Not All Fabrics Are Created Equal: Exploring eFPGA Parameters for IP Redaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semiconductor design houses rely on third-party foundries to manufacture their integrated circuits (ICs). While this trend allows them to tackle fabrication costs, it introduces security concerns as external (and potentially malicious) parties can access critical parts of the designs and steal or modify the intellectual property (IP). Embedded field-programmable gate array (eFPGA) redaction is a promising technique to protect critical IPs of an ASIC by redacting (i.e., removing) critical parts and mapping them onto a custom reconfigurable fabric. Only trusted parties will receive the correct bitstream to restore the redacted functionality. While previous studies imply that using an eFPGA is a sufficient condition to provide security against IP threats like reverse-engineering, whether this truly holds for all eFPGA architectures is unclear, thus motivating the study in this article. We examine the security of eFPGA fabrics generated by varying different FPGA design parameters. We characterize the power, performance, and area (PPA) characteristics and evaluate each fabric’s resistance to Boolean satisfiability (SAT)-based bitstream recovery. Our results encourage designers to work with custom eFPGA fabrics rather than off-the-shelf commercial FPGAs and reveals that only considering a redaction fabric’s bitstream size is inadequate for gauging security.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".