MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983153670 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2013.6567847

Theoretical simple power analysis of the grain stream cipher

2013· article· en· W1983153670 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStream cipherStream cipher attackComputer scienceBlock cipherCorrelation attackTransposition cipherPower analysisCipherCryptographyAffine cipherHamming distanceTwo-square cipherRunning key cipherTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmCBC-MACComputer securityEncryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power analysis has come to be an important category of cryptanalytic attacks. Although such attacks have been extensively applied to block ciphers, only limited research has been done to analyze their effectiveness on stream cipher hardware implementations. In this paper, we consider the application of simple power analysis (SPA) to the Grain stream cipher. The applicability of SPA is considered under idealized assumptions of the Hamming distance power model and the complexity of the attack is analyzed. The resulting analysis implies that the Grain cipher is susceptible to power analysis attacks where there is strong correlation between the power measurements and changes in the cipher's state registers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it