MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137153043 · doi:10.1109/iscas.2011.5937667

Counteracting power analysis attack using Static Single-ended Logic

2011· article· en· W2137153043 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 institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower analysisLogic gateComputer scienceStatic analysisPull-up resistorPower (physics)ChipProcess (computing)Logic synthesisLogic familyBattery (electricity)Differential (mechanical device)Electronic engineeringReliability engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsComputer securityCryptographyAlgorithmProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic and Differential Logics (DDLs) used for providing resistance against power analysis consume significant area. In order to tackle the area cost this paper examines using a Static and Single-ended Logic (SSL) for designing gates and registers which are resistant against power analysis. Current-Balanced Logic (CBL) is chosen and an empirical analysis is conducted for evaluating the effectiveness of CBL in a test chip fabricated in 0.18µm CMOS process. The increased resistance obtained by CBL requires significantly less area than the previously reported logic level countermeasures. No complex layout methodology as the one used for DDL is needed for implementation of CBL. The results presented in this paper are important for providing resistance against power analysis for area-constrained applications with no battery operated supply.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.172 · 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