Comparison of Distributed Tamper-Proof Storage Methods for Public Key Infrastructures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposes a comparison of tamper-proof storage methods for PKI systems. The following are my suggestions to improve the quality of the paper further.
Section 2
Consider adding a comparison/conclusion paragraph stating how the proposal differs from others. Alternatively, stating what is the missing research area that this proposal covers.
Section 3
In Figure 1, in Step 6.1. How does the Signing Hub get the "token" to decrypt?
In Figure 3:
- Why do the steps start at number 11?
- How does the HLF obtain pk_sen* in Step 13.1.2.?
- In step 13.1.3, is not the Signing Hub already getting pk_sen* from Phase 1 (c.f., Figure 2 step 11? Why the hub get another pk_sen* here?
- Whose public key is used in step 13.2?
Section 4
It is not clear yet (at least to me) what the goal is and what is being proposed in this paper.
Do the authors try to replace HLF in Figures 2 and 3 with IPFS and SIA and compare which is faster?
However, Figures 2 and 3 are specific to HLF. If they are modified to IPFS and SIA, then the protocol steps should be modified (for IPFS and SIA cases) to guarantee the same security properties as in the original paper.
Please ensures that the comparison yields the same security guarantee as the original so that they all can be compared fairly.
Additionally, a separate figure or diagram to summarize or differentiate the authors' proposal from Figures 2 and 3. So the readers can understand better what is being modified from the originals.
Section 5
Does the private IPFS run in a local network? If yes, it will be evident that it will be faster than others. HLF process queries from users in the form of transactions; thus, it should be slower than IPFS. Also, HLF needs to do the consensus will even slow down the processing time even for a local network. Public IPFS and SIA need to connect to the real network. Thus, real-world latency may affect the experiment result. Please ensure that the experiment has been performed equally and that each condition is treated equally, if possible.
HLF, IPFS, and SIA have their own merits and trade-off. Please consider adding qualitative pros and cons for all of them. Thus, readers can understand that, for example, even if IPFS is the most efficient, it does not have high security and integrity guarantee as in HLF.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your kind review! I made major changes to the manuscript. Please find our comments in the attached pdf.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to rate your article. Areas to be corrected:
1. All abbreviations mentioned must be fully explained for the first time (e.g. line 11 of abstract).
2. The introduction lacks a detailed justification of the problem: a lot of explanation of concepts and attempts to justify the problematic based on only 4 sources. The purpose of the article must also be clearly defined.
3. in principle, the article should be redone structurally, in accordance with the following logical sequence: Introduction (in which the problem is clearly justified, and the goal and/or hypotheses are set), if there is a need to review literature sources, then it should be done as one chapter with relevant subsections, then it should there should be a clear Methods and methodology section, and a section or sections of the obtained Results and discussion (here, according to logic, they could be separate or combined).
4. The critical approach of the authors of the article is missing in the discussion section.
5. It is recommended to avoid citation when formulating conclusions.
6. Please note that chapters/subsections should not be less than 1 page. Therefore, the existing subsections must be logically combined for the moment.
7. When examining such a topic, there should be a larger list of literature.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your kind review. I made major changes to the manuscript following your proposed changes. Please find our comments in the attached pdf.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my previous comments well.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much, again, for your feedback. We are glad to hear that we addressed all issues.
Best regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
It would be appropriate to write in the introduction or somewhere near the first abbreviation that all abbreviations used in the text are presented with a full explanation at the end of the article
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much, again, for your review. We included a phrase mentioning the abbreviations at the end of the article right after the structure overview in the introduction. We hope that this satisfies your request.
Best regards,
