MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981599111 · doi:10.1109/dsd.2019.00041

Circumventing Uniqueness of XOR Arbiter PUFs

2019· article· en· W2981599111 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbiterComputer scienceUniquenessField-programmable gate arrayPhysical unclonable functionProfiling (computer programming)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmEmbedded systemParallel computingMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental property of Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) is uniqueness, which results from the intrinsic characteristics of each PUF instance. However, PUF architectures employ elements whose physical characteristics and behavior may be very similar among different instances, thus leaking unwanted information. We explore the consequences of this effect by mounting Template Attacks over XOR Arbiter PUFs. In the attack, Challenge-Respose Pairs (CRPs) are profiled in one FPGA instance of the PUF to predict responses of a different FPGA instance, obtaining up to 80% of accuracy. We show that replicating the same attack strategy with a well-known Machine Learning (ML) algorithm would not be as effective, since different PUFs instances will not share similar CRP sets. Our template attack only needs few CRPs for profiling (at most 170), but it can be applied to different instances without additional training, which Machile Learning cannot do with unbiased PUF instances.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.185 · 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