AAAA: SSO and MFA Implementation in Multi-Cloud to Mitigate Rising Threats and Concerns Related to User Metadata
, Jingsha He 1, Nafei Zhu 1,*, Fahad Sabah 1, Zulfiqar Ali Zardari 2, Saqib Hussain 1 and Fahad Razque 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While it seems first that you really improved the paper according to the reviewer suggestions - you left out the most important comments!
- "Section 2 on related work misses the point on comparing ones work to already published efforts and make the differences eplicit." => you still do just enumerate, which is not enough...even if in APA style!
- "While many contributions are stated they are not made explicit nor appropriately defined/proven, e.g. definition of the risk model or the mathematical proof promised on page 9" => still both are not there!
Again, your figures are not readable, e.g. Fig 5, and not drawn as vector graphics!
The 2 page python code is still trivial and one gets the idea from the two pictures well enough.
Author Response
Reply Letter to Reviewer’s Comments
Manuscript ID: applsci-1133979
First, the authors would like to deeply thank the associate editor and the reviewer for their valuable comments to improve the clarity, the presentation, and the novelty of our paper. The authors have revised the paper based on the reply to the reviewers as follows. The modifications and corrections highlighted in red with under line and blue in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 1
[Comment 1]
"Section 2 on related work misses the point on comparing ones work to already published efforts and make the differences eplicit." => you still do just enumerate, which is not enough...even if in APA style!
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the respected reviewer for this constructive comment advising us to improve related work and provide a comparison of your proposed technique with work already published. Our proposed technique applied on multi-cloud paradigm with MFA and SSO based implementation. We draw a comparison table at the end of the section 2 with most recent work done in distributed computing paradigm and highlight how this is related to our proposed MFA and SSO technique.
[Comment 2]
"While many contributions are stated they are not made explicit nor appropriately defined/proven, e.g. definition of the risk model or the mathematical proof promised on page 9"=> still both are not there!
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the reviewer to highlight our mistake where we mention mathematical prove and pseudo code in section 4. Actually we discuss the mathematical notational form in terms of cost effectiveness under the section 5 “Result and discussion”. You can find the required changes in blue color under section 5.
[Comment 3]
Again, your figures are not readable, e.g. Fig 5, and not drawn as vector graphics!
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the comment to redraw the figure 5. Subjected figure redrawn, it has been exported from matlab in PNG format.
[Comment 4]
The 2 page python code is still trivial and one gets the idea from the two pictures well enough.
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the respected reviewer for this constructive comment advising us to replace the complete detailed code. Required changes has done and we replaced it with pseudo code in some lines.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
""Single sign-on (SSO) raisedoverlaps with other prominent and unified techniques, including the escalation of multi-cloud, password lethargy, new developer techniques, enterprise agility, webaccess,multi-cloud intuitive applications and services." - Please provide reference for this.
Figure 3 - please improve it, for example, the arrow signs.
How is that measurement reported in table 2?
The results of figure 5 are not clear.
What's the innovation in the proposed solution?
Author Response
Reply Letter to Reviewer’s Comments
Manuscript ID: applsci-1133979
First, the authors would like to deeply thank the associate editor and the reviewer for their valuable comments to improve the clarity, the presentation, and the novelty of our paper. The authors have revised the paper based on the reply to the reviewers as follows. The modifications and corrections highlighted in red with under line and blue in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2
[Comment 1]
""Single sign-on (SSO) raised overlaps with other prominent and unified techniques, including the escalation of multi-cloud, password lethargy, new developer techniques, enterprise agility, webaccess,multi-cloud intuitive applications and services." - Please provide reference for this.
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the respected reviewer for this constructive comment advising us at citation. Required citation is added and changed made accordingly in reference table.
[Comment 2]
Figure 3 - please improve it, for example, the arrow signs.
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the reviewer to highlight our mistake in figure 3. Subjected figure is redrawn and fix the highlighted issue.
[Comment 3]
How is that measurement reported in table 2?
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the reviewer to highlight the measures definition in table 2. Actually, we have taken efficacy as measure and re-define it in the bullets definitions of table 2 header.
[Comment 4]
The results of figure 5 are not clear.
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the comment to redraw the figure 5. Subjected figure redrawn, it has been exported from matlab in PNG format.
[Comment 5]
What's the innovation in the proposed solution
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the comment to highlight the innovative point of the proposed model. We have already listed the novel point of our proposed research under first section “Introduction”. You can find it in blue color at the end of Introduction section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Getting there...slowly
You have to reference Table 1 from within the text AND further elaborate on the distinction to your work, because otherwise it is just another from of an enumeration!
The quality of Figure 5 is still a disgrace, all the other figures are also not vector graphics and I had to go up to 150% to be able to decipher them - just re-draw them in SVG or similar!
Spelling &expression still have to be improved, e.g. "Our novel contribution to this proposed work are:" => "Our novel contriubtions within this work are:", etc.
Author Response
Reply Letter to Reviewer’s Comments
Manuscript ID: applsci-1133979
First, the authors would like to deeply thank the associate editor and the reviewer for their valuable comments to improve the clarity, the presentation, and the novelty of our paper. The authors have revised the paper based on the reply to the reviewers as follows. The modifications and corrections highlighted in red with under line in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 1
[Comment 1]
You have to reference Table 1 from within the text AND further elaborate on the distinction to your work, because otherwise it is just another from of an enumeration!
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the respected reviewer for this constructive comment advising us to add distinction related to table 1. Required distinction added under the table 1. Actually, we draw the table from the content written above in related work section. Our proposed work define the efficacy in terms of AAAA in multi-cloud model and we illustrate the work related from AAAA deployment in distributed computing paradigm.
[Comment 2]
The quality of Figure 5 is still a disgrace, all the other figures are also not vector graphics and I had to go up to 150% to be able to decipher them - just re-draw them in SVG or similar!
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the respected reviewer for these constructive required diagrams changes into SVG format.
[Comment 3]
Spelling &expression still have to be improved, e.g. "Our novel contribution to this proposed work are:" => "Our novel contriubtions within this work are:", etc.
[Reply]
Thank you for highlighting the spelling mistake, need to be improved. Required changes have done on pointing location in the current version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Please correct the spelling mistake "environment unedr the roof of a single service provider[79]"
- Please correct the spacing after reference [1].
- There are still some bent arrows in figure 3.
Author Response
Reply Letter to Reviewer’s Comments
Manuscript ID: applsci-1133979
First, the authors would like to deeply thank the associate editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments to improve the clarity, the presentation, and the novelty of our paper. The authors have revised the paper based on the reply to the reviewers as follows. The modifications and corrections highlighted in red with under line in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2
[Comment 1]
Please correct the spelling mistake "environment unedr the roof of a single service provider[79]"
[Reply]
Thank you for highlighting spelling mistake, need to be improve. Required changes have done on pointing location in current version of the manuscript.
[Comment 2]
Please correct the spacing after reference [1].
[Reply]
Thank you for highlighting spelling mistake, need to be improve. Required changes have done on pointing location in current version of the manuscript.
[Comment 3]
There are still some bent arrows in figure 3.
[Reply]
We would like to deeply thank the respected reviewer for this constructive comment advising us to improve quality of the figure 3. Figure 3 is redrawn and updated.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
