MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131318419 · doi:10.1109/acsac67867.2025.00083

PIM-ORAM: Towards Oblivious RAM Primitives in Commodity Processing-In-Memory

2025· article· en· W7131318419 on OpenAlexaff
B.O. Woo, Kha Dinh Duy, Youngkwang Han, Brent Byunghoon Kang, Hojoon Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNew York University
KeywordsTestbedCloud computingParallelizable manifoldComputationLatency (audio)Scheme (mathematics)Memory managementRandom access memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oblivious RAM (ORAM) is theoretically proven to render memory access patterns of a computation completely uniform, mitigating memory side-channel attacks. However, it is accompanied by orders of magnitude slower memory access latency and, thus, is often impractical in many circumstances. On the other hand, Processing-In-Memory (PIM) has been advancing as a solution to accelerate memory-intensive work-loads and mitigate the memory wall problem. In this paper, we explore the new direction of in-DRAM oblivious RAM with a design named PIM-ORAM. We retrofit the currently available commodity PIM hardware to provide future direction for secure computation on PIM, and design PIM-ORAM. Our design proposes split-data ORAM, a parallelizable in-memory ORAM scheme that takes full advantage of the parallel computing power of the PIM while retaining the original security guarantee of ORAM and dealing with the constraints existing in the commodity PIM. We evaluate PIM-ORAM using the PIM -enabled testbed cloud to provide more realistic numerical values. The evaluation shows that PIM-ORAM alleviates the increase of memory bus usage and ORAM access latency when the ORAM capacity increases.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207