Incremental Fault Analysis: Relaxing the Fault Model of Differential Fault Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a new fault analysis technique against cryptographic devices called the incremental fault analysis (IFA), which can be adapted into fault attacks using more traditional differential fault analysis (DFA) techniques in order to increase their feasibility under more practical fault injection conditions. Many previous attack methods require precise fault injection techniques such as clock glitching. By contrast, IFA is compatible with a more practical overclocking fault injection technique in which a cryptosystem is stressed at a constant level throughout the entire encryption, and this constant stress level is then increased between consecutive encryptions. It is observed that as new faults occur incrementally between increased stress levels, they often become superimposed upon faults first appearing at lower stress levels. IFA exploits these incremental fault differentials to deduce the cipher key more rapidly. Attacks were tested using practical fault injection methods on the advanced encryption standard (AES) both with and without IFA applied. Using IFA, allowed cipher keys to be retrieved with a success rate of 100% from 10 times less faulty ciphertexts and 6.4 times less computational time, requiring 16, 86, and 43 ciphertexts on average for AES-128, AES-192, and AES-256, respectively.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".