For example, https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/779.pdf. On 5/17/18 18:04 , Tom Duff wrote:
Reference?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 17:56 Andres Valloud <avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net <mailto:avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net>> wrote:
Not long ago someone had found a way to obfuscate programs into essentially irreversible unintelligibility while keeping the behavior intact. Unfortunately, in the paper this achievement required impractical degrees of obfuscation. Perhaps there is a way to obfuscate software just as effectively while losing only one order of magnitude in performance. Do you think that approach would thwart power side channel attacks?
On 5/16/18 10:46 , Henry Baker wrote: > I've been thinking about the *power* side-channel: > the ability to watch instantaneous power consumption > to guess what a computer is computing. > > Closely related: the chip temperature side-channel: > the ability to watch instantaneous temperature > distributions across a chip to guess what a computer > is computing. > > Note that simple power supply filtering doesn't > work well enough, as one might be able to watch > enough computation to still be able to discern > some amount of information. > > Since many computers would like to keep confidential > what they are computing, the question is raised: > > **Are there computer arithmetic circuits which draw > the same sequence of instantaneous power draws > *regardless* of the numbers being computed or moved?** > > For example, some computer circuit may draw slightly > more power when a "1" appears on a bus instead of a > "0". Under these conditions, it might make sense to > drive the bus with both the number and its binary > complement, in order to keep the power draw the same, > no matter what bit pattern is being operated on. > > Are there particular number representations and > arithmetic circuits (or even *boolean circuits*) > whose power consumption is indifferent ("oblivious") > to the input bit patterns? > > Note that CMOS typically utilizes both PNP and NPN > transistors in a complementary fashion. However, > due to semiconductor physics, these transistors are > not 100% complementary -- especially at high clock > rates -- and therefore they don't provide as much > obliviousness as one would like, so assume for > this conversation that we might still have to mirror > even CMOS gates. > > > _______________________________________________ > math-fun mailing list > math-fun@mailman.xmission.com <mailto:math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> > https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun > . >
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com <mailto:math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun