Advertisement

Getting the Most Out of Leakage Detection

Statistical Tools and Measurement Setups Hand in Hand
  • Santos Merino del Pozo
  • François-Xavier Standaert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10348)

Abstract

In this work, we provide a concrete investigation of the gains that can be obtained by combining good measurement setups and efficient leakage detection tests to speed up evaluation times. For this purpose, we first analyze the quality of various measurement setups. Then, we highlight the positive impact of a recent proposal for efficient leakage detection, based on the analysis of a (few) pair(s) of plaintexts. Finally, we show that the combination of our best setups and detection tools allows detecting leakages for a noisy threshold implementation of the block cipher PRESENT after an intensive measurement phase, while either worse setups or less efficient detection tests would not succeed in detecting these leakages. Overall, our results show that a combination of good setups and fast leakage detection can turn security evaluation times from days to hours (for first-order secure implementations) and even from weeks to days (for higher-order secure implementations).

Notes

Acknowledgments

François-Xavier Standaert is an associate researcher of the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS-F.R.S.). This work was funded in parts by the European Commission through the project REASSURE.

Supplementary material

References

  1. 1.
    Side-channel attack user reference architecture. http://satoh.cs.uec.ac.jp/SAKURA/index.html
  2. 2.
    Balasch, J., Gierlichs, B., Reparaz, O., Verbauwhede, I.: DPA, bitslicing and masking at 1 GHz. In: Güneysu, T., Handschuh, H. (eds.) CHES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9293, pp. 599–619. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-48324-4_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bilgin, B., Gierlichs, B., Nikova, S., Nikov, V., Rijmen, V.: A more efficient AES threshold implementation. In: Pointcheval, D., Vergnaud, D. (eds.) AFRICACRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8469, pp. 267–284. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-06734-6_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-28632-5_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chari, S., Rao, J.R., Rohatgi, P.: Template attacks. In: Kaliski, B.S., Koç, K., Paar, C. (eds.) CHES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2523, pp. 13–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/3-540-36400-5_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duc, A., Faust, S., Standaert, F.-X.: Making masking security proofs concrete. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9056, pp. 401–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-46800-5_16 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durvaux, F., Standaert, F.-X.: From improved leakage detection to the detection of points of interests in leakage traces. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9665, pp. 240–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-49890-3_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodwill, G., Jun, B., Jaffe, J., Rohatgi, P.: A testing methodology for side channel resistance validation. In: NIST Non-invasive Attack Testing Workshop (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Güneysu, T., Moradi, A.: Generic side-channel countermeasures for reconfigurable devices. In: Preneel, B., Takagi, T. (eds.) CHES 2011. LNCS, vol. 6917, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23951-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Del Pozo, S.M., Standaert, F.-X., Kamel, D., Moradi, A.: Side-channel attacks from static power: when should we care? In: DATE 2015, pp. 145–150. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moradi, A., Mischke, O.: On the simplicity of converting leakages from multivariate to univariate. In: Bertoni, G., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) CHES 2013. LNCS, vol. 8086, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40349-1_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moradi, A., Poschmann, A., Ling, S., Paar, C., Wang, H.: Pushing the limits: a very compact and a threshold implementation of AES. In: Paterson, K.G. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6632, pp. 69–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-20465-4_6 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., Rijmen, V., Schläffer, M.: Secure hardware implementation of nonlinear functions in the presence of glitches. J. Cryptol. 24(2), 292–321 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Standaert, F.: How (not) to use Welch’s T-test in side-channel security evaluations. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2017, 138 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Santos Merino del Pozo
    • 1
  • François-Xavier Standaert
    • 1
  1. 1.ICTEAM/ELEN/Crypto GroupUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations