MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787740847 · doi:10.1109/icm.2017.8268818

A power analysis resistant FPGA implementation of NTRUEncrypt

2017· article· en· W2787740847 on OpenAlexaff
Moustafa Mahmoud, Mouna Nakkar, Amr Youssef

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower analysisComputer scienceCryptosystemField-programmable gate arrayCryptographySide channel attackPublic-key cryptographyKey (lock)Correlation attackEncryptionEmbedded systemTheoretical computer scienceParallel computingBlock cipherAlgorithmComputer networkComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NTRUEncrypt is a family of public key cryptosystems that uses lattice-based cryptography. It has been accepted as an IEEE P1363 standard and as an X9.98 Standard. In addition to its small footprint compared to other number theory based public key systems, its resistance to quantum attacks makes it a very attractive candidate for post quantum cryptography systems. On the other hand, similar to other cryptographic schemes, unprotected hardware implementations of NTRUEncrypt are susceptible to side channel attacks such as timing and power analysis. In this paper, we present an FPGA implementation of NTRUEncrypt which is resistant to first order differential power analysis (DPA) attacks. Our countermeasures are implemented at the architecture level. In particular, we split the ciphertext into two randomly generated shares. This guarantees that during the first step of the decryption process, the inputs to the convolution modules, which are convoluted with the secret key polynomial, are uniformly chosen random polynomials which are freshly generated for each convolution operation and are not under the control of the attacker. The two shares are then processed in parallel without explicitly combining them until the final stage of the decryption. Furthermore, during the final stage of the decryption, we also split the used secret key polynomial into two randomly generated shares which provides theoretical resistance against the considered class of power analysis attacks. The proposed architecture is implemented using Altera Cyclone IV FPGA and simulated on Quartus II in order to compare the non-masked architecture with the masked one. For the considered set of parameters, the area overhead of the protected implementation is about 60% while the latency overhead is between 1.4% to 6.9%.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptographic Implementations and SecurityFrench-language works237,207