PONE-D-23-09341ENSURING PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF CLOUD DATA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIVERSE CRYPTOGRAPHIC SOLUTIONS BASED ON RUN TIME TRENDPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dawson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 23 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pandi Vijayakumar, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"No funding"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"No competing interest"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Additional Editor Comments:

Based on the comments of the reviewers, I recommend this paper for major revision.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Two algorithms are defined for non-linear and non-deterministic execution time and five algorithms are defined for produced linear, predictable and deterministic run time. The authors have to identify some other recent algorithms for non-linearity and that must also be included for comparative analysis.

2. The authors must also provide concluding remarks on such comparative analysis in the abstract section itself.

3. Do all the algorithms mentioned in the manuscript ensure both privacy and confidentiality of cloud data?

4. What is the benchmark dataset used in cloud environment to ensure privacy and confidentiality in this manuscript?

5. The manuscript is too lengthy. Some of the unimportant text can be removed.

6. Even though this manuscript concentrates on comparative analysis, some kind of novelty must be provided in a separate section as a base for a new proposed system in relation to the existing algorithms.

7. The performance section can be still improved with advanced parameter comparisons.

8. The related section can also be strengthened with reference to privacy and confidentiality parameters in the existing literature.

Reviewer #2: 1. Authors should assign chapter numbers carefully. There are several mistakes in the numbering throughout the paper. For example, please check the conclusion section number, as well as section 3.4.4, which is mistakenly labeled as 3.3.5.

2. The overall organization of the article is difficult to understand, and it lacks continuity. The authors should revise the structure and flow of the paper to ensure a logical and coherent progression of ideas.

3. Please check equation numbers carefully. There is an instance where equation number 13 is represented twice. Ensure that all equations are properly numbered and referenced.

4. The flow of the article is lacking in explanations about tables and figures. Make sure to provide clear and sufficient explanations for each table and figure to help readers understand their relevance and implications.

5. The manuscript contains numerous grammatical and typographical errors. The authors are advised to thoroughly proofread the paper and consider professional English proofreading services to improve the language quality.

6. The novelty of the work needs to be more explicitly described. The authors should clearly state the unique contributions of their research and highlight how it differentiates from previous works in the field.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

ENSURING PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF CLOUD DATA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIVERSE CRYPTOGRAPHIC SOLUTIONS BASED ON RUN TIME TREND

PONE-D-23-09341R1

Dear Dr. Dawson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Pandi Vijayakumar, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: We have carefully reviewed your revised manuscript, and we appreciate the efforts you have made to address the comments and improve the clarity of the methodology. The revised version provides a more detailed explanation of the cryptographic schemes and their integration. However, there are still some areas that require further clarification and improvement. We kindly request you to consider the following points for the final version of the manuscript:

1. Enhanced RSA (ERSA): The description of Enhanced RSA in the methodology section is not entirely clear. The integration of Gaussian interpolation with the traditional RSA needs further elaboration. Please provide a step-by-step explanation of how the interpolation process enhances the security of RSA, and how it helps overcome the factorization problem.

2. Non-Deterministic Cryptographic Scheme (NCS): While the methodology briefly mentions the use of Good Prime Numbers, Linear Congruential Generator, and Fixed Sliding Window Algorithm, the specific details of how these components are integrated into the NCS are missing. Please provide more comprehensive information on how each component contributes to the security and effectiveness of the NCS.

3. Enhanced Homomorphism Scheme (EHS): Similar to the NCS, the EHS section lacks specific details regarding the integration of Good Prime Numbers, Linear Congruential Generator, Fixed Sliding Window Algorithm, and Gentry's Algorithm. Please provide a clear and step-by-step explanation of how these components are combined to create the EHS.

4. Salsa20 and Chacha20: The methodology provides a brief description of Salsa20 and Chacha20. However, to enhance understanding, please provide a more detailed explanation of the internal workings of these stream ciphers, including the role of quarterround operations and the number of rounds used in each algorithm. Additionally, clarify the specific benefits of Chacha20 over Salsa20, as mentioned in the section.

5. Proposed Framework: In the section discussing the proposed framework, it would be beneficial to provide more information about the key generation, encryption, and decryption phases for each cryptographic scheme (ERSA, NCS, EHS, Chacha20, and Salsa20). Please elaborate on the processes involved in each phase and how they contribute to the overall security and efficiency of the system.

6. Benchmarking and Evaluation: While the methodology mentions that the architecture is divided into five phases for benchmarking (key generation, encryption, decryption, memory utilization, and throughput), specific details on the benchmarking process are missing. Please provide a clear explanation of the evaluation metrics used, the datasets utilized for testing, and the criteria for comparing the different cryptographic schemes.

7. Experiment Reproducibility: It is essential to ensure the reproducibility of the experiments for validation purposes. Please provide detailed information on the hardware and software setup used in the experiments, including the specification of the digital devices and any libraries or frameworks utilized. Also, consider providing access to the datasets and source code to facilitate independent verification of the results.

8. Comparative Study: The comparative study of the cryptographic schemes (ERSA, NCS, EHS, Chacha20, and Salsa20) could benefit from additional insights. Please include a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each scheme, considering factors such as encryption/decryption speed, memory usage, and security features. This will help readers understand the trade-offs between the different schemes and make informed decisions.

9. Figures and Tables: Ensure that all figures and tables are properly labeled and referenced in the text. Additionally, double-check the consistency of the notation used in the figures and the methodology to avoid any confusion.

10. Language and Clarity: Proofread the entire manuscript to improve the language and clarity. Correct any grammatical errors and sentence structures to enhance the readability and coherence of the text.

11. Overall, the methodology section presents an interesting and comprehensive approach to cryptographic schemes. However, addressing the above-mentioned points will further strengthen the clarity and depth of the explanation, making the methodology more robust and accessible to readers.

12. Figure 1, titled "Work flow diagram of enhanced RSA," displays a complex network of arrows representing information flow. However, it is not clear what inputs and outputs are involved in each block of the diagram. Clarification is needed regarding the data or information that enters and exits each block to better understand the processes depicted in the diagram. It would be helpful to rephrase the diagram or provide additional information to clearly indicate the inputs and outputs associated with each block to enhance the overall comprehension of the figure.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr.RAJKUMAR.S.C

**********