A Novel, Privacy Preserving, Architecture for Online Social Networks

The centralized nature of conventional OSNs poses serious risks to the security and privacy of information exchanged between their members. These risks prompted several attempts to create decentralized OSNs, or DOSNs. The basic idea underlying these attempts, is that each member of a social network keeps its data under its own control, instead of surrendering it to a central host, providing access to it to other members according to its own access-control policy. Unfortunately all existing versions of DOSNs have a very serious limitation. Namely, they are unable to subject the membership of a DOSN, and the interaction between its members, to any global policy—which is essential for many social communities. Moreover, the DOSN architecture is unable to support useful capabilities such as narrowcasting and profile-based search. This paper describes a novel architecture of decentralized OSNs—called DOSC, for “online social community”. DOSC adopts the decentralization idea underlying DOSNs, but it is able to subject the membership of a DOSC-community, and the interaction between its members, to a wide range of policies, including privacy-preserving narrowcasting and profile-sensitive search. Received on XXXX; accepted on XXXX; published on XXXX

[1]  Sonja Buchegger,et al.  PeerSoN: P2P social networking: early experiences and insights , 2009, SNS '09.

[2]  Zhe Wang,et al.  Establishing global policies over decentralized online social networks , 2014, 10th IEEE International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing.

[3]  Sonja Buchegger,et al.  Encryption for Peer-to-Peer Social Networks , 2011, 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing.

[4]  Philipp Frischmuth,et al.  An architecture of a distributed semantic social network , 2014, Semantic Web.

[5]  Sonja Buchegger,et al.  P2P Social Networks with Broadcast Encryption Protected Privacy , 2011, PrimeLife.

[6]  Sonja Buchegger,et al.  A case for P2P infrastructure for social networks - opportunities & challenges , 2009, 2009 Sixth International Conference on Wireless On-Demand Network Systems and Services.

[7]  Guillaume Pierre,et al.  A survey of DHT security techniques , 2011, CSUR.

[8]  Thu D. Nguyen,et al.  Enforcement of Communal Policies for Peer-to-Peer Systems , 2004 .

[9]  Ravi S. Sandhu,et al.  Configuring role-based access control to enforce mandatory and discretionary access control policies , 2000, TSEC.

[10]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work , 2009, GROUP.

[11]  Naftaly H. Minsky,et al.  Decentralized Governance of Distributed Systems via Interaction Control , 2012, Logic Programs, Norms and Action.

[12]  Peter Triantafillou,et al.  eXO: Decentralized Autonomous Scalable Social Networking , 2011, CIDR.

[13]  Victoria Ungureanu,et al.  Law-governed interaction: a coordination and control mechanism for heterogeneous distributed systems , 2000, TSEM.

[14]  Rajesh Sharma,et al.  SuperNova: Super-peers based architecture for decentralized online social networks , 2011, 2012 Fourth International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS 2012).

[15]  Ken Moody,et al.  Meta-policies for distributed role-based access control systems , 2002, Proceedings Third International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.

[16]  Refik Molva,et al.  Safebook: A privacy-preserving online social network leveraging on real-life trust , 2009, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[17]  Mahesh Balakrishnan,et al.  Contrail: Enabling Decentralized Social Networks on Smartphones , 2011, Middleware.

[18]  Johan A. Pouwelse,et al.  A Gossip-Based Distributed Social Networking System , 2009, 2009 18th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructures for Collaborative Enterprises.

[19]  Naftaly H. Minsky,et al.  Establishing Global Properties of Multi-Agent Systems Via Local Laws , 2006, E4MAS.

[20]  UngureanuVictoria,et al.  Law-governed interaction , 2000 .

[21]  Refik Molva,et al.  On the Security and Feasibility of Safebook: A Distributed Privacy-Preserving Online Social Network , 2009, PrimeLife.

[22]  Giancarlo Ruffo,et al.  LotusNet: Tunable privacy for distributed online social network services , 2012, Comput. Commun..

[23]  Naftaly H. Minsky,et al.  In Vivo Evolution of Policies that Govern a Distributed System , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.

[24]  Naftaly H. Minsky,et al.  Flexible Regulation of Distributed Coalitions , 2003, ESORICS.

[25]  Krzysztof Rzadca,et al.  Decentralized Online Social Networks , 2010, Handbook of Social Network Technologies.

[26]  Giancarlo Ruffo,et al.  Secure and flexible framework for decentralized social network services , 2010, 2010 8th IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops).

[27]  Dan S. Wallach,et al.  Birds of a FETHR: open, decentralized micropublishing , 2009, IPTPS.

[28]  Refik Molva,et al.  Safebook: Feasibility of transitive cooperation for privacy on a decentralized social network , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks & Workshops.

[29]  Jin Zhao,et al.  Cuckoo: towards decentralized, socio-aware online microblogging services and data measurements , 2010, HotPlanet '10.

[30]  Matei Ripeanu,et al.  Peer-to-peer architecture case study: Gnutella network , 2001, Proceedings First International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing.