Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622

Review

Cloud computing and trust evaluation: A systematic literature review

of the state-of-the-art mechanisms
Matin Chiregi, Nima Jafari Navimipour ∗
Department of Computer Engineering, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
Received 9 July 2015; received in revised form 16 June 2017; accepted 21 September 2017
Available online 12 October 2017

Abstract
Cloud computing is a model to enable the convenient access to the network request for sharing the groups of configurable
calculating resources. In this environment, confidences are insufficient for the customers to identify the trustworthy cloud service
providers. Therefore, in this system, an important challenge is assessing the trustworthiness to enable the users for choosing the
trustworthy resources in the cloud infrastructure. However, in the cloud environments, despite the significance of the trust mechanisms
and methods, the comprehensive and systematic research and study about the background of the trust evaluation methods between
the cloud providers is rare. Hence, in this paper, we analyzed the trust evaluation state of the art mechanisms which are used in the
cloud environment so far. Also, we analyzed and compared them in terms of integrity, security, reliability, dependability, safety,
dynamicity, confidentiality, scalability, and giving a suggestion for some future research. Also, this article displays a systematic
literature review (SLR) on the trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud environments up to the end of March 2017. We identified 224
articles, which are reduced to 28 primary ones through our article selection process. By presenting the state-of-the-art information
and the challenges issues, this survey will directly support academics, researchers, and professionals in their understanding of
changes in the trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud environments.
© 2017 Electronics Research Institute (ERI). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Trust; Cloud computing; Cloud service; Cloud provider; Systematic literature review

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
2. Systematic literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610
2.1. Article selection process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610
2.2. Article classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
3. Review of the selected trust evaluating mechanisms in the cloud environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +989144021694; fax: +984134203292.

E-mail address: jafari@iaut.ac.ir (N. Jafari Navimipour).
Peer review under the responsibility of Electronics Research Institute (ERI).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesit.2017.09.001
2314-7172/© 2017 Electronics Research Institute (ERI). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622 609

4. Results and comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617

5. Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620

1. Introduction

Cloud computing is rapidly becoming a significant service in the Internet computing (Manvi and Krishna Shyam,
2014; Azad and Navimipour, 2017). It relatively is a new word in information technology which is first commercialized
in 2006 by Amazon’s EC2 (Abbadi and Martin, 2011). Cloud-based computing services have grown in popularity in
recent years (Wang and Wei, 2015; Mohammadi and Navimipour, 2017) which bring great advantages to all kinds of
computing activities including business support (Chang et al., 2016; Corrales, 2016). It offers people the method for
sharing distributed resources and services that belong to different organizations or sites (Shen and Tong, 2010; Vakili
and Navimipour, 2017). It is a universal computing paradigm that has revolutionized how computer substructure and
services are delivered (Sabi et al., 2016; Sheikholeslami and Navimipour, 2017). Cloud computing offers unprecedented
computing power and flexibility in the distributed computing environment (Chen et al., 2015; Fouladi and Navimipour,
2017; Hazratzadeh and Jafari Navimipour, 2017). It is a new way of delivering calculating resources to run websites and
web applications (Chong et al., 2014; Keshanchi et al., 2017). Actually, cloud computing has been used for webmail,
blog, storage and web hosting services (Kim et al., 2010) and offers different services in form of infrastructure,
platform, and software to meet the consumer requirements (Contractor and Patel, 2017; Chiregi and Navimipour, 2016a;
Keshanchi and Navimipour, 2016). It is basically a combination of existing technologies that are succeeding in making
an example shift in building and keeping distributed computing systems, multiprocessor, virtualization technology,
network-based dispersed data storage and networking (Behl, 2011; Chiregi and Navimipour, 2016b). Essentially, cloud
computing is a form of outsourcing whereby organizations typically outsource software, platforms, applications, data,
business, infrastructure and platform services (Carroll, 2015; Du et al., 2017), and it widely used method for data
storage on-demand (Mahboob et al., 2016; Tian et al., 2010). Cloud computing is an outstanding calculated approach
which supports service request where the Internet can develop resources to clients (Xie et al., 2015). It is also an
approach where the users can have the availability of the pool of computing resources as well as the computing power
of their own in a network environment (Mell and Grance, 2009; Navimipour et al., 2014; Kim and Park, 2013; Armbrust
et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2010; Dikaiakos et al., 2009). It offers scalable, dynamic, shared, and flexible resources over
the Internet from remote data centers to the users (Habib et al., 2012; Jafari Navimipour et al., 2015a; Navimipour and
Milani, 2015). Also, cloud computing builds on the basics of distributed computing, virtualization, grid computing
(Mehmi et al., 2017), service orientation, etc. (Zissis and Lekkas, 2012). Cloud infrastructure supports four types of
service delivery models, such as Software as a Service (SaaS) (Gani et al., 2014; Espadas et al., 2013), Platform as
a Service (PaaS) (Anselmi et al., 2014), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) (Manuel, 2013; Gajbhiye and Shrivastva,
2014), and Expert as a Service (EaaS) (Jafari Navimipour et al., 2015a,b; Navimipour and Zareie, 2015).
On the other hand, the trust issues and challenges have been discussed widely of different viewpoints in the cloud
computing. (Huang and Nicol, 2013). It can be of two types, trust in efficiency and trust in belief (Shanmugam and
Tamilselvan, 2017). There are not special trust assessment models for the cloud computing environment (Guo et al.,
2011). Trust is a significant indicator for service selection and recommendation in the cloud computing (Mao et al.,
2017; Matthew and Md, 2017), and it is still an emerging topic (Alhanahnah et al., 2017). It explains the paramount
of trust concepts for service selection and analyzes the present tendencies for trust establishment (Habib et al., 2012).
Trust is an inseparable part of the cloud computing, and it is necessary for its adoption and growth (Muchahari and
Sinha, 2012). Although trust has studied in different fields, there is not a global agreement on its definition among
researchers (Filali and Yagoubi, 2015), which is often agreed that it can influence security by assisting in decision-
making processes (Moyano et al., 2013). A relationship of trust exists among at least two sections the individual and
another party (Walterbusch et al., 2013). Trust in the cloud is increasingly grabbing the aim of most stakeholders,
especially in the community cloud due to its highly open environment to outside users (Wenjuan et al., 2012). Trust has
defined as the subjective probability by which a party supposes another to perform a given action, and it is the degree
to which one entity is eager to rely on something or someone, in a state with the concept of relative security (Jøsang
et al., 2007). Trust is usually defined to “the confidence levels in something or someone” (Ko et al., 2011; Duckett,
610 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622

2005). It also can be measured by the worth of trust which depends on the context and the entity’s history performance,
which is not a fixed worth (Yang et al., 2010), and it can be considered as the credence or confidence of the user to
the service provider (Rathi et al., 2017). The trust evaluates the identification of a node and the reliability of its that
depends on the performance and the credit records of a node (Lu and Shao, 2012). Also, it has been involved in the
node security communication, security storing, resource distribution and many other aspects of the cloud computing
(Ding et al., 2015). Creating trust in cloud computing will certainly require data integrity, identity, and data privacy
through encryption (Khan and Malluhi, 2010). The trust technique provides a good way for improving the system
security (Wu et al., 2013). Trust issues in cloud environments can be separated into four sub-categories, which include:
(a) how to give a definition and assessment trust according to the unique feature of cloud environments, (b) how to
manage malicious recommend information, which is crucial in cloud environments, as trust relationship in clouds is
provisionally and dynamic, (c) how to regard and give difference safety level of service according to the trust degree,
(d) how to handle trust degree change with interaction time and context, and to control, adapt, and really reflect trust
link dynamic change with time and space.
However, despite the importance of the trust mechanisms in the cloud computing, as with our knowledge, the
comprehensive and systematic review and study of the background about the trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud
computing is very rare. Therefore, the contribution of this paper is to investigate the trust mechanisms in the cloud
computing and to describe the types of addressing challenges. This investigation contains what topics is examined,
and what the results earned. Also, we propose solutions for the future studies. Briefly, the main portions of this article
are as follows:

• Offering the trust overview mechanisms in the cloud environment;

• Offering a summary of the selected articles;
• surveying some initial challenges in the cloud environments;
• Outlining the key sections where future research can recover the trust in cloud environments.

The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 clarifies the trust in the cloud environment. Section
3 discusses trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud environment. Section 4 presents the results and comparison.
Section 5 maps out some open issues. Finally, Section 6 provides the conclusion.

2. Systematic literature review

A systematic literature review (SLR) is a type of literature review that gathers and critically analyze multiple
research studies or articles (Afroz and Navimipour, 2017; Aznoli and Navimipour, 2016). It is a very precise method
of synthesizing current research correlated to a topic of interest that it must be very exact for example be conducted
according to a well-defined procedure and the research process must be reported in a style that can be understand-
able to other researchers (Kitchenham, 2004; Charband and Navimipour, 2016; Milani and Navimipour, 2016). Prior
researchers have discussed that using a method for literature review can ensure that the systematic fault is confined,
chance effects are reduced, and the legitimacy of data analysis is enhanced (Navimipour and Charband, 2016; Soltani
and Navimipour, 2016). All of these advantages lead to more trustworthy results that form the base and foundation
for drawing a conclusion (Soltani and Navimipour, 2016; Becheikh et al., 2006; Reim et al., 2015). In this section,
the SLR is applied for doing a wide analysis of the trust evaluation techniques in the cloud computing. Then, we have
defined the search process, containing the article choice process and classification.

2.1. Article selection process

The article choice strategy is contained three main stages as follows:

In stage 1, automated search based on the keywords, some electronic databases such as ScienceDirect, Google
scholar, Springerlink, and IEEExplore have been utilized which are depicted in Table 1. Some keywords (trust cloud
computing; trust cloud environment; and trust cloud service) are used to find relevant articles in these databases.
In stage 2, choosing the articles based on their title is done. This stage begins by setting certain practical screening
criteria. In total, the 224 results are obtained. The working articles, reports, erratum, editorial notes, and commentaries
were deleted. Finally, the 28 articles for analysis were considered. The papers were chosen according to their title and
 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622 611

Table 1
Electronic databases used in SLR.
Online database URL

ScienceDirect http://www.sciencedirect.com/
Springerlink http://link.springer.com/
IEEExplore http://IEEExplore.IEEE.org/

Table 2
Paper selection funnels in each category.
Stage Trust mechanisms
Number of articles

Stage1 224
Stage2 Journals Conferences Books
69 155 –
Stage3 Article categorization by year
Until 2004 2005–2009 2010–2013 2014–2017
2 5 124 93

the publisher, containing Elsevier, Springer, Emerald, IEEE, Taylor, Wiley and etc. Indeed, publications that cover the
subject of trust in the cloud computing may not always be published in highly ranked journals because it is still an
emerging topic.
In stage 3, we separately studied the complete text of the abstracts and articles’ titles to examine for relevance.
According to the article content, publication years and journal rank, each article was either included or excluded.
Based on the article relation, journal rank, and publication years, this time-laborious process resulted in excluding 195
articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria. So, 28 articles have been selected for further examination in Section 3.
In this survey, an overview of the used process to identify the articles has been displayed in Table 2. The Google
scholar search motor has been utilized to find the primary studies with the automated search. It search has resulted
in recognizing 28 articles considered relevant for analysis. The articles resulting from the initial search through three
steps have been refined. In this stage, we automatically have searched keywords and then found 224 articles from
the journals and conference articles. Based on the publication time, the number of the 28 article has been chosen and
analyzed in Section 3, and some of the other articles have been used in the other parts. In addition, Table 2 has been
displayed the selection funnel in terms of the number of articles after each step in each category.

2.2. Article classification

In this section, the distribution and classification of the trust papers are explained in the cloud environment. Table 3
shows the trust articles in the cloud environment that include 28 original articles (Elsevier, IEEE (Transaction), Springer,
Emerald, Taylor, and Wiley). Also, we avoid conference, Procedia, congress, magazine, filter journal, and other pub-
lishers in this table. The distribution of articles (224 articles) with publication year is shown in Fig. 1. The highest
numbers of published articles are in the 2013 and 2014. In addition, Fig. 2 illustrates the distribution of the articles
over time in each investigated categories including Elsevier, Springer, Emerald, IEEE, Taylor, Wiley, and etc. Finally,
Fig. 3 shows the distribution of the articles by various publishers.

3. Review of the selected trust evaluating mechanisms in the cloud environments

Abbadi and Alawneh (2012) have provided a framework to evaluate trust in the cloud systems. They started by
realizing the relevant problems of establishing trust in the cloud then proposed a base pattern which could help to
identified challenges. They also suggested the way carry the power of managing users’ application data from the hand
of the cloud providers to the hand of users. The provided pattern needed more extensions as establishing trust in
the cloud system was a complicated subject. They discussed in what way the framework could be extended to their
prior work on safe virtual infrastructure management. Finally, they have offered that establishing trust in the cloud
612 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622

Table 3
Distribution of articles by journal name.
Publisher Year Author Journal name

Elsevier 2012 Abbadi and Alawneh (2012) Computers & Electrical Engineering
2012 Dykstra and Sherman (2012) Digital Investigation
2012 Wang et al. (2012) Expert Systems with Applications
2014 Fan and Perros (2014) Knowledge-Based Systems
2016 Tang et al. (2017) Future Generation Computer Systems
2016 Chiregi and Navimipour (2016b) Computers in Human Behavior
2017 Singh and Sidhu (2017) Future Generation Computer Systems
Springer 2013 Manuel (2013) Annals of Operations Research
2013 Kim and Park (2013) Cluster computing
2014 Perez et al. (2014) The Journal of Supercomputing
2015 Jaiganesh et al. (2015) in Artificial Intelligence and Evolutionary Algorithms in
Engineering Systems
2015 Rajendran and Swamynathan (2015) Wireless Networks
2015 Pathan and Mohammed (2015) Wireless Personal Communications
2015 Jabbar et al. (2015) The Journal of Supercomputing
2016 Selvaraj and Sundararajan (2017) International Journal of Fuzzy Systems
2016 Sidhu and Singh (2016) The Journal of Grid Computing
2016 Wang et al. (2016) Cluster Computing
2016 Chahal and Singh (2016) International Journal of Fuzzy Systems
2017 Siadat et al. (2017) The Journal of Supercomputing
IEEE 2013 Barsoum and Hasan (2013a) Parallel and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions on
2017 Chen and Wang (2017) IEEE Access
Emerald 2015 Adjei et al. (2015) Info
2015 Huo et al. (2015) Kybernetes
Taylor 2012 Mei et al. (2012) International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems
2014 Lin et al. (2014) International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems
2016 Lynn et al. (2016) Journal of Computer Information Systems
Wiley 2014 Habib et al. (2014) Security and Communication Networks
2017 Rahi et al. (2017) International Journal of Communication Systems

Fig. 1. Distribution of articles by year of publication.

requires supporting infrastructures with trustworthy methods, tools to help cloud providers automate the expansion of
managing, keeping, and securing systems; and developing methods to aid cloud users and to set trust in the related
operation of the infrastructure by continually assessing its operational status. The proposed framework has presented
appropriate safety, integrity, dynamicity and scalability, but it suffered from low dependability, reliability, safety and
confidentiality.
 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622 613

Fig. 2. Distribution of articles by the publisher.

Fig. 3. Pie chart of the percentage of the trust in the cloud environment articles based on different publishers.

Dykstra and Sherman (2012) have shown that today’s most widely used forensic tools are technically able of remote
acquisition of data in Amazon EC2. Also, they exposed and explored mechanical and trust issues that arise from getting
forensic proof of Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) the cloud computing and assess some strategies for addressing these
challenges. Their commendation for the legal acquisition of IaaS the cloud computing is the administration plane. This
option proposal the most attractive balance of control and speed with trust. They encouraged cloud providers to create
legal data accessible to users in this way and begun to do an execution. While EnCase and FTK successfully returned
proof, they do not recommend using them for distant forensics in the cloud because too much trust values are required.
The results of IaaS to using EC2 were special also, they showed that results do not carry to other cloud environments
and cloud models, where legal software cannot be installed and run as they can in EC2. That mechanism has improved
security, integrity, reliability, and confidentiality, but its dependability, dynamicity, safety, and scalability were low.
Also, Wang et al. (2012) have investigated a model dynamic trust level scheduling (DLS) for the cloud computing.
They have inspired by Bayesian cognitive model and mentioning to the trust relationship models of sociology. They
first proposed a novel Bayesian method based cognitive trust model, then proposed a trust dynamic level scheduling
algorithm via mixing the existing DLS algorithm. Theoretic analysis and simulation are demonstrated that the Cloud-
DLS algorithm can proficiently meet the requirement of cloud computing workloads in trust and assure the performance
of jobs in a secure way. But it provided low dependability, integrity and safety confidentiality.
Mei et al. (2012) have proposed a trusted bytecode virtual machine module (TBVMM) as a method of dynamic
remote attestation in the cloud computing. TBVMM used the Bayesian network and Kalman filter for solving the
dynamics of the trusted relationship. It is offered for filling the trust crack between the infrastructure and the software
stacks. This method has three advantages such as user-involved trust management, virtual memory protecting and the
614 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622

remote attestation of dynamic. The proposed method has presented appropriate security, integrity, and dynamicity but
it suffered from low dependability, scalability, safety and confidentiality.
Barsoum and Hasan (2013b) have proposed a cloud-based storage scheme that allows the data owner to advantage
from the facilities offered by the cloud service provider (CSP) and allows indirect reciprocal trust among them. It let
the owners outsource sensitive data to a CSP, and do full block-level dynamic operations on the outsourced data, for
example, block correction, insert, delete, and add. Also, it ensures that authorized users can obtain the latest version of
the outsourced data. In addition to, it enables indirect reciprocal trust between the CSP and the owner. Finally, it let the
owner to granting or cancel access to the outsourced data. The data owner enforces access control of the outsourced
data by joining three cryptographic methods: broadcast encryption, lazy cancellation, and key rotation. The method
provided suitable security, dependability, integrity, confidentiality and dynamicity. But it suffered from low, reliability,
safety and scalability.
Manuel (2013) has proposed a trust model of the cloud computing based on the quality of service (QoS). He has
shown how the trust value according to credential features contains accessibility, dependability, turnaround efficiency
and data integrity has been assessed. He has shown that the QoS trust model executes better than the conventional
FIFO model (it called non-trusted model). The method improved security, integrity, reliability, safety and scalability,
but it had poor dependability, dynamicity, and confidentiality.
Kim and Park (2013) have proposed the trust management method for reliable data mixing, management, and apps in
mobile cloud environments. They have tried for offering trustworthy information to analyze interactions among users in
mobile environments. For this work, it has made one-dimensional trust and a way to quantify it by analyzing information
on the telephone calls of mobile devices offered. Also, they have created the trust base on the mobile cloud by mixing
mobile client information. Finally, the trust in data production, management, and overall applications, is enhanced. The
proposed mechanism provided better security, reliability, dynamicity and scalability, but its dependability, integrity,
safety and confidentiality were low.
Habib et al. (2014) have suggested a system of the trustworthy management for the cloud marketplaces, by the
consensus valuation initiative questionnaire (CAIQ) as a trusted information source. They presented the first realization
of their proposed trust management system using the consensus valuation initiative questionnaire, initiated by the
cloud security alliance, as a resource of the trust information. Their proposed approach contributes to the challenge of
extracting the trust information from consensus valuation initiative questionnaires completed by the cloud providers.
Finally, implemented system and related methods are tested using actual datasets. The proposed mechanism provided
better security and dependability, but its safety was low.
Lin et al. (2014) have proposed a behavior-based trust model in the cloud environment. Trust relations between
entities are dynamic, unknown and difficult. Ant colony optimization, a behavior trust model presented the conception
of ‘pheromone’ and transition possibility to represent behavior trust. Then, it focused on the survey of dynamic trust
calculation and some other subjects. Furthermore, an accurate algorithm process of trust behavior calculation is given
in this background. Finally, the model is used to the cloud computing platform to simulate the creation of behavior trust
relationships. The simulation experiment confirmed that trust degree change with time variable and the frequency of
interactions. Associated with the other model, the proposed model can provide better trustworthy services and defend
against attacks of malicious nodes efficiently in the cloud computing environment. It has good flexibility, accuracy, and
robustness. The results proved that it had good flexibility, accuracy and robustness also, the proposed method provided
suitable security and dynamicity, but it suffered from low integrity, low confidentiality, and low dependability.
Perez et al. (2014) have proposed a categorization of trust relationships in the cloud computing. In the description of
the privacy concerns, expected risk, trust relations, also easiness have been taken. A number of numerous trust relations
have been modeled and recognized, letting entities to control the information that they share with other entities in the
cloud computing. This model has been established with an ideal execution. Also, a trust management architecture has
been planned. It allowed that occupants trust relation descriptions can be used to achieve and control the association
agreements between them. This trust management architecture has been authenticated by means of an example applied
using semantic web technologies. Moreover, a various set of common scenarios in the cloud computing has been
defined, offering the most appropriate trust relationships for each case. The proposed mechanism provided better
security, but its dependability, integrity, confidentiality and safety were low.
Fan and Perros (2014) have pointed out the problem of trust management in a multi-cloud setting based on a set
of distributed Trust Service Providers (TSPs). TSPs are divided over the clouds, and they evoke raw trust proof from
different sources and in different formats. This proof is information concerning the adherence of the cloud service
 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622 615

providers (CSPs) to the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the offered services and the feedback sent by cloud service
users (CSUs). Using this info, they calculated an objective trust and a subjective trust of CSPs. TSPs interconnect
between themselves through a trust journal network that permits a TSP to get trust information about a CSP from
other TSPs. Examinations showed that their proposed framework is effective and relatively constant in differentiating
trustworthy and untrustworthy CSPs in a multi-cloud setting. It offered suitable security, reliability, and dynamicity,
but it suffered from low dependability, low integrity, low confidentiality and low safety.
Rajendran and Swamynathan (2015) have proposed a combinatorial model for assessing trust dynamism in the
cloud services. Cloud services and trust value are assessed based on compliance and reputation. Service logs based
compliance reflects dynamic trust. The reputation has been calculated from cooperative user feedback. Feedback rating
is the sight of each user about the appealed services. The exposed services that fulfill the user necessities are ranked
according to their trust values and top-k cloud services are suggested to the user. The method is well-organized and
noticeably improved service choice procedure in the cloud applications. It offers suitable security, reliability, and
dynamicity, but it suffered from low dependability, low, low confidentiality and low safety.
Also, Pathan and Mohammed (2015) have suggested a method for building customer trust in the cloud computing
using an ICT-Enabled global regulatory body. The basic idea lied in the fact that there should be a universal stan-
dardization authority which would authorize trusted cloud providers which would obtain customer trust. Innovation
in this idea is mainly in its operational details offered in the paper. The main goal is to examine various character-
istics of the model from the policy making subjects together with addressing technical subjects. To make their work
easily accessible to general readers and the specialists, they present the backgrounds of the cloud and examine the
conceptual model with real-life challenges and subjects. The proposed mechanism provided better security, integrity,
confidentiality, scalability, reliability, but its safety was low.
Jaiganesh et al. (2015) have proposed a fuzzy logic method named Fuzzy ART, where the consumption of resources
is periodically scanned. They have shown that the classification of virtual machines is prepared in the cloud environment
according to its behavior. The clients which use resources from others are traced out, and four groups of virtual clients
are obtained. This allowed it to learn a new input with the lowest impact on its existing knowledge and precision. The
benefit of the offered method was an unsupervised learning. Also, it offered suitable security, but it suffered from low
scalability, low confidentiality, and low safety.
Adjei et al. (2015) have explained the role of trust in the cloud computing services based on empirical proof from
interviewing managers of financial organizations in Ghana. This is a descriptive paper that is based on literature review
and experimental data on exploring reasons for the cloud service acquisitions. A mixture of conferences and attention
group discussions was used as approaches for data collection. Info technology and electronic banking managers of five
main mercantile banks in Accra, Ghana, between January and July 2013 were interviewed. A sum of ten respondents
was interviewed, two in each of the selected banks. A purposive sample technique was used in the choice of informants.
This method let the selection of qualified informants to ensure extensiveness and diversity of opinion. It offered suitable
security, but it suffered from low scalability, low confidentiality, and low safety.
Huo et al. (2015) have proposed a fuzzy trust evaluation based on consistency intensity for cloud services. The
main objective of the paper is to define an assessment model for the cloud services to deal with the fuzzy information
and offer a novel fuzzy assessment method based on reliability intensity to examine the quantitative value from the
fuzzy information. The offered method can dissolve the problem on the analysis and synthesis of the fuzzy assessment
information. An instance of trust assessment of the cloud storage service is presented to confirm that the proposed
method can express the opinions of all assessors more adequately. It offered suitable security, reliability, and dynamicity
but it suffered from low dependability, low scalability, low confidentiality and low safety.
Jabbar et al. (2015) have proposed a trust model at service layer of the cloud for educational institutes. The input data
can be collected from controlling authorities, the performance of the cloud service provider, and feedback occupied
from the customers. Moreover, the offered model is flexible sufficiently to be modified according to the priority level
of mentioned parameters for the cloud service users, for example, educational institutes. They have also offered a
relative analysis of suggested model with a general existing model to depict the importance and needs of the suggested
model for the application domain. The proposed mechanism provided better security, reliability, and dynamicity but
its integrity, dependability, confidentiality and scalability were low.
Tang et al. (2017) have proposed a selection framework for the cloud service based on trustThey suggested an
integrated trust evaluation method via joining objective trust evaluation and subjective trust valuation. The objective
trust valuation is based on QoS monitoring while the subjective trust valuation is based on user feedback scores.
616 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622

Experimentations conducted using a synthesized data set display that their offered technique suggestively outperforms
the other trust and reputation approaches. The experiments have been developed by using Matlab. It offered suitable
reliability, but it suffered from low integrity, low dependability, low scalability, low confidentiality and low safety.
In Chiregi and Navimipour (2016b), we have proposed a method for trust and reputation evaluation in the cloud
via the recommendations of opinion leaders’ and eradicating the effect of troll entities. Trust value was assessed using
five factors; accessibility, reliability, data integrity, identity, and ability. Also, they offered a method for opinion leaders
and malicious entity identification via three topological metrics, including input degree, output degree, and reputation
measures. The method being assessed in various situations where displays the results of accuracy by eliminating the
effect of malicious entities and the recommendation of opinion leaders. The results have been obtained with program
Matlab. It offered suitable security, integrity, and safety, but it suffered from low confidentiality and low scalability.
Also, Selvaraj and Sundararajan (2017) have proposed a fuzzy-based trust evaluation scheme for the cloud services.
A dynamic trust model based on evidence was also suggested to define the dynamic trustworthiness on services in
the cloud environment. It employed fuzzy logic to develop trust in order to handle the uncertainty and uses ordered
weight averaging operator to gather the trust values, thus allowing the real-time performance. The proposed scheme
uses the QoS parameters as a validation to evaluate the trust for the cloud services. The results in terms of efficiency and
effectiveness of the model were established through simulations. It offered suitable security, reliability, and dynamicity,
but it suffered from low integrity, low dependability, low confidentiality and low safety.
Lynn et al. (2016) have proposed the development of a cloud trust label, a Delphi method. Their suggested label
include 81 data components and the cloud service providers, for example, physical location and legal jurisdiction, the
cloud service itself, for example, data location, safety, backup and certification, and a historical service surface summary,
for example, uptime data and support response times. The potential advantages of such a label to encourage trust value
perceptions and trust behaviors in the cloud computing environment were explored. The proposed mechanism provided
better reliability, security, dependability and dynamicity but its integrity, scalability, confidentiality and safety were
low.
Also, Sidhu and Singh (2016) have proposed an enhanced type of TOPSIS technique based trust evaluation frame-
work for defining the trustworthiness of the cloud service providers. Firstly, the conformity values were evaluated
and then processed to use a method to order of preference of trust by likeness to ideal solution to obtain trust on the
service providers. Furthermore, case study based method has been confirmed the usability and the applicability of the
offered framework. Investigations have been done using the actual cloud data. The results of the simulation showed
that the offered framework can be used in the real cloud environments to define the trust value of service providers by
employing the services actual time monitoring. It offered suitable scalability, reliability, and dynamicity, but it suffered
from low confidentiality and low safety.
Furthermore, Wang et al. (2016) have proposed a cloud trust capacity model for reducing threats of internal troll
services. It was used to manage the trust relationship among the guest services, to evaluate the threats to the unknown
troll services, and to diminish risk associated with leasing the cloud services and limiting the resource drain caused by
troll guest services. Experimental results showed that the suggested model can effectively limit the scale of the troll
services and considerably lessen the threats of internal attacks. The proposed mechanism provided better, reliability
and security, but its safety, scalability, confidentiality and dependability were low.
Chahal and Singh (2016) have suggested an expert system according to the rule of fuzzy for estimating Trustworthi-
ness of the cloud service providers. A review to rate the five CSPs on the basis of their reliability, security, performance
and usability has been directed, and The data prepares from the review serve as the dataset to assess the public review
and the direct trust. Auditor-trust has been assessed using the data produced by Nasuni, a cloud storage company
which assesses CSPs on the basis of their performance, scalability, and accuracy. Then the final trust is assessed by
combining the direct trust, the public review, and the auditor trust. The simulations have been performed using a fuzzy
logic toolbox of MATLAB software, and the results displayed the rank of CSPs according to last their trust. Also, they
have used a measure of 1 to 5 in all the evaluations for ratings. It offered suitable security, reliability, and scalability,
but it suffers from low dependability, low confidentiality and low safety and low dynamicity.
Singh and Sidhu (2017) have proposed addresses the problem to determine trust of the cloud service providers in
a cloud environment. It suggested a compliance based multi-dimensional trust assessment system that allows CCs to
define the trust of a CSP from different viewpoints, as trust is a subjective concept. The framework enabled users
to assess the trust of a CSP from the CC’s perspective, Cloud Auditor’s perspective, Cloud Broker’s perspective and
Peers’ perspective. Testable results displayed that the compliance based multi-dimensional trust assessment system
 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622 617

is effective and stable in differentiating trustworthy and untrustworthy CSPs. The validation of the compliance based
multi-dimensional trust assessment system has been done with the help of synthetic data due to lack of standardized
dataset and its applicability has been shown with the help of a case study involving the use of real cloud data.
The proposed method has presented appropriate scalability and dependability, but it suffered from low safety and
confidentiality.
Also, Charband and Navimipour (2016) have proposed a new method for recognizing fake feedback in the cloud
trust management systems using feedback assessment component and Bayesian game model. They presented two new
methods to identify fake feedbacks, feedback assessment component, and the Bayesian game model. The feedback
assessment component is used to examine the received feedback and recognize its probable fake identity. Experiment
results show that the feedback assessment component can correctly recognize and rectify fake feedbacks. Bayesian
game model is shown to find troll users and prevent their feedbacks. Simulation results coincided well with analytical
results, the Bayesian game model can correctly identify troll user. Received feedbacks from troll user are recognized
as fake feedbacks. Its mechanism has improved security and reliability, but its dependability and scalability were low.
Furthermore, Navimipour and Charband (2016) have proposed a cloud-based trust evaluation framework for vehic-
ular social networks. It showed a high-level trust management model and its disposition scheme based on a vehicular
cloud system. They suggested a layered trust management approach that benefits from the efficient use of physical
resources and find out its disposition in a VSN scenario based on a three-layer of the cloud computing architecture.
Furthermore, efficiency modeling of the offered trust management scheme is conducted through a novel formal com-
positional method performance assessment process algebra has better features in compositionality and parsimony, that
means, it can efficiently model systems with layered architectures and multifaceted behaviors. Presentation assessment
process algebra also supports numerous numerical analyses through assessing its underlying incessant time Markov
chains directly or solving a set of approached usual differential equations. According to examination outcomes, they
examined several key performance properties of the scheme and related volume issues in disposition. The detections
also reveal an efficient investigation approach for evaluating the performances of the trust models. This mechanism
had appropriate security and scalability, but it provided low dependability and confidentiality.
Finally, Tang et al. (2017) have proposed a new method for recognizing the moderating effect of trust on the adoption
of cloud-based services. The purpose of this research is the identification of the trust factors in the hypothesis of the
cloud services in semiconductor industries. Furthermore, the moderating efficacy of these trust elements related to the
technical, organizational, and environmental success factors has been propounded. On the base of a literature survey,
an assumptive model has been expanded, and the relations among the hidden variables have been studied by utilizing
structural equations. The proposed method has presented appropriate security, but it suffered from low dependability
and dynamicity.

4. Results and comparisons

In the previous section, we have surveyed the most important trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud environment.
We described the most important trust evaluation mechanisms from 2012 until March 2017. We briefly have explained
each of existing trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud computing well as, their benefit and weaknesses. For example,
the proposed mechanisms by Abbadi and Alawneh (2012) offer suitable security, integrity, dynamicity, and scalability,
but it suffers from low safety, dependability, low confidentiality and low reliable. Also, the proposed mechanisms by
Chiregi and Navimipour (2016b) offer suitable security, integrity, safety, but it suffers from low confidentiality and low
scalability. During our review, we found that trust is the important key in the cloud environments. In general, the most
important advantages of the reviewed trust techniques are high security, dependability, integrity, reliability, dynamicity,
safety, scalability, and confidentiality. However, they have some weakness where the most important of these weaknesses
are: low security, dependability, integrity, reliability, dynamicity, safety, scalability, and confidentiality.
In addition, we compared and evaluated the factors having an effect on the trust value to find which factor is more
important in any group. Also, we identify the most significant and least important factors that have an influence on the
trust evaluation in the cloud computing. Table 4 outlines a summary of the discussed trust mechanisms in the cloud
computing and their main features According to the performed SLR of trust evaluation mechanisms until March 2017,
we determined the number of published articles have very high 2013 and 2014. In addition, the greatest number of
articles published in famous journals. IEEE with 68%, Springer with 9%, and Elsevier with 8% of published articles
(among 224 articles) have the highest published articles in the journals and conferences respectably.
 618
M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622
Table 4
√
Overview of the discussed trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud environment and their main features which are scored as x and for security, dependability, integrity, reliability, dynamicity,
safety, scalability, and confidentiality.
Main categories Author name Security Dependability Integrity Reliability Dynamicity Safety Scalability Availability Confidentiality
√ √ √ √ √
Trust Abbadi and Alawneh (2012) x x x x
√ √ √ √
Dykstra and Sherman (2012) x x x x x
√ √ √ √
Wang et al. (2012) x x x x x
√ √ √ √ √
Mei et al. (2012) x x x x
√ √ √ √ √ √
Barsoum and Hasan (2013b) x x x
√ √ √ √ √ √
Manuel (2013) x x x
√ √ √ √
Kim and Park (2013) x x x x x
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Habib et al. (2014) x x
√ √ √ √ √ √
Lin et al. (2014) x x x
√ √ √ √ √
Perez et al. (2014) x x x x
√ √ √ √ √
Fan and Perros (2014) x x x x
√ √ √ √ √ √
Rajendran and Swamynathan (2015) x x x
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Pathan and Mohammed (2015) x
√ √ √
Jaiganesh et al. (2015) x x x x x x
√ √ √ √
Adjei et al. (2015) x x x x x
√ √ √ √ √
Huo et al. (2015) x x x x
√ √ √ √ √
Jabbar et al. (2015) x x x x
√ √ √ √
Tang et al. (2017) x x x x x
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Chiregi and Navimipour (2016b) x x
√ √ √ √
Selvaraj and Sundararajan (2017) x x x x x
√ √ √ √ √
Lynn et al. (2016) x x x x
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Sidhu and Singh (2016) x x
√ √ √ √ √
Wang et al. (2016) x x x x
√ √ √ √ √
Chahal and Singh (2016) x x x x
√ √ √ √
Duckett (2005) x x x x x
√ √
Charband and Navimipour (2016) x x x x x x x
√ √ √
Navimipour and Charband (2016) x x x x x x
√ √ √ √ √ √
Rahi et al. (2017) x x x
 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622 619

The results of the provided comparison were presented in Table 4 showing that the trust and security are important to
all articles. Also, the reliability and are an important factor to evaluate trust. In another hand, the dynamicity provides
a suitable environment for trust evaluating. Finally, it can be seen that all factors are necessary for effective trust
evaluation mechanisms.

5. Open issues

This section offers numerous significant open issues and research challenges as well as important guidelines for
future works about trust evaluation mechanisms in cloud environments. By discussing and examining the selected state
of the art mechanisms, it has been detected that there is not any independent method that addresses all matters involved
in trust. For example, some techniques consider providing security, dependability, integrity, reliability, dynamicity,
safety, scalability, and confidentiality while some totally disregard these issues. In addition, some of the discussed
approaches have been utilized the simulation scenario to assess and test the proposed approaches while some others
utilize quatrains for evaluation. As a next phase, some of these methods can be verified in actual scenarios to provide
a very accurate result. Furthermore, confirmation and behavioral modeling of the discussed approaches look very
interesting direction for future research.
Also, the future works can be focused on the analyzing and evaluation of the privacy and security issues in the trust
evaluation mechanisms on a cloud environment. Another interesting line for future research can be the estimation of
consistency in dynamic trust monitor (DTM) to identify trustworthy CSP. The effective scenarios of simulation for
some of the surveyed mechanisms also can be interesting. Additionally, the combination of an appropriate service
solution based on WSO2 business rule engine and identity management, both types of trust model engines, can be
interesting. Furthermore, choosing a performer evolutionary algorithm, identifying a rating approach for users and a
safe communication of the rating score is very interesting lines for future research. Also, the combination of the trust
evaluation mechanism in the cloud architecture to support multiple QoS is still very challenging. Furthermore, it has
been observed that in the most of the mechanisms some issues such as integrity, reliability, dependability, dynamicity
and scalability were not mentioned. Therefore, a new mechanism which enables the trust evaluator to tackle these issues
is very interesting. The accounting and billing concepts for effective implementation of trust evaluation mechanisms by
combining existing mechanisms with existing accounting and billing method in a cloud environment and proposition
of the multi-agent systems with learning agents with high speed can be considered for future works. Mobile trust
evaluation is another main concern which can be considered in future researches.
Also, another interesting line for further work can focus on how to enforce corresponding guidance and interference
strategies after identifying the opinion leaders. As an extension of the analyzed mechanisms, the development of a
comprehensive simulation reading that considers both trust and distrust relationships among users is very interesting.
In particular, analyzing the effects of various network structures on the trust evaluation mechanisms can be considered
as a future study. Furthermore, most of the analyzed mechanisms were only validated using simulation, and not using
actual subjective and objective trust data, therefore, it is a very interesting open issue. It would be very interesting
to see how the information privacy concerns and risk perceptions cause and effect on the relationships of the cloud
environment entities.
Finally, it would be interesting to examine how the trust model can be integrated to treat the safety requirements
of a real cloud environment. The more factors which affect service reliability can be also taken into account. Trust
management framework would be to confirm the model with real data in a single and multi-cloud environment.
In the future, we plan to address this subject by incorporating social trust relation among users to conclude their
trustworthiness. We plan to develop a prototype for integrated trust evaluation method and use real user rating data.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, we have surveyed the past and the state of the art trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud environments.
According to the performed SLR of trust evaluation mechanisms in the cloud environment until March 2017, it was
determined that the number of published articles were very high in 2013 and 2014. In addition, the greatest number
of articles published in famous journals; For example, IEEE with 68%, Springer with 9%, and Elsevier with 8% of
published articles (among 224 articles) had the highest published papers in journals and conferences acceptably. We
investigated the trust evaluation in cloud environment mechanisms of the 28 selected articles. We comprehensively
620 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622

reviewed and compared these approaches, and the results were collected. In the end, we provided some interesting
lines for future research. All of the approaches analyzed in this paper have some advantages and disadvantages. We
compared all of these mechanisms in a different point of view like integrity, security, reliability, dependability, safety,
dynamicity, confidentiality, and scalability. As a result, we observed that these factors did not act well in all of the
fields.
In this study, there is some limitations and weakness. First, the study examines for articles were limited 3 online
databases and google scholar. There might be other academic articles which may be able to provide a complete picture
of the articles related to the trust in the cloud. Secondly, Non-English publications were absent from this study. We
believe that research concerning the application of trust mechanisms have also been discussed and published in other
languages.

References

Abbadi, I.M., Alawneh, M., 2012. A framework for establishing trust in the Cloud. Comput. Electr. Eng. 38 (5), 1073–1087.
Abbadi, I.M., Martin, A., 2011. Trust in the Cloud. Inf. Secur. Techn. Rep. 16, 108–114.
Adjei, J.K., Blackman, C., Blackman, C., 2015. Explaining the role of trust in cloud computing services. Info 17.
Afroz, S., Navimipour, N.J., 2017. Memory designing using quantum dot cellular automata: systematic literature review, classification, and current
trends. J. Circuits Syst. Comput. 26 (12), 1730004 (2017) [34 pages].
Alhanahnah, M., Bertok, P., Tari, Z., 2017. Trusting cloud service providers: trust phases and a taxonomy of trust factors. IEEE Cloud Comput. 4,
44–54.
Anselmi, J., Ardagna, D., Passacantando, M., 2014. Generalized Nash equilibria for SaaS/PaaS Clouds. Eur. J. Operat. Res. 236, 326–339.
Armbrust, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A.D., Katz, R., Konwinski, A., et al., 2010. A view of cloud computing. Commun. ACM 53, 50–58.
Azad, P., Navimipour, J.N., 2017. An energy-aware task scheduling in cloud computing using a hybrid cultural and ant colony optimization algorithm.
Int. J. Cloud Appl. Comput. 7.
Aznoli, F., Navimipour, N.J., 2016. Deployment strategies in the wireless sensor networks: systematic literature review, classification, and current
trends. Wirel. Pers. Commun., 1–28.
Barsoum, A., Hasan, A., 2013a. Enabling dynamic data and indirect mutual trust for cloud computing storage systems, 2375–2385, Print ISSN:
1045-9219, INSPEC Accession Number: 13875735.
Barsoum, A.F., Hasan, A., 2013b. Enabling dynamic data and indirect mutual trust for cloud computing storage systems. IEEE Trans. Parallel
Distrib. Syst. 24, 2375–2385.
Becheikh, N., Landry, R., Amara, N., 2006. Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: a systematic review of the
literature from 1993–2003. Technovation 26, 644–664.
Behl, A., 2011. Emerging security challenges in cloud computing: an insight to cloud security challenges and their mitigation. 2011 World Congress
on Information and Communication Technologies (WICT), 217–222.
Carroll, N., 2015. Modelling the dynamics of trust across a cloud brokerage environment. Inf. Resour. Manag. J. 28, 17–37.
Chahal, R.K., Singh, S., 2016. Fuzzy rule-based expert system for determining trustworthiness of cloud service providers. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 1–17.
Chang, V., Walters, R.J., Wills, G.B., 2016. Organisational sustainability modelling—an emerging service and analytics model for evaluating cloud
computing adoption with two case studies. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36, 167–179.
Charband, Y., Navimipour, N.J., 2016. Online knowledge sharing mechanisms: a systematic review of the state of the art literature and recommen-
dations for future research. Inf. Syst. Front., 1–21.
Chen, X., Wang, L., 2017. A cloud-based trust management framework for vehicular social networks. IEEE Access 5, 2967–2980, Published in:
IEEE Access, Electronic ISSN: 2169-3536.
Chen, X., Wang, L., Zomaya, A.Y., Liu, L., Hu, S., 2015. Cloud computing for VLSI floorplanning considering peak temperature reduction. IEEE
Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. 3, 534–543.
Chiregi, M., Navimipour, N.J., 2016a. Trusted services identification in the cloud environment using the topological metrics. Karbala Int. J. Mod.
Sci. 2 (3), 203–210.
Chiregi, M., Navimipour, N.J., 2016b. A new method for trust and reputation evaluation in the cloud environments using the recommendations of
opinion leaders’ entities and removing the effect of troll entities. Comput. Human Behav. 60, 280–292.
Chong, S.-K., Abawajy, J., Ahmad, M., Hamid, I.R.A., 2014. Enhancing trust management in cloud environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 129,
314–321.
Contractor, D., Patel, D., 2017. Accountability in cloud computing by means of chain of trust. Int. J. Netw. Secur. 19, 251–259.
Corrales, M., 2016. Plan-like architectures’ for mutual trust in the cloud. In: Flexibility in Modern Business Law. Springer, pp. 199–225.
Dikaiakos, M.D., Katsaros, D., Mehra, P., Pallis, G., Vakali, A., 2009. Cloud computing: distributed internet computing for IT and scientific research.
IEEE Internet Comput. 13, 10–13.
Ding, H., Li, X., Gong, C., 2015. Trust model research in cloud computing environment. 2015 International Symposium on Computers & Informatics.
Du, Z., He, L., Chen, Y., Xiao, Y., Gao, P., Wang, T., 2017. Robot Cloud: bridging the power of robotics and cloud computing. Future Gener. Comput.
Syst. 74, 337–348.
Duckett, B., 2005. Concise oxford english dictionary. Ref. Rev. 19, 33.
 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622 621

Dykstra, J., Sherman, A.T., 2012. Acquiring forensic evidence from infrastructure-as-a-service cloud computing: exploring and evaluating tools,
trust, and techniques. Digital Invest. 9, S90–S98.
Espadas, J., Molina, A., Jiménez, G., Molina, M., Ramírez, R., Concha, D., 2013. A tenant-based resource allocation model for scaling software-
as-a-service applications over cloud computing infrastructures. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 29, 273–286.
Fan, W., Perros, H., 2014. A novel trust management framework for multi-cloud environments based on trust service providers. Knowl. Based Syst.
70, 392–406.
Filali, F.Z., Yagoubi, B., 2015. Global trust: a trust model for cloud service selection. Computing 3, 19.
Fouladi, P., Jafari Navimipour, N., 2017. Human resources ranking in a cloud-based knowledge sharing framework using the quality control criteria.
Kybernetes 46 (5), 876–892.
Gajbhiye, A., Shrivastva, K.M.P., 2014. Cloud computing: need, enabling technology, architecture, advantages and challenges. 2014 5th International
Conference Confluence The Next Generation Information Technology Summit (Confluence), 1–7.
Gani, A., Nayeem, G.M., Shiraz, M., Sookhak, M., Whaiduzzaman, M., Khan, S., 2014. A review on interworking and mobility techniques for
seamless connectivity in mobile cloud computing. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 43, 84–102.
Guo, Q., Sun, D., Chang, G., Sun, L., Wang, X., 2011. Modeling and evaluation of trust in cloud computing environments. 2011 3rd International
Conference on Advanced Computer Control (ICACC), 112–116.
Habib, S.M., Hauke, S., Ries, S., Mühlhäuser, M., 2012. Trust as a facilitator in cloud computing: a survey. J. Cloud Comput. 1, 1–18.
Habib, S.M., Ries, S., Mühlhäuser, M., Varikkattu, P., 2014. Towards a trust management system for cloud computing marketplaces: using CAIQ
as a trust information source. Secur. Commun. Netw. 7, 2185–2200.
Hazratzadeh, S., Jafari Navimipour, N., 2016. Colleague recommender system in the Expert Cloud using features matrix. Kybernetes 45 (9),
1342–1357.
Huang, J., Nicol, D.M., 2013. Trust mechanisms for cloud computing. J. Cloud Comput. 2, 1–14.
Huo, Y., Zhuang, Y., Ni, S., 2015. Fuzzy trust evaluation based on consistency intensity for cloud services. Kybernetes 44, 7–24.
Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C., 2007. A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43, 618–644.
Jabbar, S., Naseer, K., Gohar, M., Rho, S., Chang, H., 2015. Trust model at service layer of cloud computing for educational institutes. J. Supercomput.,
1–26.
Jafari Navimipour, N., Rahmani, A.M., Habibizad Navin, A., Hosseinzadeh, M., 2015a. Expert Cloud: a Cloud-based framework to share the
knowledge and skills of human resources. Comput. Human Behav. 46, 57–74.
Jafari Navimipour, N., Rahmani, A.M., Habibizad Navin, A., Hosseinzadeh, M., 2015b. Expert Cloud. Comput. Human Behav. 46, 57–74.
Jaiganesh, M., Aarthi, M., Kumar, A.V.A., 2015. Fuzzy ART-based user behavior trust in cloud computing. In: Artificial Intelligence and Evolutionary
Algorithms in Engineering Systems. Springer, pp. 341–348.
Keshanchi, B., Navimipour, N.J., 2016. Priority-based task scheduling in the cloud systems using a memetic algorithm. J. Circuits Syst. Comput.,
1650119.
Keshanchi, B., Souri, A., Navimipour, N.J., 2017. An improved genetic algorithm for task scheduling in the cloud environments using the priority
queues: formal verification, simulation, and statistical testing. J. Syst. Softw. 124, 1–21.
Khan, K.M., Malluhi, Q., 2010. Establishing trust in cloud computing. IT Prof. 12, 20–27.
Kim, M., Park, S.O., 2013. Trust management on user behavioral patterns for a mobile cloud computing. Cluster Comput. 16, 725–731.
Kim, H., Lee, H., Kim, W., Kim, Y., 2010. A trust evaluation model for QoS guarantee in cloud systems. Int. J. Grid Distrib. Comput. 3, 1–10.
Kitchenham, B.A., 2004. Systematic reviews. Proceedings 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004, xii.
Ko, R.K., Jagadpramana, P., Mowbray, M., Pearson, S., Kirchberg, M., Liang, Q., et al., 2011. TrustCloud: a framework for accountability and trust
in cloud computing. 2011 IEEE World Congress on Services (SERVICES), 584–588.
Lin, G., Bie, Y., Lei, M., Zheng, K., 2014. ACO-BTM: a behavior trust model in cloud computing environment. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 7,
785–795.
Lu, J., Shao, M., 2012. Trust establishment for data integrity checking in cloud computing. Adv. Inf. Sci. Serv. Sci. 4.
Lynn, T., van der Werff, L., Hunt, G., Healy, P., 2016. Development of a cloud trust label: a Delphi approach. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 56, 185–193.
Mahboob, T., Zahid, M., Ahmad, G., 2016. Adopting information security techniques for cloud computing—a survey. International Conference on
Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE), 7–11.
Manuel, P., 2013. A trust model of cloud computing based on quality of service. Ann. Oper. Res., 1–12.
Manvi, S.S., Krishna Shyam, G., 2014. Resource management for Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) in cloud computing: a survey. J. Netw. Comput.
Appl. 41 (May), 424–440.
Mao, C., Lin, R., Xu, C., He, Q., 2017. Towards a trust prediction framework for cloud services based on PSO-driven neural network. IEEE Access
5, 2187–2199.
Matthew, K.M., Md, A.Q., 2017. An Effective Way of Evaluating Trust in Inter-cloud Computing. 9 (2), 36.
Mehmi, S., Verma, H.K., Sangal, A., 2017. Simulation modeling of cloud computing for smart grid using CloudSim. J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 4
(1), 159–172.
Mei, S., Wang, Z., Cheng, Y., Ren, J., Wu, J., Zhou, J., 2012. Trusted bytecode virtual machine module: a novel method for dynamic remote
attestation in cloud computing. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 5, 924–932.
Mell, P., Grance, T., 2009. The NIST definition of cloud computing. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 53, 50.
Milani, A.S., Navimipour, N.J., 2016. Load balancing mechanisms and techniques in the cloud environments: systematic literature review and future
trends. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 71, 86–98.
Mohammadi, S.Z., Navimipour, J.N., 2017. Invalid cloud providers’ identification using the support vector machine. Int. J. Next Gener. Comput. 8
(1), 82–98, 17p.
622 M. Chiregi, N. Jafari Navimipour / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 608–622

Moyano, F., Fernandez-Gago, C., Lopez, J., 2013. A framework for enabling trust requirements in social cloud applications. Requir. Eng. 18,
321–341.
Muchahari, M.K., Sinha, S.K., 2012. A new trust management architecture for cloud computing environment. 2012 International Symposium on
Cloud and Services Computing (ISCOS), 136–140.
Navimipour, N.J., Charband, Y., 2016. Knowledge sharing mechanisms and techniques in project teams: literature review, classification, and current
trends. Comput. Human Behav. 62, 730–742.
Navimipour, N.J., Milani, F.S., 2015. Task scheduling in the cloud computing based on the cuckoo search algorithm. Int. J. Model. Optim. 5, 44.
Navimipour, N.J., Zareie, B., 2015. A model for assessing the impact of e-learning systems on employees’ satisfaction. Comput. Human Behav. 53,
475–485.
Navimipour, N.J., Rahmani, A.M., Navin, A.H., Hosseinzadeh, M., 2014. Job scheduling in the Expert Cloud based on genetic algorithms. Kybernetes
43, 12.
Pathan, A.-S.K., Mohammed, M.M., 2015. Building Customer trust in cloud computing with an ICT-enabled global regulatory body. Wirel. Pers.
Commun. 85, 77–99.
Perez, J.M.M., Bernabe, J.B., Calero, J.M.A., Clemente, F.J.G., Perez, G.M., Skarmeta, A.F.G., 2014. Taxonomy of trust relationships in authorization
domains for cloud computing. J. Supercomput. 70, 1075–1099.
Rahi, S.B., Bisui, S., Misra, S.C., 2017. Identifying the moderating effect of trust on the adoption of cloud-based services. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 30
(11), e3253.
Rajendran, V.V., Swamynathan, S., 2015. Hybrid model for dynamic evaluation of trust in cloud services. Wirel. Netw., 1–12.
Rathi, K., Kumari, S., Student, M., A Survey on Trust in Cloud Computing. 3 (1) ISSN 2349-4476.
Reim, W., Parida, V., Örtqvist, D., 2015. Product–Service Systems (PSS) business models and tactics—a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod.
97, 61–75.
Sabi, H.M., Uzoka, F.-M.E., Langmia, K., Njeh, F.N., 2016. Conceptualizing a model for adoption of cloud computing in education. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 36, 183–191.
Selvaraj, A., Sundararajan, S., 2017. Evidence-based trust evaluation system for cloud services using fuzzy logic. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 1–9.
Shanmugam, U., Tamilselvan, L., 2017. Trusted Computing Model with Attestation to Assure Security for Software Services in a Cloud Environment.
10 (1).
Sheikholeslami, F., Navimipour, J.N., 2017. Service allocation in the cloud environments using multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm
based on crowding distance. Swarm Evol. Comput. 35, 53–64.
Shen, Z., Tong, Q., 2010. The security of cloud computing system enabled by trusted computing technology. 2010 2nd International Conference on
Signal Processing Systems (ICSPS), V2-11-V2-15.
Siadat, S., Rahmani, A.M., Navid, H., 2017. Identifying fake feedback in cloud trust management systems using feedback evaluation component
and Bayesian game model. J. Supercomput., 1–23.
Sidhu, J., Singh, S., 2016. Improved TOPSIS method based trust evaluation framework for determining trustworthiness of cloud service providers.
J. Grid Comput., 1–25.
Singh, S., Sidhu, J., 2017. Compliance-based multi-dimensional trust evaluation system for determining trustworthiness of cloud service providers.
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 67, 109–132.
Soltani, Z., Navimipour, N.J., 2016. Customer relationship management mechanisms: a systematic review of the state of the art literature and
recommendations for future research. Comput. Human Behav. 61, 667–688.
Tang, M., Dai, X., Liu, J., Chen, J., 2017. Towards a trust evaluation middleware for cloud service selection. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 74,
302–312.
Tian, L.-q., Lin, C., Ni, Y., 2010. Evaluation of user behavior trust in cloud computing. 2010 International Conference on Computer Application
and System Modeling (ICCASM 2010).
Vakili, A., Navimipour, N.J., 2017. Comprehensive and systematic review of the service composition mechanisms in the cloud environments. J.
Netw. Comput. Appl. 81 (March), 24–36.
Walterbusch, M., Martens, B., Teuteberg, F., 2013. Exploring trust in cloud computing: a multi-method approach. ECIS, 145.
Wang, Y., Wei, J., 2015. Toward protecting control flow confidentiality in cloud-based computation. Comput. Secur. 52, 106–127.
Wang, W., Zeng, G., Tang, D., Yao, J., 2012. Cloud-DLS: dynamic trusted scheduling for Cloud computing. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 2321–2329.
Wang, Y., Chandrasekhar, S., Singhal, M., Ma, J., 2016. A limited-trust capacity model for mitigating threats of internal malicious services in cloud
computing. Clust. Comput. 19, 647–662.
Wenjuan, Y., Jun, P., Luo, H., 2012. Building trust into cloud. Int. J. Cloud Comput. Serv. Sci. 1 (115).
Wu, X., Zhang, R., Zeng, B., Zhou, S., 2013. A trust evaluation model for cloud computing. Procedia Comput. Sci. 17, 1170–1177.
Xie, X., Liu, R., Zhou, G., Ni, J., 2015. Research of job scheduling with cloud based on trust mechanism and SFLA. Int. J. Grid Distrib. Comput.
8, 93–100.
Yang, Z., Qiao, L., Liu, C., Yang, C., Wan, G., 2010. A collaborative trust model of firewall-through based on Cloud Computing. 2010 14th
International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), 329–334.
Zhang, Q., Cheng, L., Boutaba, R., 2010. Cloud computing: state-of-the-art and research challenges. J. Internet Serv. Appl. 1, 7–18.
Zissis, D., Lekkas, D., 2012. Addressing cloud computing security issues. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 28, 583–592.