Supporting Material To "Sifa: Exploiting Ineffective Fault Inductions On Symmetric Cryptography"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supplementary material to the paper "SIFA: Exploiting Ineffective Fault Inductions on Symmetric Cryptography" by Christoph Dobraunig, Maria Eichlseder, Thomas Korak, Stefan Mangard, Florian Mendel, and Robert Primas (CHES 2018, https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/071). Ineffectively faulted AES Ciphertexts for different platforms and with different fault countermeasures in place (including infection-based configurations). Files: */ct_correct.txt: AES ciphertexts where a fault was induced during the encryption, but did not change the ciphertext (decimal, CSV, 1 row per ciphertext) */round_keys.txt: 11 expanded AES round keys used for all ciphertexts (decimal, CSV, 1 row per round key) */sei_hardware.dat: Results of the statistical key-recovery evaluation. Row i lists the SEI of the right key, the SEI of the best wrong key, and the rank of the correct key after using 4*i of the ciphertexts in ct_correct.txt. Target platforms and setups are described in more detail in the paper.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.164 | 0.150 |
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".