Backend
Evaluating Structural and SAT Attack Resilience in Cryptographic Dynamic Logic Locking via Keystream Capping
arXiv cs.CR0 views
arXiv:2610.41083v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Untrusted third-party entities throughout the semiconductor supply chain expose proprietary hardware intellectual property to reverse engineering, piracy, and overproduction. While logic locking counters this threat by embedding key-dependent logic, conventional static key-gates remain vulnerable to both oracle-guided SAT attacks and structural removal attacks due to their time-invariant netlist signatures. Dynamic schemes such as STREAMLOCK mitigate oracle attacks by continuously masking signals with cryptographic keystream, achieving near 50\% Hamming distance output corruption under incorrect keys with low hardware overhead. However, confining key-gates to primary outputs leaves internal combinational cones vulnerable to single-tap structural bypasses. This work extends dynamic logic locking by distributing key-gates within internal paths prioritized via fault-propagation analysis. The original and internally-hardened architectures are evaluated against structural removal attacks and a bounded, unrolling-based SAT-style attack across three ISCAS'85 benchmarks. Distributing masking internally raises the uninformed attacker's brute-force search space from 6 candidate node subsets to over $10^{45}$ for the largest benchmark. Crucially, empirical analysis reveals that topological relocation alone does not prevent algebraic key extraction when wide circuits expose numerous keystream bits per clock cycle. To eliminate this leak, a keystream-bit reuse cap is introduced to restrict per-cycle exposure independent of circuit width. Under this constraint, SAT-solver tractability encounters an immediate computational cliff, transitioning sharply from rapid under-constrained solving to timeout thresholds without disclosing the secret key. Integrating fault-aware internal placement with keystream reuse capping delivers joint resilience against structural bypasses and bounded SAT attacks.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.41083PreviousAccept Changes, Reject Attacks: Robust Memory Management for LLM AgentsNextWho Swept My ETH? Uncovering EIP-7702-Based Ether Redirection Attacks on Ethereum
Related posts
What Do AWS Consulting Companies Do? Services and Benefits Explained
0dev.to AWS

Northflank's Nov 2 Update Points at Control-Plane Secrets. Rotate Your AI Keys First
0dev.to AWS
AI agents said "done" 20 times out of 21. They were right 9 times.
0dev.to AWS
comm -23 Said Nine Camera Clips Were Missing From the Backup. Two Were.
0dev.to Linux

Command Auditing in an SSH Terminal: What the Client Can See, and What Only the Server Can Enforce
0dev.to Linux
Why Your Docker Builds Are Slow: Diagnosing Linux Disk I/O Bottlenecks
0dev.to Docker