Hiding Higher-Order Side-Channel Leakage

Randomizing Cryptographic Implementations in Reconfigurable Hardware
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10159)

Abstract

First-order secure Threshold Implementations (TI) of symmetric cryptosystems provide provable security at a moderate overhead; yet attacks using higher-order statistical moments are still feasible. Cryptographic instances compliant to Higher-Order Threshold Implementation (HO-TI) can prevent such attacks, however, usually at unacceptable implementation costs. As an alternative concept we investigate in this work the idea of dynamic hardware modification, i.e., random changes and transformations of cryptographic implementations in order to render higher-order attacks on first-order TI impractical. In a first step, we present a generic methodology which can be applied to (almost) every cryptographic implementation. In order to investigate the effectiveness of our proposed strategy, we use an instantiation of our methodology that adapts ideas from White-Box Cryptography and applies this construction to a first-order secure TI. Further, we show that dynamically updating cryptographic implementations during operation provides the ability to avoid higher-order leakages to be practically exploitable.

References

  1. 1.
    Side-Channel AttacK User Reference Architecture. http://satoh.cs.uec.ac.jp/SAKURA/index.html
  2. 2.
    Agrawal, D., Archambeault, B., Rao, J.R., Rohatgi, P.: The EM side—channel(s). In: Kaliski, B.S., Koç, K., Paar, C. (eds.) CHES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2523, pp. 29–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi:10.1007/3-540-36400-5_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyne, T., Bilgin, B.: Uniform First-Order Threshold Implementations. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/715 (2016). http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/715
  4. 4.
    Bilgin, B., Gierlichs, B., Nikova, S., Nikov, V., Rijmen, V.: Higher-order threshold implementations. In: Sarkar, P., Iwata, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8874, pp. 326–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45608-8_18 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogdanov, A., Knudsen, L.R., Leander, G., Paar, C., Poschmann, A., Robshaw, M.J.B., Seurin, Y., Vikkelsoe, C.: PRESENT: an ultra-lightweight block cipher. In: Paillier, P., Verbauwhede, I. (eds.) CHES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4727, pp. 450–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74735-2_31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chow, S., Eisen, P., Johnson, H., Oorschot, P.C.: A white-box DES implementation for DRM applications. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) DRM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2696, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-44993-5_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chow, S., Eisen, P., Johnson, H., Oorschot, P.C.: White-box cryptography and an AES implementation. In: Nyberg, K., Heys, H. (eds.) SAC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2595, pp. 250–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi:10.1007/3-540-36492-7_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Delerablée, C., Lepoint, T., Paillier, P., Rivain, M.: White-box security notions for symmetric encryption schemes. In: Lange, T., Lauter, K., Lisoněk, P. (eds.) SAC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8282, pp. 247–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43414-7_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kocher, P.C.: Timing attacks on implementations of Diffie-Hellman, RSA, DSS, and other systems. In: Koblitz, N. (ed.) CRYPTO 1996. LNCS, vol. 1109, pp. 104–113. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi:10.1007/3-540-68697-5_9 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kocher, P., Jaffe, J., Jun, B.: Differential power analysis. In: Wiener, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1999. LNCS, vol. 1666, pp. 388–397. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi:10.1007/3-540-48405-1_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mangard, S., Oswald, E., Popp, T.: Power Analysis Attacks - Revealing the Secrets of Smart Cards. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mentens, N., Gierlichs, B., Verbauwhede, I.: Power and fault analysis resistance in hardware through dynamic reconfiguration. In: Oswald, E., Rohatgi, P. (eds.) CHES 2008. LNCS, vol. 5154, pp. 346–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85053-3_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moradi, A., Mischke, O.: Comprehensive evaluation of AES dual ciphers as a side-channel countermeasure. In: Qing, S., Zhou, J., Liu, D. (eds.) ICICS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8233, pp. 245–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02726-5_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moradi, A., Wild, A.: Assessment of hiding the higher-order leakages in hardware. In: Güneysu, T., Handschuh, H. (eds.) CHES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9293, pp. 453–474. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-48324-4_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nikova, S., Rechberger, C., Rijmen, V.: Threshold implementations against side-channel attacks and glitches. In: Ning, P., Qing, S., Li, N. (eds.) ICICS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4307, pp. 529–545. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11935308_38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nikova, S., Rijmen, V., Schläffer, M.: Secure hardware implementation of nonlinear functions in the presence of glitches. J. Cryptol. 24(2), 292–321 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poschmann, A., Moradi, A., Khoo, K., Lim, C., Wang, H., Ling, S.: Side-channel resistant crypto for less than 2,300 GE. J. Cryptol. 24(2), 322–345 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reparaz, O., Bilgin, B., Nikova, S., Gierlichs, B., Verbauwhede, I.: Consolidating masking schemes. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015. LNCS, vol. 9215, pp. 764–783. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-47989-6_37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sasdrich, P., Moradi, A., Güneysu, T.: Affine equivalence and its application to tightening threshold implementations. In: Dunkelman, O., Keliher, L. (eds.) SAC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9566, pp. 263–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31301-6_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schneider, T., Moradi, A.: Leakage assessment methodology. In: Güneysu, T., Handschuh, H. (eds.) CHES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9293, pp. 495–513. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-48324-4_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schneider, T., Moradi, A.: Leakage assessment methodology - extended version. J. Cryptogr. Eng. 6(2), 85–99 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veyrat-Charvillon, N., Medwed, M., Kerckhof, S., Standaert, F.-X.: Shuffling against side-channel attacks: a comprehensive study with cautionary note. In: Wang, X., Sako, K. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7658, pp. 740–757. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34961-4_44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xiao, Y., Lai, X.: A secure implementation of white-box AES. In: 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and its Applications (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Horst Görtz Institute for IT-SecurityRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.University of Bremen & DFKIBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations