2019 Design, Automation &Amp; Test in Europe Conference &Amp; Exhibition (DATE) 2019
DOI: 10.23919/date.2019.8714862
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PUFs Deep Attacks: Enhanced modeling attacks using deep learning techniques to break the security of double arbiter PUFs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
42
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to [3], if a cPUF provides the min-entropy requirement (which imposes that the cPUF responses are linearly independent) then it can provide existential unforgeability [3] against classical adversaries with no quantum access to the cPUF. However, this requirement cannot be satisfied with most of the common cPUF structures as shown in [19,44,43,28]. Instead of the min-entropy requirement that seems hard or impossible to be achieved, we only consider the basic assumption on PUFs that let the behaviour of PUF be unknown to anyone [42]; and instead of existential unforgeability property which seems impossible to be achieved for both cPUFs and qPUFs, we consider the selective unforgeability property which is a weaker, yet more relevant, notion than the existential one.…”
Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…According to [3], if a cPUF provides the min-entropy requirement (which imposes that the cPUF responses are linearly independent) then it can provide existential unforgeability [3] against classical adversaries with no quantum access to the cPUF. However, this requirement cannot be satisfied with most of the common cPUF structures as shown in [19,44,43,28]. Instead of the min-entropy requirement that seems hard or impossible to be achieved, we only consider the basic assumption on PUFs that let the behaviour of PUF be unknown to anyone [42]; and instead of existential unforgeability property which seems impossible to be achieved for both cPUFs and qPUFs, we consider the selective unforgeability property which is a weaker, yet more relevant, notion than the existential one.…”
Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most cPUFs generate only a finite, albeit possibly exponential (in some desired security parameters), number of CRPs [11]. However, most of them remain vulnerable against different attacks like side-channel [50,11] and machine-learning [19,44,43,28]. Thus, considering the importance of cPUFs as a hardware security primitive in several real-world applications, on one hand, [11,26,15,2,33,30,36] 1 and the recent advances in quantum technology, on the other hand, it is worth investigating whether quantum technologies could boost the security of cPUFs or if they, on the contrary, threaten their security.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, it has been proved that a simple Multi-Layer Perceptron model can be trained to predict the response of several architecture of arbiter PUFs, by being trained with just a very small set of CRPs of the PUF-enabled device. For this reason, many variations and countermeasures are proposed for every family of PUF architectures (such as double k-XOR arbiter PUF [18]) with the goal of avoiding model-building attacks using machine learning and deep learning techniques.…”
Section: Deep Learning Techniques For Challenge/response Pair Database Management During the Life Cyclementioning
confidence: 99%
“…One can find a broad range of PUFs in the literature [9][10][11], and electronic PUFs is the most well studied class, mainly because of their compatibility with existing technology and hardware. However, they are susceptible to various types of modeling and side-channel attacks [10,[12][13][14][15], and current research is focused on the development of new schemes, which offer provable security against such attacks (e.g., see [16] and references therein). On the contrary, optical PUFs are not fully compatible with existing technology in ATMs, but they offer many advantages relative to electronic PUFs, including low cost, high complexity, and security against modeling attacks [10,17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%