Locked Circuit Indistinguishability: A Notion of Security for Logic Locking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address logic locking, a mechanism for securing digital Integrated Circuits (ICs) from piracy by untrustworthy foundries. We discuss previous work and the state-of-the-art, and observe that, despite more than a decade of research that has gone into the topic (resulting in both powerful attacks and subsequent defenses), there is no consensus on what it means for a particular locking mechanism to be secure. This paper attempts to remedy this situation. Specifically, it formulates a definition of security for a logic locking mechanism based on indistinguishability and relates the definition to security from actual attackers in a precise and unambiguous manner. We then describe a mechanism that satisfies the definition, thereby achieving (provable) security from all prior attacks. The mechanism assumes the existence of both a puncturable pseudorandom function family and an indistinguishability obfuscator, two cryptographic primitives that exist under well-founded assumptions. The mechanism builds upon the Stripped-Functionality Logic Locking (SFLL) framework, a state-of-the-art family of locking mechanisms whose potential for ever achieving security is currently in question. Along the way, partly as motivation, we present additional results, such as a reason founded in average-case complexity for why benchmark circuits locked with a prior scheme are susceptible to the well-known SAT attack against such schemes, and why provably thwarting the SAT attack is insufficient as a meaningful notion of security for logic locking.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".