2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-05072-6_7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploiting Security Vulnerabilities in Intermittent Computing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, saving and subsequently retrieving state at code execution checkpoints for a long-run application via an intermittent execution model [16] is not only: i) costly in terms of computations and energy [17]-saving state in non-volatile memories such as FLASH or EEPROM consumes more energy than static RAM (SRAM) whilst reading state from FRAM consumes more energy than writing as we demonstrate in Fig. 5; but also: ii) render a device in a vulnerable state for an attacker to exploit when checkpoint state is stored on off-chip memory with an easily accessible memory bus [18]. These issues make the execution of long-run security algorithms, such as Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) 1 key exchange, difficult to deploy securely.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Further, saving and subsequently retrieving state at code execution checkpoints for a long-run application via an intermittent execution model [16] is not only: i) costly in terms of computations and energy [17]-saving state in non-volatile memories such as FLASH or EEPROM consumes more energy than static RAM (SRAM) whilst reading state from FRAM consumes more energy than writing as we demonstrate in Fig. 5; but also: ii) render a device in a vulnerable state for an attacker to exploit when checkpoint state is stored on off-chip memory with an easily accessible memory bus [18]. These issues make the execution of long-run security algorithms, such as Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) 1 key exchange, difficult to deploy securely.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Our attacker capabilities are reasoned based on [14], with following changes to consider more generic threats: 1) the duration of attacker's physical access is restricted; 2) an attack does not leave visible traces (e.g., modify the configuration or data) to avoid drawing a user's attention; 3) we obviated attacks that requires expert knowledge or expensive equipment.…”
Section: B Attacker Capabilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, exploitation or what useful information the dumped firmware could provide, time and monetary cost of an attack or a practical adversary model extracting the firmware and the consequence of having access to that firmware was unclear. Krishnan and Schaumont, in [14] investigated exploiting the JTAG (Joint Test Action Group) interface in an intermittent computing system. They demonstrated the extraction of the AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) secret key from checkpoints stored in on-chip NVM (non-volatile memory).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By regularly saving the run-time data into a device's non-volatile memory (NVM) [21]- [23] or uploading to a server after encryption [20] (i.e., the checkpoint), the system can resume from the last intact checkpoint whenever a power failure occurs. However, writing to NVM is energy intensive [20] and raises security concerns [20], [25]. Off-device checkpointing methods [20] requires coordination between the reader and the device, as well as time and energy overheads (e.g., for data transmissions and encryption functions).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%