A Deeper Look into Deep Learning-based Output Prediction Attacks Using Weak SPN Block Ciphers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptanalysis in a blackbox setting using deep learning is powerful because it does not require the attacker to have knowledge about the internal structure of the cryptographic algorithm. Thus, it is necessary to design a symmetric key cipher that is secure against cryptanalysis using deep learning. Kimura et al. (AIoTS 2022) investigated deep learning-based attacks on the small PRESENT-[4] block cipher with limited component changes, identifying characteristics specific to these attacks which remain unaffected by linear/differential cryptanalysis. Finding such characteristics is important because exploiting such characteristics can make the target cipher vulnerable to deep learning-based attacks. Thus, this paper extends a previous method to explore clues for designing symmetric-key cryptographic algorithms that are secure against deep learning-based attacks. We employ small PRESENT-[4] with two weak S-boxes, which are known to be weak against differential/linear attacks, to clarify the relationship between classical and deep learning-based attacks. As a result, we demonstrated the success probability of our deep learning-based whitebox analysis tends to be affected by the success probability of classical cryptanalysis methods. And we showed our whitebox analysis achieved the same attack capability as traditional methods even when the S-box of the target cipher was changed to a weak one.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".