2019 IEEE International Test Conference (ITC) 2019
DOI: 10.1109/itc44170.2019.9000130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterization of Locked Combinational Circuits via ATPG

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These attacks are nevertheless currently only dedicated to key-gate-based logic locking methods. SKGLock+ should also be secure against the FALL and CLIC-A attacks [16,51] since it does not rely on a protected input pattern, which is the feature, common to TTLock and SFLL among others, that is exploited by these attacks.…”
Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These attacks are nevertheless currently only dedicated to key-gate-based logic locking methods. SKGLock+ should also be secure against the FALL and CLIC-A attacks [16,51] since it does not rely on a protected input pattern, which is the feature, common to TTLock and SFLL among others, that is exploited by these attacks.…”
Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[50] prunes out incorrect keys that introduce a significant level of logic redundancy. CLIC-A [51] is an ATPG-based attack, which exploits the use of a protected input patterns in CAC schemes.…”
Section: Post-psll/cac Attacksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As one might expect, a defender that knows that this attack is possible can try to respond by adding multiple key inputs and gates such that it is not possible to sensitize an individual key input [24], i.e., the choice of where to insert locking logic needs to be carefully considered. Recent work has shown that the sensitization and other attacks that use automatic test pattern generation (ATPG) have shown success on various logic locking flavors [10,11]. This kind of adversarial back-and-forth or "cat-and-mouse" perspective has driven a lot of progress in logic locking [4,5,41].…”
Section: Early Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cyclic logic locking, on the other hand, is resilient to all three attacks and provides high corruptibility, but is broken by a modified SAT attack (CycSAT) and will thus not be implemented. SFLL-HD is resilient to sensitization attacks and resilience to SAT attacks, removal attacks, and corruptibility can be traded-off by choice of Hamming distance h. Even though there have been successful attempts to unlock circuits locked with the SFLL-HD algorithm [24][25][26], so far it has remained the most secure logic locking algorithm and is therefore chosen to be implemented.…”
Section: Analysis Of Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%