MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106876320 · doi:10.1109/12.956092

Power analysis attacks and algorithmic approaches to their countermeasures for Koblitz curve cryptosystems

2001· article· en· W2106876320 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computers · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Residue Arithmetic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalar multiplicationPower analysisElliptic curve cryptographyCryptosystemElliptic curve point multiplicationComputer scienceElliptic Curve Digital Signature AlgorithmElliptic curveArithmeticCryptographySide channel attackKey (lock)Hessian form of an elliptic curveScalar (mathematics)Public-key cryptographyKey sizeMathematicsAlgorithmComputer securityEncryptionPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of their shorter key sizes, cryptosystems based on elliptic curves are being increasingly used in practical applications. A special class of elliptic curves, namely, Koblitz curves, offers an additional, but crucial advantage of considerably reduced processing time. Power analysis attacks are applied to cryptosystems that use scalar multiplication on Koblitz curves. Both the simple and the differential power analysis attacks are considered and a number of countermeasures are suggested. While the proposed countermeasures against the simple power analysis attacks rely on making the power consumption for the elliptic curve scalar multiplication independent of the secret key, those for the differential power analysis attacks depend on randomizing the secret key prior to each execution of the scalar multiplication. These countermeasures are computationally efficient and suitable for hardware implementation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.187 · 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