2016
DOI: 10.1007/s13389-016-0136-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Buffer overflow attack with multiple fault injection and a proven countermeasure

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Attacks in the cryptography [9,12] and systems [17] literature often target loops, aiming for early or deferred loop exit. We would first like to assess the practicality of such control flow disruption on sensitive loops.…”
Section: Preliminary Fault Sensitivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Attacks in the cryptography [9,12] and systems [17] literature often target loops, aiming for early or deferred loop exit. We would first like to assess the practicality of such control flow disruption on sensitive loops.…”
Section: Preliminary Fault Sensitivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• the memcpy-like function in Listing 1 is typical of firmware updates subject to buffer overflow attacks [17]; instead of copying, values in the source and destination buffers are added to ease result analysis; • the memcmp-like function with early exit in Listing 2 resembles authentication schemes such as PIN verification [10]; again, to facilitate analysis, the outcome of the comparison is stored in a destination buffer at every iteration.…”
Section: Loop Benchmarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to their use in cryptanalysis, fault attacks can also be used to trigger logical attacks (e.g., control flow hijacking, privilege escalation, subverting memory isolation) on general-purpose processors [44], [49], [54], [45], [34], [15] and smart cards as a special case. As we are interested by this latter, examples from the literature are briefly presented below.…”
Section: Fault Enabled Logical Attacksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The diversity of all previous proposed mechanism can be categorised into two main different solutions: software-based (Chiveh and Hsu, 2001;Vendicator;Gadaleta et al, 2009;Cowan et al, 1998;Tyagi and Lee, 2000;Pyo and Lee, 2002;Jones and Kelly, 1997;Baratloo et al, 1999;Baratloo et al, 2000;Solar Designer;Nashimoto et al, 2016) and hardware-based (Francillon et al, 2009;Xu et al, 2002;Alexander, 2005;CERT;Giasson, 2001;Eichin and Rochlis, 1989;Danger et al, 2016). Software solutions focus on existing source code while Hardware solutions need major changes in the computer and memory hardware architecture.…”
Section: Vulnerabilities Reported To Certmentioning
confidence: 99%