MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250756852 · doi:10.1109/codess.2003.1275277

Security wrappers and power analysis for SoC technology

2004· article· en· W4250756852 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
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceThe InternetComputer networkWirelessComputer securityLayer (electronics)Core (optical fiber)Network processorTransport layerEmbedded systemOperating systemTelecommunicationsNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future wireless Internet enabled services will be increasingly powerful supporting many more applications including one of the most crucial, security. Although SoCs offer more resistance to bus probing attacks, power/EM attacks on cores and network snooping attacks by malicious code are relevant. This paper presents a methodology for security on NoC at both the network level (or transport layer) and at the core level (or application layer) is proposed. For the first time a low cost security wrapper design is presented, which prevents unencrypted keys from leaving the cores and NoC. This is crucial to prevent untrusted software on or off the NoC from gaining access to keys. At the core level (application layer) power analysis attacks are examined for the first time for parallel and adiabatic architectural cores. With the emergence of secure IP cores in the market, a security methodology for designing NoCs is crucial for supporting future wireless Internet enabled devices.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.265 · 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