A Differential Fault Attack on MICKEY 2.0

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8086)


In this paper we present a differential fault attack on the stream cipher MICKEY 2.0 which is in eStream’s hardware portfolio. While fault attacks have already been reported against the other two eStream hardware candidates Trivium and Grain, no such analysis is known for MICKEY. Using the standard assumptions for fault attacks, we show that if the adversary can induce random single bit faults in the internal state of the cipher, then by injecting around 216.7 faults and performing 232.5 computations on an average, it is possible to recover the entire internal state of MICKEY at the beginning of the key-stream generation phase. We further consider the scenario where the fault may affect at most three neighbouring bits and in that case we require around 218.4 faults on an average.


eStream Fault attacks MICKEY 2.0 Stream Cipher 


  1. 1.
    The ECRYPT Stream Cipher Project. eSTREAM Portfolio of Stream Ciphers (revised on September 8, 2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erdős, P., Rényi, A.: On a classical problem of probability theory. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Matematikai Kutató Intézetének Közleményei 6, 215–220, MR 0150807 (1961),
  3. 3.
    Cid, C., Robshaw, M. (eds.), S. Babbage, J. Borghoff and V. Velichkov (Contributors). The eSTREAM Portfolio in 2012, Version 1.0 (January 16, 2012),
  4. 4.
    Babbage, S., Dodd, M.: The stream cipher MICKEY 2.0. ECRYPT Stream Cipher Project Report,
  5. 5.
    Babbage, S., Dodd, M.: The stream cipher MICKEY-128 2.0. ECRYPT Stream Cipher Project Report,
  6. 6.
    Biham, E., Shamir, A.: Differential Fault Analysis of Secret Key Cryptosystems. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 513–525. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boneh, D., DeMillo, R.A., Lipton, R.J.: On the Importance of Checking Cryptographic Protocols for Faults. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 37–51. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banik, S., Maitra, S.: A Differential Fault Attack on MICKEY 2.0. IACR eprint archive, 2013:29,
  9. 9.
    Banik, S., Maitra, S., Sarkar, S.: A Differential Fault Attack on the Grain Family of Stream Ciphers. In: Prouff, E., Schaumont, P. (eds.) CHES 2012. LNCS, vol. 7428, pp. 122–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Banik, S., Maitra, S., Sarkar, S.: A Differential Fault Attack on Grain Family under Reasonable Assumptions. In: Galbraith, S., Nandi, M. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7668, pp. 191–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berzati, A., Canovas, C., Castagnos, G., Debraize, B., Goubin, L., Gouget, A., Paillier, P., Salgado, S.: Fault Analysis of Grain-128. In: IEEE International Workshop on Hardware-Oriented Security and Trust, pp. 7–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gierlichs, B., Batina, L., Clavier, C., Eisenbarth, T., Gouget, A., Handschuh, H., Kasper, T., Lemke-Rust, K., Mangard, S., Moradi, A., Oswald, E.: Susceptibility of eSTREAM Candidates towards Side Channel Analysis. In: Proceedings of SASC 2008 (2008),
  13. 13.
    Hoch, J.J., Shamir, A.: Fault Analysis of Stream Ciphers. In: Joye, M., Quisquater, J.-J. (eds.) CHES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3156, pp. 240–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hojsík, M., Rudolf, B.: Differential Fault Analysis of Trivium. In: Nyberg, K. (ed.) FSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5086, pp. 158–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hojsík, M., Rudolf, B.: Floating Fault Analysis of Trivium. In: Chowdhury, D.R., Rijmen, V., Das, A. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5365, pp. 239–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hong, J., Kim, W.-H.: TMD-Tradeoff and State Entropy Loss Considerations of stream cipher MICKEY. In: Maitra, S., Veni Madhavan, C.E., Venkatesan, R. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3797, pp. 169–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karmakar, S., Roy Chowdhury, D.: Fault analysis of Grain-128 by targeting NFSR. In: Nitaj, A., Pointcheval, D. (eds.) AFRICACRYPT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6737, pp. 298–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Skorobogatov, S.Y.: Optically Enhanced Position-Locked Power Analysis. In: Goubin, L., Matsui, M. (eds.) CHES 2006. LNCS, vol. 4249, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Skorobogatov, S.P., Anderson, R.J.: Optical Fault Induction Attacks. In: Kaliski Jr., B.S., Koç, Ç.K., Paar, C. (eds.) CHES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2523, pp. 2–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Statistics UnitIndian Statistical Institute KolkataKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations