Advertisement

Tight Private Circuits: Achieving Probing Security with the Least Refreshing

  • Sonia BelaïdEmail author
  • Dahmun GoudarziEmail author
  • Matthieu RivainEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11273)

Abstract

Masking is a common countermeasure to secure implementations against side-channel attacks. In 2003, Ishai, Sahai, and Wagner introduced a formal security model, named \(t\)-probing model, which is now widely used to theoretically reason on the security of masked implementations. While many works have provided security proofs for small masked components, called gadgets, within this model, no formal method allowed to securely compose gadgets with a tight number of shares (namely, \(t+1\)) until recently. In 2016, Barthe et al. filled this gap with maskComp, a tool checking the security of masking schemes composed of several gadgets. This tool can achieve provable security with tight number of shares by inserting mask-refreshing gadgets at carefully selected locations. However the method is not tight in the sense that there exists some compositions of gadgets for which it cannot exhibit a flaw nor prove the security. As a result, it is overconservative and might insert more refresh gadgets than actually needed to ensure \(t\)-probing security. In this paper, we exhibit the first tool, referred to as tightPROVE, able to clearly state whether a shared circuit composed of standard gadgets (addition, multiplication, and refresh) is \(t\)-probing secure or not. Given such a composition, our tool either produces a probing-security proof (valid at any order) or exhibits a security flaw that directly implies a probing attack at a given order. Compared to maskComp, tightPROVE can drastically reduce the number of required refresh gadgets to get a probing security proof, and thus the randomness requirement for some secure shared circuits. We apply our method to a recent AES implementation secured with higher-order masking in bitslice and we show that we can save all the refresh gadgets involved in the s-box layer, which results in an significant performance gain.

Keywords

Side-channel Masking Composition Private circuits 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank François-Xavier Standaert and Gaëtan Cassiers for their in-depth review and helpful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Barthe, G., Belaïd, S., Dupressoir, F., Fouque, P.-A., Grégoire, B., Strub, P.-Y.: Verified proofs of higher-order masking. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9056, pp. 457–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46800-5_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barthe, G., et al.: Strong non-interference and type-directed higher-order masking. In: Weippl, E.R., Katzenbeisser, S., Kruegel, C., Myers, A.C., Halevi, S. (eds.) ACM CCS 2016, pp. 116–129. ACM Press, New York, October 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barthe, G., et al.: Masking the GLP lattice-based signature scheme at any order. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10821, pp. 354–384. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belaïd, S., Goudarzi, D., Rivain, M.: Tight private circuits: achieving probing security with the least refreshing. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2018, 439 (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bloem, R., Gross, H., Iusupov, R., Könighofer, B., Mangard, S., Winter, J.: Formal verification of masked hardware implementations in the presence of glitches. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10821, pp. 321–353. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8_11CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyar, J., Matthews, P., Peralta, R.: Logic minimization techniques with applications to cryptology. J. Cryptol. 26(2), 280–312 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brier, E., Clavier, C., Olivier, F.: Correlation power analysis with a leakage model. In: Joye, M., Quisquater, J.-J. (eds.) CHES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3156, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28632-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chari, S., Jutla, C.S., Rao, J.R., Rohatgi, P.: Towards sound approaches to counteract power-analysis attacks. In: Wiener, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1999. LNCS, vol. 1666, pp. 398–412. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48405-1_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coron, J.-S.: Formal verification of side-channel countermeasures via elementary circuit transformations. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/879 (2017). http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/879
  10. 10.
    Coron, J.-S., Prouff, E., Rivain, M., Roche, T.: Higher-order side channel security and mask refreshing. In: Moriai, S. (ed.) FSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8424, pp. 410–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43933-3_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coron, J.-S., Rondepierre, F., Zeitoun, R.: High order masking of look-up tables with common shares. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/271 (2017). http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/271
  12. 12.
    Duc, A., Dziembowski, S., Faust, S.: Unifying leakage models: from probing attacks to noisy leakage. In: Nguyen, P.Q., Oswald, E. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8441, pp. 423–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55220-5_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goubin, L., Patarin, J.: DES and differential power analysis the “Duplication” method. In: Koç, Ç.K., Paar, C. (eds.) CHES 1999. LNCS, vol. 1717, pp. 158–172. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48059-5_15CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goudarzi, D., Rivain, M.: How fast can higher-order masking be in software? In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10210, pp. 567–597. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56620-7_20CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishai, Y., Sahai, A., Wagner, D.: Private circuits: securing hardware against probing attacks. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 463–481. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45146-4_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Journault, A., Standaert, F.-X.: Very high order masking: efficient implementation and security evaluation. In: Fischer, W., Homma, N. (eds.) CHES 2017. LNCS, vol. 10529, pp. 623–643. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66787-4_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Messerges, T.S.: Using second-order power analysis to attack DPA resistant software. In: Koç, Ç.K., Paar, C. (eds.) CHES 2000. LNCS, vol. 1965, pp. 238–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44499-8_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Micali, S., Reyzin, L.: Physically observable cryptography. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 278–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24638-1_16CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prouff, E., Rivain, M.: Masking against side-channel attacks: a formal security proof. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 142–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rivain, M., Prouff, E.: Provably secure higher-order masking of AES. In: Mangard, S., Standaert, F.-X. (eds.) CHES 2010. LNCS, vol. 6225, pp. 413–427. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15031-9_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang, R., Qiu, S., Zhou, Y.: Further improving efficiency of higher order masking schemes by decreasing randomness complexity. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 12(11), 2590–2598 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CryptoExpertsParisFrance
  2. 2.ENS CNRS INRIA and PSL Research UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations