Side-channel attacks leverage implementation of algorithms to bypass security and leak restricted data. A timing attack observes differences in runtime in response to varying inputs to learn restricted information. Most prior work has focused on applying timing attacks to cryptoanalysis algorithms; other approaches sought to learn about database content by measuring the time of an operation (e.g., index update or query caching). Our goal is to evaluate the practical risks of leveraging a non-privileged user account to learn about data hidden from the user account by access control.

As new laws governing management of personal data are introduced, e.g., the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation of 2016 and the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, compliance with data governance legislation is becoming an increasingly important aspect of data management. An important component of many data privacy laws is that they require companies to only use an individual’s data for a purpose the individual has explicitly consented to. Prior methods for enforcing consent for aggregate queries either use access control to eliminate data without consent from query evaluation or apply differential privacy algorithms to inject synthetic noise into the outcomes of queries (or input data) to ensure that the anonymity of non-consenting individuals is preserved with high probability. Both approaches return query results that differ from the ground truth results corresponding to the full input containing data from both consenting and non-consenting individuals. We present an alternative framework for group-by aggregate queries, tailored for applications, e.g., medicine, where even a small deviation from the correct answer to a query cannot be tolerated. Our approach uses provenance to determine, for each output tuple of a group-by aggregate query, which individual’s data was used to derive the result for this group. We then use statistical tests to determine how likely it is that the presence of data for a non-consenting individual will be revealed by such an output tuple. We filter out tuples for which this test fails, i.e., which are deemed likely to reveal non-consenting data. Thus, our approach always returns a subset of the ground truth query answers. Our experiments successfully return only 100% accurate results in instances where access control or differential privacy would have either returned less total or less accurate results.

Data privacy requirements are a complex and quickly evolving part of the data management domain. Especially in Healthcare (e.g., United States Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Veterans Affairs requirements), there has been a strong emphasis on data privacy and protection. Data storage is governed by multiple sources of policy requirements, including internal policies and legal requirements imposed by external governing organizations. Within a database, a single value can be subject to multiple requirements on how long it must be preserved and when it must be irrecoverably destroyed. This often results in a complex set of overlapping and potentially conflicting policies. Existing storage systems are lacking sufficient support functionality for these critical and evolving rules, making compliance an underdeveloped aspect of data management. As a result, many organizations must implement manual ad-hoc solutions to ensure compliance. As long as organizations depend on manual approaches, there is an increased risk of non-compliance and threat to customer data privacy.