present the design of Stonewall, a system that defers trust decisions through the use of two mechanisms: packages and receipts. The former ensure confidentiality and detect breaches of integrity; the latter detect breaches of non-repudiation.

References

  1. M. G. Baker, J. H. Hartman, M. D. Kupfer, K. W. Shirriff, and J. K. Ousterhout. Measurements of a distributed file system. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 198-212, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, October 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Blaze, J. Feigenbaum, and J. Lacy. Decentralized trust management. In Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy., pages 164-73, May 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. D. W. Chadwick, A. J. Young, and N. K. Cicovic. Merging and extending the PGP and PEM trust models --- the ICETEL trust model. IEEE Network, 11(3):16-24, May-June 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. W. Ford. Advances in public-key certificate standards. SIGSAC Review, 13(3):9-15, July 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. S. Heidemann, T. W. Page, R. G. Guy, G. J. Popek, J.-F. Paris, and H. Garcia-Molina. Primarily disconnected operation: experience with Ficus. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the Management of Replicated Data, pages 2-5, November 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. R. Housley, W. Ford, W. Polk, and D. Solo. Internet X.509 public key infrastructure certificate and CRL profile. Internet RFC 2459, 1999 January. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. H. Howard, M. L. Kazar, S. G. Menees, D. A. Nichols, M. Satyanarayanan, R. N. Sidebotham, and M. J. West. Scale and performance in a distributed file system. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 6(1):51-81, February 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. J. J. Kistler and M. Satyanarayanan. Disconnected operation in the Coda File System. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 10(1):3-25, February 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. L. Lamport. Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM, 21(7):558-65, July 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. Mazières, M. Kaminsky, M. F. Kaashoek, and E. Witchel. Separating key management from file system security. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 124-39, Kiawah Island, SC, USA, December 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. L. B. Mummert, M. R. Ebling, and M. Satyanarayanan. Exploiting weak connectivity for mobile file access. In Fifteenth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 143-55, Copper Mountain Resort, CO, USA, December 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. G. C. Necula and P. Lee. Safe kernel extensions without run-time checking. In Second USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pages 229-43, Seattle, WA, USA, October 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. B. Noble, B. Fleis, and M. Kim. A case for fluid replication. In Network Storage Symposium, Seattle, WA, USA, October 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. K. Petersen, M. J. Spreitzer, D. B. Terry, M. M. Theimer, and A. J. Demers. Flexible update propagation for weakly consistent replication. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 288-301, Saint Malo, France, October 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. I. Schiller and D. Atkins. Scaling the web of trust: combining Kerberos and PGP to provide large scale authentication. In Proceedings USENIX Winter 1995 Technical Conference, pages 93-94, New Orleans, LA, USA, January 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. D. B. Terry, A. J. Demers, K. Petersen, M. J. Spreitzer, M. M. Theimer, and B. B. Welch. Session guarantees for weakly consistent replicated data. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems, pages 140-9, Austin, TX, USA, September 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. Deferring trust in fluid replication

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        EW 9: Proceedings of the 9th workshop on ACM SIGOPS European workshop: beyond the PC: new challenges for the operating system
        September 2000
        249 pages
        ISBN:9781450373562
        DOI:10.1145/566726
        • General Chair:
        • Marc Shapiro

        Copyright © 2000 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 September 2000

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate37of37submissions,100%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader