MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171626127 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2011.6030653

Efficient architectures for modular exponentiation using Montgomery powering ladder

2011· article· en· W2171626127 on OpenAlexaff
Yiruo He, Huapeng Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Residue Arithmetic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular exponentiationScalar multiplicationExponentiationSide channel attackComputer scienceCryptosystemModular arithmeticCurve25519Public-key cryptographyParallel computingArithmeticElliptic curve cryptographyCryptographyModular designElliptic curveMultiplication (music)MathematicsAlgorithmEncryptionOperating systemPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Side channel attacks have been considered as serious threats to certain public-key cryptosystems, such like RSA and elliptic curve system. For modular exponentiation for RSA and scalar multiplication for elliptic curve cryptosystems, Montgomery powering ladder has been shown to be a good choice for counter-measures against side-channel attacks. In this paper, two efficient architectures for modular exponentiation respectively using Montgomery powering ladder algorithm and m-ary powering ladder method are proposed. The first one is a straightforward and efficient implementation of the Montgomery powering ladder algorithm, in which the multiplication and squaring are performed in parallel during each clock cycle. A novel-designed two-by-two cross-point switch is used to select each ladder step. By parallelizing the Montgomery powering ladder using loop unrolling technique so that the number of loops is reduced by half, a second efficient architecture is proposed that requires only half number of clock cycles compared to the first one. The second proposed architecture realizes the m-ary Montgomery powering ladder for the case that the radix equals to 4.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Residue ArithmeticFrench-language works237,207