Towards a Cryptographic Minimal Design: The sLiSCP Family of Permutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The security of highly resource constrained applications is often viewed in the literature from a single aspect of a specific cryptographic primitive. More precisely, most of the proposed lightweight cryptographic primitives focus on providing a single functionality within the available hardware area dedicated for security purposes. In this paper, we argue that for such applications, a cryptographic primitive that follows the cryptographic minimal design strategy maybe the only realistically adopted security solution where there is a constrained GE budget for all security functionalities. Indeed, it is reasonable, if not desirable, for the adopted cryptographic design to have well justified building components and to provide minimal overhead for multiple cryptographic functionalities including encryption, hashing, authentication, and pseudorandom bit generation. Following such a strategy, we propose the sLiSCP family of lightweight cryptographic permutations which employs two of the most hardware efficient and extensively cryptanalyzed constructions, namely a 4-subblock Type-2 Generalized Feistel-like Structure (GFS) and round-reduced unkeyed Simeck. In addition to the hardware efficiency, we follow restrictive security design goals which enable us to provide resistance against differential and linear cryptanalysis, as well as guaranteed resistance to diffusion-based, algebraic, and self-symmetry distinguishers, and accordingly, we claim that there exist no structural distinguishers for sLiSCP-b with a complexity below 2b=2 where b is the state size. Moreover, we present the sLiSCP duplex sponge mode to illustrate how the permutations can be used in a unified design that provides (authenticated) encryption, hashing, and pseudorandom bit generation functionalities. Finally, we report two efficient parallel hardware implementations for the sLiSCP unified duplex sponge mode when using sLiSCP-192 (resp. sLiSCP-256) in CMOS 65 nm ASIC with area of 2289 (resp. 3039) GE and a throughput of 29.62 (resp. 44.44) kbps, and their areas in CMOS 130 nm are 2498 (resp. 3319) GE.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".