MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740132794 · doi:10.23977/jeeem.2017.11005

Clock Glitch Fault Injection Attacks on an FPGA AES Implementation

2017· article· en· W2740132794 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electrotechnology Electrical Engineering and Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGlitchComputer scienceField-programmable gate arrayEncryptionAdvanced Encryption StandardAES implementationsFault injectionEmbedded systemKey (lock)Fault (geology)CryptographyComputer securityOperating systemSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm has been widely used to secure communication systems. However, the encryption algorithm is vulnerable to fault injection attacks and various attack methods have been studied. Some methods are just proposed in theory and have not been validated in practice. In this paper, we actualize a fault injection attack on an FPGA AES implementation. We propose a method to generate the highly accurate clock glitch to inject faults in the encryption process. We show that if the frequency of the clock glitch is carefully selected, only 6 faulty ciphertexts are necessary to discover the secret key.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.279 · 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