Research on Dynamic Searchable Encryption Method Based on Bloom Filter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is about a Big Data age problem, where individuals and businesses store large amounts of data in cloud servers. But, some malicious users could access this data on the server. To avoid this insecure problem, users should encrypt their valuable information stored on cloud servers. The authors proposed and tested an efficient searchable encryption scheme based on the Authenticator Bloom Filter (ABF).
This solution can support dynamic updates, multi-user, and meet forward and backward security.
The proposed scheme takes less time to search and update algorithms, especially when
the keyword does not exist.
My comments:
1) The authors put some excessively long paragraphs, making it difficult for readers to pay attention.
2) The explanation of PKI operation would be better with figures, sequence diagrams, and flowcharts.
3) The term uuu, which represents a collection of updated files, is not present in any equation of the paper
4) The authors should list the three types of backward security in the Bost et al. paper. And also explain why they choose the second one: backward privacy with update mode.
5) According to the authors, Bloom in 1970 proposed the Bloom filter, but there is no reference to that.
6) Even though the authors explained the system operation, a flowchart would be valuable for readers' understanding.
7) The Construction Section has eight algorithm descriptions, not seven.
8) In the security analysis section, the authors should introduce to readers a summary of all seven games
9) The ASE algorithm needs a reference.
10) The paragraph between lines 411 and 425 should be divided into two paragraphs. The first paragraph describes Figure 8, and the second describes Figure 9.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsStill open issues:
The authors used too large paragrafs in the introduction. This difficult for the readers concentration and understanding. In the security analysis section, the authors should put the purpose of the games before the description of them for easely understanding.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
