Scalable and Secure Row-Swap: Efficient and Safe Row Hammer Mitigation in Memory Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Dynamic Random Access Memories (DRAM) scale, they are becoming increasingly susceptible to Row Hammer. By rapidly activating rows of DRAM cells (aggressor rows), attackers can exploit inter-cell interference through Row Hammer to flip bits in neighboring rows (victim rows). A recent work, called Randomized Row-Swap (RRS), proposed proactively swapping aggressor rows with randomly selected rows before an aggressor row can cause Row Hammer.Our paper observes that RRS is neither secure nor scalable. We first propose the ‘Juggernaut attack pattern’ that breaks RRS in under 1 day. Juggernaut exploits the fact that the mitigative action of RRS, a swap operation, can itself induce additional target row activations, defeating such a defense. Second, this paper proposes a new defense Secure Row-Swap mechanism that avoids the additional activations from swap (and unswap) operations and protects against Juggernaut. Furthermore, this paper extends Secure Row-Swap with attack detection to defend against even future attacks. While this provides better security, it also allows for securely reducing the frequency of swaps, thereby enabling Scalable and Secure Row-Swap. The Scalable and Secure Row-Swap mechanism provides years of Row Hammer protection with 3.3× lower storage overheads as compared to the RRS design. It incurs only a 0.7% slowdown as compared to a not-secure baseline for a Row Hammer threshold of 1200.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".