skip to main content
10.1145/1989284.1989305acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Provenance views for module privacy

Published:13 June 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Scientific workflow systems increasingly store provenance information about the module executions used to produce a data item, as well as the parameter settings and intermediate data items passed between module executions. However, authors/owners of workflows may wish to keep some of this information confidential. In particular, a module may be proprietary, and users should not be able to infer its behavior by seeing mappings between all data inputs and outputs.

The problem we address in this paper is the following: Given a workflow, abstractly modeled by a relation R, a privacy requirement ? and costs associated with data. The owner of the workflow decides which data (attributes) to hide, and provides the user with a view R' which is the projection of R over attributes which have not been hidden. The goal is to minimize the cost of hidden data while guaranteeing that individual modules are ?-private. We call this the Secure-View problem. We formally define the problem, study its complexity, and offer algorithmic solutions.

References

  1. www.myexperiment.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. C. C. Aggarwal and P. S. Yu. Privacy-Preserving Data Mining: Models and Algorithms. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. L. Backstrom, C. Dwork, and J. M. Kleinberg. Wherefore art thou r3579x?: anonymized social networks, hidden patterns, and structural steganography. In WWW, pages 181--190, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Bowers and B. Ludascher. Actor-oriented design of scientific workflows. In Int. Conf. on Concept. Modeling, pages 369--384, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. U. Braun, A. Shinnar, and M. Seltzer. Securing provenance. In USENIX HotSec, pages 1--5, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. A. Chebotko, S. Chang, S. Lu, F. Fotouhi, and P. Yang. Scientific workflow provenance querying with security views. In WAIM, pages 349--356, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. B. Davidson, S. Khanna, S. Roy, J. Stoyanovich, V. Tannen, Y. Chen, and T. Milo. Enabling privacy in provenance-aware workflow systems. In CIDR, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. I. Dinur and K. Nissim. Revealing information while preserving privacy. In PODS, pages 202--210, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Dwork. Differential privacy: A survey of results. In TAMC, pages 1--19, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. Freire, C. T. Silva, S. P. Callahan, E. Santos, C. E. Scheidegger, and H. T. Vo. Managing rapidly-evolving scientific workflows. In IPAW, pages 10--18, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Y. Gil, W. K. Cheung, V. Ratnakar, and K. kin Chan. Priv- acy enforcement in data analysis workflows. In PEAS, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Y. Gil and C. Fritz. Reasoning about the appropriate use of private data through computational workflows. In Intelli- gent Information Privacy Management, pages 69--74, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. R. Hasan, R. Sion, and M. Winslett. Introducing secure provenance: problems and challenges. In StorageSS, pages 13--18, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Lyle and A. Martin. Trusted computing and provenance: better together. In TAPP, page 1, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. Machanavajjhala, J. Gehrke, D. Kifer, and M. Venkitasubramaniam. l-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity. In ICDE, page 24, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. G. Miklau and D. Suciu. A formal analysis of information disclosure in data exchange. In SIGMOD, pages 575--586, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. L. Moreau, J. Freire, J. Futrelle, R. E. McGrath, J. Myers, and P. Paulson. The open provenance model: An overview. In IPAW, pages 323--326, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. Motwani, S. U. Nabar, and D. Thomas. Auditing sql queries. In ICDE, pages 287--296, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. T. 'Oinn phet al. Taverna: a tool for the composition and enactment of bioinformatics workflows. Bioinformatics, 20(1):3045--3054, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. V. Rastogi, M. Hay, G. Miklau, and D. Suciu. Relationship privacy: output perturbation for queries with joins. In PODS, pages 107--116, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. L. Sweeney. k-anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst., 10(5):557--570, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. V. S. Verykios, E. Bertino, I. N. Fovino, L. P. Provenza, Y. Saygin, and Y. Theodoridis. State-of-the-art in privacy preserving data mining. SIGMOD Rec., 33(1):50--57, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Provenance views for module privacy

          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
            PODS '11: Proceedings of the thirtieth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
            June 2011
            332 pages
            ISBN:9781450306607
            DOI:10.1145/1989284

            Copyright © 2011 ACM

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 13 June 2011

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate476of1,835submissions,26%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!