MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016052071 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2012.6334887

Applicability of simple power analysis to stream ciphers constructed using multiple LFSRs

2012· article· en· W2016052071 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 cipherShift registerComputer scienceStream cipher attackBlock sizeCorrelation attackKey scheduleBlock cipherCryptographyParallel computingChipAlgorithmComputer hardwareArithmeticDifferential cryptanalysisMathematicsKey (lock)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the hardware implementation of stream ciphers has attracted the interest of many designers, mainly due to their low implementation area on a chip. However, to date, in comparison with block ciphers, side channel attacks have not been extensively analyzed for their applicability to stream cipher hardware implementations. However it has been shown that simple power analysis (SPA) attacks are applicable to stream ciphers based on one linear feedback shift register. In this paper, we extend the SPA method to stream ciphers with multiple linear feedback shift registers and multiple linear feedback shift registers with irregular clocking. Then we apply the proposed method to the well-known stream ciphers E0 and LILI-128.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.285 · 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