PUF-based secure test wrapper design for cryptographic SoC testing

Physically unclonable functions (PUFs) exploit the unavoidable manufacturing variations of an integrated circuit (IC). Their inputoutput behavior serves as a unique IC 'fingerprint'. Therefore, they have been envisioned as an IC authentication mechanism, in particular for the subclass of so-called strong PUFs. The protocol proposals are typically accompanied with two PUF promises: lightweight and an increased resistance against physical attacks. In this work, we review eight prominent proposals in chronological order: from the original strong PUF proposal to the more complicated converse and slender PUF proposals. The novelty of our work is threefold. First, we employ a unified notation and framework for ease of understanding. Second, we initiate direct comparison between protocols, which has been neglected in each of the proposals. Third, we reveal numerous security and practicality issues. To such an extent, that we cannot support the use of any proposal in its current form. All proposals aim to compensate the lack of cryptographic properties of the strong PUF. However, proper compensation seems to oppose the lightweight objective.

show abstract

“…Their elements are selected with an index i ≥ 1 between round brackets, e.g. c (1). The null vector is denoted as 0.…”

Section: Notationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secure Lightweight Entity Authentication with Strong PUFs: Mission Impossible?

Delvaux

Schellekens

et al. 2014

Advanced Information Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors suggest the use of arbiter PUFs. Predecessor Issues Although the protocol is in essence identical to a direct predecessor [7], it is not described in terms of adjustments. We observe six modifications.…”

Section: Converse Authentication: Predecessor (March 2012) and Succesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey on Lightweight Entity Authentication with Strong PUFs

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Physically unclonable functions (PUFs) exploit the unavoidable manufacturing variations of an integrated circuit (IC). Their input-output behavior serves as a unique IC 'fingerprint'. Therefore, they have been envisioned as an IC authentication mechanism, in particular the subclass of so-called strong PUFs. The protocol proposals are typically accompanied with two PUF promises: lightweight and an increased resistance against physical attacks. In this work, we review nineteen proposals in chronological order: from the original strong PUF proposal (2001) to the more complicated noise bifurcation and system of PUF proposals (2014). The assessment is aided by a unified notation and a transparent framework of PUF protocol requirements.

show abstract

“…A. Das et al [29] presented an authentication protocol based on Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) to protect the access to IEEE 1500 compliant test wrappers. A PUF must be implemented inside the device.…”

Section: ) Challenge-response Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey on Security Threats and Countermeasures in IEEE Test Standards

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth in complexity of Integrated Circuits (IC) is supported, amongst other factors, by the development of standardized test infrastructures. The feasibility of both end-ofmanufacturing and in-field tests heavily depends on the presence of these infrastructures that give detailed access to the IC. The standard test infrastructures are referred as IEEE Std. 1149.1 (JTAG), IEEE Std. 1500 and IEEE Std. 1687 (IJTAG). The security issues arising from the presence of these infrastructures have been fully exposed in the last two decades. This led to the publication of several practical attacks showing how a non-protected test infrastructure can end into the jeopardizing of the entire system. As a consequence, many countermeasures have been proposed. In this survey, we provide: (i) a taxonomy of the attacks that can be performed exploiting the standard test infrastructures; (ii) a taxonomy of countermeasures inspired by the kind of security primitives that are granted in each case.

show abstract

PUF-based secure test wrapper design for cryptographic SoC testing

Cited by 38 publications

References 18 publications

Secure Lightweight Entity Authentication with Strong PUFs: Mission Impossible?

Secure Lightweight Entity Authentication with Strong PUFs: Mission Impossible?

A Survey on Lightweight Entity Authentication with Strong PUFs

A Survey on Security Threats and Countermeasures in IEEE Test Standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About