Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This is an purely educational question:

Suppose we have different cloud storage providers. Imagine a files as a stream of bits and we save each 'th byte on the ( module )'th cloud provider's storage space.

Q1: Would =2 be a save way to protect data?

Q2: Would some bigger than <2> effectively protect data?

Good protection would mean, that an attacker who obtained the data stored at one provider wouldn't be able to render the original data set.

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Assuming that you don't trust your cloud provider(s) and that an attacker may gain access to your data, no, saving unencrypted data is not going to be particularly secure, even if you're only saving partial data to each provider. There's no guarantee that an attacker won't be able to guess the missing data from the data he does have (and the more you save, the more he has to work with and the easier this gets unless you're continually increasing the value of n), or that patterns in the data won't cause all of the important parts of a chunk of sensitive data to end up at a single provider.

The security is beside the fact that this mechanism is going to be slow and complicated and require all of your n providers to be up in order for you to get or put data and therefor for your app to function.

The safe way to protect data is to encrypt it using a good implementation of a known algorithm before you send it up to the cloud. It works. it's proven, and it's simple.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.