MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946207961 · doi:10.23919/date.2019.8715150

Methodology for EM Fault Injection: Charge-based Fault Model

2019· article· en· W2946207961 on OpenAlexaff
Haohao Liao, Catherine H. Gebotys

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault injectionComputer scienceFault modelFault (geology)Key (lock)Embedded systemFault coverageSet (abstract data type)Stuck-at faultReliability engineeringSoftwareFault detection and isolationElectrical engineeringComputer securityEngineeringOperating systemElectronic circuitProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently electromagnetic fault injection (EMFI) techniques have been found to have significant implications on the security of embedded devices. Unfortunately there is still a lack of understanding of EM fault models and countermeasures for embedded processors. For the first time, this paper proposes an extended fault model based on the concept of critical charge and a new EMFI backside methodology based on over-clocking. Results show that exact timing of EM pulses can provide reliable repeatable instruction replacement faults for specific programs. An attack on AES is demonstrated showing that the EM fault injection requires on average less than 222 EM pulses and 5.3 plaintexts to retrieve the full AES key. This research is critical for ensuring embedded processors and their instruction set architectures are secure and resistant to fault injection attacks.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptographic Implementations and SecurityFrench-language works237,207