MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028894887 · doi:10.1145/1165780.1165783

A split-mask countermeasure for low-energy secure embedded systems

2006· article· en· W2028894887 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

VenueACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCountermeasureWirelessPower analysisEmbedded systemLow energyEnergy (signal processing)Computer securityInternet of ThingsCryptographyTelecommunicationsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future wireless embedded devices will be increasingly powerful, supporting many more applications, including one of the most crucial---security. Although many embedded devices offer more resistance to bus---probing attacks because of their compact size, susceptibility to power or electromagnetic analysis attacks must be analyzed. This paper presents a new split-mask countermeasure to thwart low-order differential power analysis (DPA) and differential EM analysis (DEMA). For the first time, real-power and EM measurements are used to analyze the difficulty of launching new third-order DPA and DEMA attacks on a popular low-energy 32-bit embedded ARM processor. Results show that the new split-mask countermeasure provides increased security without large overheads of energy dissipation, compared to previous research. With the emergence of security applications in PDAs, cell phones, and other embedded devices, low-energy countermeasures for resistance to low-order DPA/DEMA is crucial for supporting future enabled wireless internet.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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