2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-49890-3_10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From Improved Leakage Detection to the Detection of Points of Interests in Leakage Traces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
80
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
3
80
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Using fixed-vs-fixed instead of fixed-vs-random has the advantage of faster convergence of the statistic (at the expense of leakage behavior assumptions that are benign in our context). (This has been previously observed by Durvaux and Standaert [DS15] in a slightly different context.) One could also use a fix-vs-random test.…”
Section: Leakage Detectionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Using fixed-vs-fixed instead of fixed-vs-random has the advantage of faster convergence of the statistic (at the expense of leakage behavior assumptions that are benign in our context). (This has been previously observed by Durvaux and Standaert [DS15] in a slightly different context.) One could also use a fix-vs-random test.…”
Section: Leakage Detectionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The two classes are defined as this: one class corresponds to a fix seed value; the other class is defined as a random seed value (fix-vs-random test). This choice, in contrast to a fix-vs-fix test, is expected to capture a broad set of leakages [DS16].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, we do not have to place assumptions on how the implementation may leak, or which subcomponent may cause the timing leakage. There are other tests such as fix-vs-fix that may be less generic but more efficient, as Durvaux and Standaert note [DS16]. e) How many measurements to take?…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%