MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946062220 · doi:10.23919/date.2019.8714862

PUFs Deep Attacks: Enhanced modeling attacks using deep learning techniques to break the security of double arbiter PUFs

2019· article· en· W2946062220 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud Khalafalla, Catherine H. Gebotys

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbiterComputer scienceDeep learningCryptographyKey (lock)Authentication (law)Artificial intelligenceHardware security moduleEmbedded systemComputer securityMachine learningComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade and a half, physical unclonable functions (PUFs) have been introduced as a promising cryptographic primitive for hardware security applications. Since then, the race between proposing new complex PUF architectures and new attack schemes to break their security has been ongoing. Although modeling attacks using conventional machine learning techniques were successful against many PUFs, there are still some delay-based PUF architectures which remain unbroken against such attacks, such as the double arbiter PUFs. These stronger complex PUFs have the potential to be a promising candidate for key generation and authentication applications. This paper presents an in-depth analysis of modeling attack using deep learning (DL) techniques against double arbiter PUFs (DA-PUFs). Unlike more conventional machine learning techniques such as logistic regression and support vector machines, DL results show enhanced prediction accuracy of the attacked PUFs, thus pushing up the boundaries of modeling attacks to break more complex architectures. The attack on 3-1 DAPUFs has improved accuracy of over 86% (compared to previous research achieving a maximum of 76%) and the 4-1 DAPUFs accuracy ranges between 71%-81.5% (compared to previous research of maximum 63%). This research is crucial for analyzing security of existing and future PUF architectures, confirming that as DL computations become more widely accessible, designers will need to hide the PUFs CRP relationship from attackers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations103
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware SecurityFrench-language works237,207