2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-29656-7_11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Design of Cryptographic Devices Resilient to Fault Injection Attacks Using Nonlinear Robust Codes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…0.25 and 0.00625 for the nonlinear code over GF (2), GF(4) and GF (16), respectively). The deviations of the measured ASR from these values are much larger for the Braun multiplier.…”
Section: B Evaluation Of Hardening For Single Faultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…0.25 and 0.00625 for the nonlinear code over GF (2), GF(4) and GF (16), respectively). The deviations of the measured ASR from these values are much larger for the Braun multiplier.…”
Section: B Evaluation Of Hardening For Single Faultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used exhaustive simulation of all 256 possible input vectors for the Braun multiplier and 1,000 random vectors for b20. We synthesized four EDC-based protection architectures for these circuits using linear parity and nonlinear parity codes over GF (2), GF(4) and GF (16). These codes employ 1, 1, 2 and 4 checkbits, respectively.…”
Section: A Unhardened Circuitmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As an illustrative example, the design of secure multipliers (widely used as sub-blocks in public-key cryptosystems) based on multilinear arithmetic codes will be shown. As in most papers on protecting the data path of cryptographic devices, e.g., see [11]- [13], we assume that countermeasures are implemented in the cryptographic device preventing the attackers from tampering with the clock signals. We further assume that a low-rate true random number generator (e.g., [14]) is available.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first requirement can be achieved by implementing the reconfiguration function using a fault injection aware design at a reasonable performance penalty [38,1]. Moreover, although fault injection attacks against non-volatile memory (e.g., EEPROM or Flash) are known [51], it seems to be difficult in practice to perform invasive attacks that change the content of specific non-volatile memory cells without affecting the content of the surrounding cells [52].…”
Section: Requirementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, only the error correction mechanism must be implemented when building an LR-PUF based on a controlled PUF. Moreover, the non-volatile memory and control logic should be protected against fault-injection attacks, e.g., by applying the techniques described in [38,1].…”
Section: Implementation and Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%