skip to main content
research-article

Power Side-Channel Analysis of RNS GLV ECC Using Machine and Deep Learning Algorithms

Published:16 June 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Many Internet of Things applications in smart cities use elliptic-curve cryptosystems due to their efficiency compared to other well-known public-key cryptosystems such as RSA. One of the important components of an elliptic-curve-based cryptosystem is the elliptic-curve point multiplication which has been shown to be vulnerable to various types of side-channel attacks. Recently, substantial progress has been made in applying deep learning to side-channel attacks. Conceptually, the idea is to monitor a core while it is running encryption for information leakage of a certain kind, for example, power consumption. The knowledge of the underlying encryption algorithm can be used to train a model to recognise the key used for encryption. The model is then applied to traces gathered from the crypto core in order to recover the encryption key. In this article, we propose an RNS GLV elliptic curve cryptography core which is immune to machine learning and deep learning based side-channel attacks. The experimental analysis confirms the proposed crypto core does not leak any information about the private key and therefore it is suitable for hardware implementations.

References

  1. Paul C. Kocher. 1996. Timing attacks on implementations of Diffie-Hellman, RSA, DSS, and other systems. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Cryptology Conference on Advances in Cryptology (CRYPTO’96). Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 104–113. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=646761.706156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Paul C. Kocher, Joshua Jaffe, and Benjamin Jun. 1999. Differential power analysis. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Cryptology Conference on Advances in Cryptology (CRYPTO’99). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 388–397. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=646764.703989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jean-Luc Danger, Sylvain Guilley, Philippe Hoogvorst, Cédric Murdica, and David Naccache. 2013. A synthesis of side-channel attacks on elliptic curve cryptography in smart-cards. Journal of Cryptographic Engineering 3, 4 (2013), 241–265. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13389-013-0062-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Mohamad Ali Mehrabi, Alireza Jolfaei, and Christophe Doche. 2020. Elliptic curve cryptography point multiplication core for hardware security module. IEEE Transactions on Computers 69, 11 (2020), 1707–1718. DOI:10.1109/TC.2020.3013266Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. A. P. Fournaris, L. Papachristodoulou, L. Batina, and N. Sklavos. 2016. Residue number system as a side channel and fault injection attack countermeasure in elliptic curve cryptography. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Design and Technology of Integrated Systems in Nanoscale Era (DTIS). 1–4. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DTIS.2016.7483807Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. R. Selvam and A. Tyagi. 2018. Power side channel resistance of RNS secure logic. In Proceedings of the 2018 31st International Conference on VLSI Design and 2018 17th International Conference on Embedded Systems (VLSID). 143–148. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VLSID.2018.52Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. K. Tiri, M. Akmal, and I. Verbauwhede. 2002. A dynamic and differential CMOS logic with signal independent power consumption to withstand differential power analysis on SmartCards. 403–406. https://eprint.iacr.org/2004/066.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Adi Shamir. 2000. Protecting smart cards from passive power analysis with detached power supplies. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems (CHES’00), (Worcester, MA, August 17-18, 2000),Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1965). Springer, 71–77. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44499-8_5 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Luca Benini, Elvira Omerbegovic, A. Macii, Massimo Poncino, E. Macii, and Fabrizio Pro. 2003. Energy-aware design techniques for differential power analysis protection. In Proceedings of the 2003. Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37451). IEEE, 36–41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Naila Mukhtar, Mohamad Ali Mehrabi, Yinan Kong, and Ashiq Anjum. 2019. Machine-learning-based side-channel evaluation of elliptic-curve cryptographic FPGA processor. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 9, 1 (1 1 2019), 1–20. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app9010064Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Benoît Chevallier-Mames, Mathieu Ciet, and Marc Joye. 2004. Low-cost solutions for preventing simple side-channel analysis: Side-channel atomicity. IEEE Transaction on Computers 53, 6 (2004), 760–768. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Douglas Stebila and Nicolas Thériault. 2006. Unified point addition formulæ and side-channel attacks. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems (CHES’06), Springer, Berlin, 354–368. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Marc Joye and Sung-Ming Yen. 2003. The Montgomery powering ladder. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems (CHES’02), B. S. Kaliski, K. Koç, and C. Paar (Eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2523. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36400-5_22 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jae Cheol Ha and Sang Jae Moon. 2003. Randomized signed-scalar multiplication of ECC to resist power attacks. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems (CHES’02), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2523. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36400-5_40Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Elisabeth Oswald and Manfred Josef Aigner. 2001. Randomized addition-subtraction chains as a countermeasure against power attacks. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems (CHES’01). Springer, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Thomas S. Messerges, Ezzy A. Dabbish, and Robert H. Sloan. 1999. Power analysis attacks of modular exponentiation in smartcards. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems (CHES’99), Springer, Berlin, 144–157. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. D. May, H. L. Muller, and N. P. Smart. 2001. Random register renaming to foil DPA. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems (CHES’01), Springer, Berlin, 28–38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kouichi Itoh, Tetsuya Izu, and Masahiko Takenaka. 2002. Address-bit differential power analysis of cryptographic schemes OK-ECDH and OK-ECDSA. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems(CHES’02). Springer, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Itoh Kouichi, Izu Tetsuya, and Takenaka Masahiko. 2003. A practical countermeasure against address-bit differential power analysis. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems(CHES’03). Springer, Berlin.(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 2779. Springer, 382–396. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45238-6_30Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. G. S. Aujla, A. Jindal, R. Chaudhary, N. Kumar, S. Vashist, N. Sharma, and M. S. Obaidat. 2019. DLRS: Deep learning-based recommender system for smart healthcare ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’19). 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Lian, W. Jia, M. Zareapoor, Y. Zheng, R. Luo, D. K. Jain, and N. Kumar. 2020. Deep-learning-based small surface defect detection via an exaggerated local variation-based generative adversarial network. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 16, 2 (2020), 1343–1351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Arzoo Miglani and Neeraj Kumar. 2019. Deep learning models for traffic flow prediction in autonomous vehicles: A review, solutions, and challenges. Vehicular Communications 20 (2019), 100-184. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vehcom.2019.100184Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Benjamin Hettwer, Stefan Gehrer, and Tim Güneysu. 2019. Applications of machine learning techniques in side-channel attacks: A survey. Journal of Cryptographic Engineering (11 Apr 2019). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13389-019-00212-8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Gabriel Hospodar, Benedikt Gierlichs, Elke De Mulder, Ingrid Verbauwhede, and Joos Vandewalle. 2011. Machine learning in side-channel analysis: A first study. Journal of Cryptographic Engineering 1, 4 (2011), 293. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13389-011-0023-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Johann Heyszl, Andreas Ibing, Stefan Mangard, Fabrizio De Santis, and Georg Sigl. 2013. Clustering algorithms for non-profiled single-execution attacks on exponentiations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Card Research and Advanced Applications. Springer, 79–93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Robert Specht, Johann Heyszl, Martin Kleinsteuber, and Georg Sigl. 2015. Improving non-profiled attacks on exponentiations based on clustering and extracting leakage from multi-channel high-resolution EM measurements. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Constructive Side-Channel Analysis and Secure Design. Springer, 3–19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Elif Ozgen, Louiza Papachristodoulou, and Lejla Batina. 2016. Template attacks using classification algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Hardware Oriented Security and Trust (HOST) (2016), 242–247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Houssem Maghrebi, Thibault Portigliatti, and Emmanuel Prouff. 2016. Breaking cryptographic implementations using deep learning techniques. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Security, Privacy, and Applied Cryptography Engineering (SPACE’16), (Hyderabad, India, December 14-18, 2016),Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10076. Springer, 3–26. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49445-6_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Jonathan Masci, Ueli Meier, Dan Cireundefinedan, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2011. Stacked convolutional auto-encoders for hierarchical feature extraction. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks-Volume Part I (ICANN’11). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 52–59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Eleonora Cagli, Cécile Dumas, and Emmanuel Prouff. 2017. Convolutional neural networks with data augmentation against jitter-based countermeasures.. In Proceedings of the 19th International Confernce on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems (CHES’17). (Taipei, Taiwan). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01661212Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Emmanuel Prouff, Remi Strullu, Ryad Benadjila, Eleonora Cagli, and Cécile Dumas. 2018. Study of Deep Learning Techniques for Side-Channel Analysis and Introduction to ASCAD Database. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/053. (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/053.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Mathieu Carbone, Vincent Conin, Marie-Angela Cornélie, Francois Dassance, Guillaume Dufresne, Cécile Dumas, Emmanuel Prouff, and Alexandre Venelli. 2019. Deep learning to evaluate secure RSA implementations. IACR Transactions on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems 2019 (Feb. 2019), 132–161. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.13154/tches.v2019.i2.132-161Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Loïc Masure, Cécile Dumas, and Emmanuel Prouff. 2019. A Comprehensive Study of Deep Learning for Side-Channel Analysis. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/439. (2019). https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/439.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Benjamin Hettwer, Stefan Gehrer, and Tim Güneysu. 2019. Deep Neural Network Attribution Methods for Leakage Analysis and Symmetric Key Recovery. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/143. (2019). https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Benjamin Timon. 2018. Non-Profiled Deep Learning-Based Side-Channel Attacks. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/196. (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. P. V. Ananda Mohan. 2016. Residue Number Systems: Theory and Applications. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Mohamad Ali Mehrabi. 2019. Improved sum of residues modular multiplication algorithm. Cryptography 3, 2 (29 5 2019), 1–16. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cryptography3020014Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Joseph H. Silverman. 2009. The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves. Vol. 106. Springer Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Darrel Hankerson, Alfred J. Menezes, and Scott Vanstone. 2003. Guide to Elliptic Curve Cryptography. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. CERTICOM Corp. 2000. Standards for Efficient Cryptography Sec 2: Recommended Elliptic Curve Domain Parameters in SECP256K1. www.secg.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Robert P. Gallant, Robert J. Lambert, and Scott A. Vanstone. 2001. Faster point multiplication on elliptic curves with efficient endomorphisms. In Proceedings of Advances in Cryptology (CRYPTO’01), Springer, Berlin, 190–200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Christophe Doche, David R. Kohel, and Francesco Sica. 2009. Double-Base number system for multi-scalar multiplications. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques Advances in Cryptology (EUROCRYPT’09). - (Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)), vol. Springer, Springer Nature, 502–517. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01001-9_29Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. SAKURA. ([n. d.]). http://satoh.cs.uec.ac.jp/SAKURA/hardware/SAKURA-X.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Aurélien Géron. 2019. Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow. O’Reilly. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. 7 Series DSP48E1 Slice User Guide. ([n. d.]). https://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/user_guides/ug479_7Series_DSP48E1.pdfLast accessed 21 July 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Project data. ([n. d.]). https://github.com/RNS-ECC/side-channel.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Power Side-Channel Analysis of RNS GLV ECC Using Machine and Deep Learning Algorithms

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!