MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391937115 · doi:10.1109/qrs-c60940.2023.00053

Independent Boot Process Verification using Side-Channel Power Analysis

2023· article· en· W4391937115 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur Grisel-Davy, Sebastian Fischmeister

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiation Effects in Electronics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSide channel attackPower analysisComputer scienceProcess (computing)Boot campEmbedded systemComputer securityProgramming languageCryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Firmware attacks on embedded systems can have disastrous security implications. Through the firmware update mechanism, an attacker can tamper with the firmware to open known vulnerabilities, change security settings, or deploy custom backdoors, to pave the way for subsequent attacks or gain complete machine control. Firmware protection solutions often share the flaw of requiring the cooperation of the machine they aim to protect. If the machine gets compromised, the results from the protection mechanism become untrustworthy. One solution to this problem is to leverage an independent source of information to assess the integrity of the firmware and the boot-up sequence. In this paper, we propose a physics-based Intrusion Detection System called the Boot Process Verifier that only relies on side-channel power consumption measurement to verify the integrity of the boot-up sequence. The BPV works in complete independence from the machine to protect and requires only a few nominal training samples to establish a baseline of nominal behaviour. The range of application of this approach potentially extends to any embedded systems. We present three test cases that illustrate the performances of the BPV on micro-PC, network equipment (switches and wireless access points), and a drone.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiation Effects in ElectronicsFrench-language works237,207