solution-strategy-architecture.tex 6.1 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103
  1. Various models can be used to implement a secure data exchange between the users of an \ac{OSN} via additional network. The solution strategies shown below differ primarily in the question of where data is stored and how it can be found.
  2. \begin{figure}[h!]
  3. \centering
  4. \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{solution-strategy-architecture}
  5. \caption{Architectures for secure data exchange among users: (a) by the use of an additional server, (b) via a P2P network connecting all users or (c) via a hybrid P2P network with servers acting as super-peers}
  6. \label{fig:solution-strategy-architecture}
  7. \end{figure}
  8. One possibility is to use an extra infrastructure to store the data, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:solution-strategy-architecture}.a. An additional server stores and distributes the private data to be protected. Using a server has the advantage that the data are always available and there are no dependencies to other hybrid \ac{OSN} users. Furthermore, resources only have to be available centrally and not locally on the user's device. At the central location, the data can be indexed and explicitly queried. However, the operation and maintenance of one or more servers are problematic. In principle, the question for the service provider has to be clarified, because the reliability of the infrastructure is essential. FaceCloak (see Chapter \ref{sec:facecloak}) used an architecture based on this structure.
  9. Instead of operating a separate, additional server, it would also be possible to use a third-party, existing infrastructure. These include, for example, blockchains or \ac{P2P} file-sharing networks that could be used for data exchange. Since no influence can be exerted on existing infrastructure, its use entails further restrictions and potential risks.
  10. A decentralized solution strategy would create a network among users of the hybrid application (see Figure \ref{fig:solution-strategy-architecture}.b). No extra infrastructure would have to be operated. The users would then have a typical peer role. By using this model, it is difficult to keep data available and accessible even if the user is permanently or temporarily offline. The problem needs to be solved.
  11. Furthermore, the resources on the devices are limited, so that effective and economical solutions are needed. Another challenge is the addressing of peers. Since they typically do not have a static \ac{IP} address, solutions have to be found for accessibility. Since there is no central, global index, finding data is even more difficult.
  12. Adding servers to the \ac{P2P} network would create a hybrid solution (see Figure X). In this model, the servers would take on the role of a super peer, permanently reachable at a fixed address, thus stabilizing the \ac{P2P} network. The problem of data availability could be limited by storing much of the data at super peers. The problem of addressing would also be solved by establishing connections to other peers via the known super peers. However, the problem would remain with the cost and maintenance of the servers.
  13. Table \ref{tab:solution-strategy-architecture-comparison} lists the advantages and disadvantages of the different strategies for the hybrid \ac{OSN} architecture.
  14. % Own infrastructure
  15. \newcommand{\advantageoi}{\begin{minipage} [t] {0.3\textwidth}
  16. \begin{itemize}
  17. \item Availability of data
  18. \item Finding the data
  19. \item Resources only have to be available centrally
  20. \item No dependencies among hybrid \ac{OSN} users
  21. \end{itemize}
  22. \hspace{1mm}
  23. \end{minipage}}
  24. \newcommand{\disadvantageoi}{\begin{minipage} [t] {0.3\textwidth}
  25. \begin{itemize}
  26. \item Expenses
  27. \item Who operates the infrastructure?
  28. \item Compliance with legal requirements
  29. \end{itemize}
  30. \end{minipage}}
  31. % Own network
  32. \newcommand{\advantageon}{\begin{minipage} [t] {0.3\textwidth}
  33. \begin{itemize}
  34. \item Resources scale with increasing number of users
  35. \end{itemize}
  36. \end{minipage}}
  37. \newcommand{\disadvantageon}{\begin{minipage} [t] {0.3\textwidth}
  38. \begin{itemize}
  39. \item Availability of data
  40. \item Finding the data
  41. \item Addressing the peers
  42. \item Local resources limited
  43. \end{itemize}
  44. \hspace{1mm}
  45. \end{minipage}}
  46. % Hybrid solution
  47. \newcommand{\advantagehn}{\begin{minipage} [t] {0.3\textwidth}
  48. \begin{itemize}
  49. \item Availability of data
  50. \item Peer discovery
  51. \end{itemize}
  52. \end{minipage}}
  53. \newcommand{\disadvantagehn}{\begin{minipage} [t] {0.3\textwidth}
  54. \begin{itemize}
  55. \item Expenses
  56. \item Who operates the infrastructure?
  57. \item Finding the data
  58. \end{itemize}
  59. \hspace{1mm}
  60. \end{minipage}}
  61. % External infrastructure
  62. \newcommand{\advantageei}{\begin{minipage} [t] {0.3\textwidth}
  63. \begin{itemize}
  64. \item Ideally no costs
  65. \item Resources are provided by the external infrastructure
  66. \end{itemize}
  67. \end{minipage}}
  68. \newcommand{\disadvantageei}{\begin{minipage} [t] {0.3\textwidth}
  69. \begin{itemize}
  70. \item No influence on future development
  71. \item Dependence on infrastructure entails risks
  72. \end{itemize}
  73. \hspace{1mm}
  74. \end{minipage}}
  75. \begin{table}[h!]
  76. \centering
  77. \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{X|l|l|}
  78. \cline{2-3}
  79. & \textbf{Advantages} & \textbf{Disadvantages} \\ \hline
  80. \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Own infrastructure\\ (centralized)\end{tabular}}} & \advantageoi & \disadvantageoi \\ \hline
  81. \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}P2P network\\ (decentralized)\end{tabular}}} & \advantageon & \disadvantageon \\ \hline
  82. \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Hybrid P2P network\\ (decentralized)\end{tabular}}} & \advantagehn & \disadvantagehn \\ \hline
  83. \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{External infrastructure}} & \advantageei & \disadvantageei \\ \hline
  84. \end{tabularx}
  85. \caption{Advantages and disadvantages of the different solution strategies for the hybrid \ac{OSN} architecture.}
  86. \label{tab:solution-strategy-architecture-comparison}
  87. \end{table}