skip to main content
research-article

Data Block Matrix and Hyperledger Implementation: Extending Distributed Ledger Technology for Privacy Requirements

Published:08 June 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Distributed ledger technology (DLT), including blockchain, has a number of properties that make it useful for distributed systems. However, the immutability of blockchain and most forms of DLT make it impossible to delete data, as is required for compliance with many privacy rules regarding personally identifiable information. Thus, there is a need for DLT that can provide the integrity-preserving property of DLT while also allowing support for privacy rules. The data block matrix (DBM) is a variant of distributed ledger technology. It provides the integrity assurance of blockchain but allows for controlled revision or deletion of data. This property is essential for using DLT in applications that must guarantee privacy requirements by the deleting of a user's private data at their request. The DBM design solves the blockchain privacy conflict thus expanding the range of blockchain applications by also allowing exception management. It has been implemented and is available (https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/redactable-distributed-ledger) as a configurable option for Hyperledger Fabric (HF), with a proof-of-concept application for data sharing in a health care environment. Other potential applications include logistics management and digital currency. This paper will cover the DBM properties and data structure, the DBM implementation in HF, and a use case and application design of the DBM implementation using the pharmaceutical industry supply chain.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Nakamoto S.. 2008. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer electronic cash system. (2008). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. [Accessed 5-16-22].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Zetzsche Dirk A., Buckley Ross P., and Arner Douglas W.. 2018. The distributed liability of distributed ledgers: Legal risks of blockchain. U. Ill. L. Rev. (2018), 1361.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Chang Henry. 2017. Blockchain: Disrupting data protection? Privacy Law and Business International Report, (November 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Ashritha Kondapally, Sindhu M., and Lakshmy K. V.. 2019. Redactable blockchain using enhanced chameleon Hash function. In 2019 5th International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Systems (ICACCS). IEEE, 323328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Ateniese G., Magri B., Venturi D., and Andrade E.. 2017. Redactable blockchain–or–rewriting history in Bitcoin and friends. In 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P). IEEE, 111126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Kuhn Rick, Yaga Dylan, and Voas Jeffrey. 2019. Rethinking distributed ledger technology. Computer 52, 2 (2019), 6872.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Richard Kuhn D.. 2018. A data structure for integrity protection with erasure capability. NIST Cybersecurity Whitepaper (2018). https://admin.cms.csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/enhanced-distributed-ledger-technology/documents/NIST.CSWP.25.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Introduction to Permissioned Distributed Ledger (PDL), 2022. [accessed 5/11/22].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] European Telecommunications Standards Institute, IPv6 Security, Cybersecurity, Blockchain ETSI GR IP6 031 V1.1.1 (Tech. Rpt. 2020). [accessed 5/11/22].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] European Telecommunications Standards Institute, standards work item: IPv6 and Cloud using DataBlockMatrix for Food Supply Chain Tracking and Tracing IPv6-based DataBlockMatrix [accessed 5/11/22].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] GDPR, Recital 26. Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Advancement of Such Data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, 2016 O.J. L 119/1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] L. Mearian . 2018. Will blockchain run afoul of GDPR? Yes and No. Computerworld, 2018. https://www.computerworld.com/article/3269750/will-blockchain-run-afoul-of-gdpr-yes-and-no.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] EPRS | European. 2019. Parliamentary Research Service Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) PE 634.445 – July 2019 2023 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/634445/EPRS_STU(2019)634445_EN.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Kelleher D.. 2016. In Breyer decision today, Europe's highest court rules on definition of personal data. Oct. 19, 2016. https://iapp.org/news/a/in-breyer-decision-today-europes-highest-court-rules-on-definition-of-personal-data/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Breyer v. Germany. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=184668&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1116945.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Baker-Hostetler, Five Things Blockchain Companies Need to Know About the GDPR. https://www.bakerlaw.com/webfiles/Privacy/2018/Brief/Five-Things-Blockchain-Cos-Need-to-Know-About-GDPR.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Deuber D., Magri B., and Thyagarajan S. A. K.. 2019. Redactable blockchain in the permissionless setting. In 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 124138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Cachin Christian. et al. 2018. Hyperledger Fabric: A distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains. 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10228v2. [accessed 10/17/2022].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] Hyperledger Fabric [Source code]. https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/tree/release-2.3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] World Health Organization. 2017. 1 in 10 medical products in developing countries is substandard or falsified. 2019. November 28, 2017 https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/28-11-2017-1-in-10-medical-products-in-developing-countries-is-substandard-orfalsified. [Accessed 2-16-22].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Subramanian Ganesan, Sreekantan Thampy Anand, Valbosco Ugwuoke Nnamdi, and Ramnani Baghwan. 2021. Crypto pharmacy–digital medicine: A mobile application integrated with hybrid blockchain to tackle the issues in pharma supply chain. IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society 2 (2021), 2637.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Mackey Tim K. and Nayyar Gaurvika. 2017. A review of existing and emerging digital technologies to combat the global trade in fake medicines. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 16, 5 (2017), 587602.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Sylim Patrick, Liu Fang, Marcelo Alvin, Fontelo Paul, et al. 2018. Blockchain technology for detecting falsified and substandard drugs in distribution: Pharmaceutical supply chain intervention. JMIR Research Protocols 7, 9 (2018), e10163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Nawale Shankar D. and Konapure Rahul R.. 2021. Blockchain & IoT based drugs traceability for pharma industry. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC). IEEE, 14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Bocek Thomas, Rodrigues Bruno B., Strasser Tim, and Stiller Burkhard. Blockchains everywhere - A use-case of blockchains in the pharma supplychain. In 2017 IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Network and Service Management (IM). IEEE, 772777.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Botcha Krishna Mohan, Chakravarthy Vedula VSSS, et al. Enhancing traceability in pharmaceutical supply chain using internet of things (IoT) and blockchain. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Green Technology (ICISGT). IEEE, 4548.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Musamih Ahmad, Salah Khaled, Jayaraman Raja, Arshad Junaid, Debe Mazin, Al-Hammadi Yousof, and Ellahham Samer. 2021. A blockchain-based approach for drug traceability in healthcare supply chain. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 97289743.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Jangir Sandip, Muzumdar Ajit, Jaiswal Alok, Modi Chirag N., Chandel Sheetal, and Vyjayanthi C.. A novel framework for pharmaceutical supply chain management using distributed ledger and smart contracts. In 2019 10th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT). IEEE, 17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Wiley S. and Barwig J.. 2020. California law requires legal compliance scrutiny to maintain pharma data sharing, PharmExec. com, 2020. https://www.pharmexec.com/view/california-law-requires-legal-compliance-scrutiny-maintain-pharma-data-sharing. [accessed 5/10/22].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Buckley, Virginia Passes Amendments on CDPA for Data Deletion, Buckley, March 3, 2022 https://buckleyfirm.com/blog/2022-03-03/virginia-passes-amendments-cdpa-data-deletion. [accessed 5/10/22].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Houser K. A. and Voss W. G.. 2018. GDPR: The end of Google and Facebook or a new paradigm in data privacy. Rich. JL & Tech. 25 (2018), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Klar M.. 2020. Binding Effects of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on US Companies. Hastings Sci. & Tech. LJ 11 (2020), 101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] Forcier M. B., Gallois H., Mullan S., and Joly Y.. 2019. Integrating artificial intelligence into health care through data access: Can the GDPR act as a beacon for policymakers?. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 6, 1 (2019), 317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Jones M. L. and Kaminski M. E.. 2020. An American's guide to the GDPR. Denv. L. Rev. 98 (2020), 93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] INCITS, INCITS 565-2020-Information Technology – Next Generation Access Control, 4/24/2020, https://standards.incits.org/apps/group_public/project/details.php?project_id=2328.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Ferraiolo D., Chandramouli R., Hu V., and Kuhn R.. 2016. A comparison of attribute based access control (ABAC) standards for data service applications. NIST Special Publication 800–178, October 2016. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-178.pdf. [accessed 5/10/22].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Ferraiolo D., DeFranco J. F., Kuhn D. R., and Roberts J.. A new approach to data sharing and distributed ledger technology: A clinical trial use case. IEEE Netw. 35 1, 45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [38] DeFranco J., Ferraiolo D., Kuhn R., and Roberts J.. A trusted federated system to share granular data among disparate database resources. IEEE Computer 54, 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [39] Bernabe J. B., Canovas J. L., Hernandez-Ramos J. L., Moreno R. T., and Skarmeta A.. 2019. Privacy-preserving solutions for blockchain: Review and challenges. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 164908164940.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Demianets V. and Kanakakis A., Distributed Ledger with Secure Data Deletion—Revision 1.4. Stockholm, Sweden, 2016. https://github.com/TarantulaTechnology/Documents-Blockchain-vol-002/blob/master/Distributed%20Ledger%20With%20Secure%20Data%20Deletion.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Data Block Matrix and Hyperledger Implementation: Extending Distributed Ledger Technology for Privacy Requirements

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Distributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice
      Distributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice  Volume 2, Issue 2
      June 2023
      184 pages
      EISSN:2769-6480
      DOI:10.1145/3603695
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of the United States government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 June 2023
      • Online AM: 27 February 2023
      • Accepted: 13 February 2023
      • Revised: 24 January 2023
      • Received: 18 October 2022
      Published in dlt Volume 2, Issue 2

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)197
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text