skip to main content
research-article

Design Space Exploration for Ultra-Low-Energy and Secure IoT MCUs

Published:18 May 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article explores the design space of secure communication in ultra-low-energy IoT devices based on Micro-Controller Units (MCUs). It tries to identify, benchmark, and compare security-related design choices in a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) embedded IoT system which contributes to the energy consumption. We conduct a study over a large group of software crypto algorithms: symmetric, stream, hash, AEAD, MAC, digital signature, and key exchange. A comprehensive report of the targeted optimization attributes (memory, performance, and specifically energy) will be presented from over 450 experiments and 170 different crypto source codes. The article also briefly explores a few system-related choices which can affect the energy consumption of secure communication, namely, architecture choice, communication bandwidth, signal strength, and processor frequency. In the end, the article gives an overview of the obtained results and the contribution of all. Finally, it shows, in a case study, how the results could be utilized to have a secure communication in an exemplary IoT device. This article gives IoT designers insight into ultra-low-energy security, helps them to choose appropriate cryptographic algorithms, reduce trial-and-error of alternatives, save effort, and hence cut the design costs.

References

  1. Amy Nordrum et al. 2016. Popular internet of things forecast of 50 billion devices by 2020 is outdated. IEEE Spectrum 18 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jiayu Li, Ji HoonHyun, and Dong SamHa. 2018. A multi-source energy harvesting system to power microcontrollers for cryptography. In 44th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON’18). IEEE, 901--906.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Suranga Seneviratne, Yining Hu, Tham Nguyen, Guohao Lan, Sara Khalifa, Kanchana Thilakarathna, Mahbub Hassan, and Aruna Seneviratne. 2017. A survey of wearable devices and challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys 8 Tutorials 19, 4 (2017), 2573--2620.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Achraf Amar, Ammar Kouki, and Hung Cao. 2015. Power approaches for implantable medical devices. Sensors 15, 11 (2015), 28889--28914.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Arsalan Mosenia and Niraj K. Jha. 2017. A comprehensive study of security of internet-of-things. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 5, 4 (2017), 586--602.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Sergey Panasenko and Sergey Smagin. 2011. Lightweight cryptography: Underlying principles and approaches. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering 3, 4 (2011), 516.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Charles Suslowicz, Archanaa S. Krishnan, and Patrick Schaumont. 2017. Optimizing cryptography in energy harvesting applications. In Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Attacks and Solutions in Hardware Security. ACM, 17--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Guanglou Zheng, Rajan Shankaran, Mehmet A. Orgun, Li Qiao, and Kashif Saleem. Ideas and challenges for securing wireless implantable medical devices: A review. IEEE Sensors Journal 17, 3 ([n.d.]), 562--576.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Github Cipher Sources. ([n.d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Carles Gomez, Joaquim Oller, and Josep Paradells. 2012. Overview and evaluation of bluetooth low energy: An emerging low-power wireless technology. Sensors 12, 9 (2012), 11734--11753.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Vincent Rijmen and Joan Daemen. 2001. Advanced encryption standard. Proceedings of Federal Information Processing Standards Publications, National Institute of Standards and Technology (2001), 19--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamid Mala, Mohammad Dakhilalian, Vincent Rijmen, and Mahmoud Modarres-Hashemi. 2010. Improved impossible differential cryptanalysis of 7-round AES-128. In International Conference on Cryptology in India. Springer, 282--291.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Alex Biryukov and Dmitry Khovratovich. 2009. Related-key cryptanalysis of the full AES-192 and AES-256. In International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. Springer, 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Andrey Bogdanov, Dmitry Khovratovich, and Christian Rechberger. 2011. Biclique cryptanalysis of the full AES. In International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. Springer, 344--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kazumaro Aoki, Tetsuya Ichikawa, Masayuki Kanda, Mitsuru Matsui, Shiho Moriai, Junko Nakajima, and Toshio Tokita. 2001. Camellia: A 128-Bit Block Cipher Suitable for Multiple Platforms — Design and Analysis. Springer, Berlin, 39--56. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44983-3_4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Dongxia Bai and Leibo Li. 2012. New impossible differential attacks on camellia. In International Conference on Information Security Practice and Experience. Springer, 80--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Alex Biryukov and Ivica Nikolic. Security analysis of the block cipher Camellia. ([n.d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Taizo Shirai, Kyoji Shibutani, Toru Akishita, Shiho Moriai, and Tetsu Iwata. 2007. The 128-Bit Blockcipher CLEFIA (Extended Abstract). Springer, Berlin, 181--195. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74619-5_12Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Yanjun Li, Wenling Wu, and Lei Zhang. 2011. Improved integral attacks on reduced-round CLEFIA block cipher. In International Workshop on Information Security Applications. Springer, 28--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Cihangir Tezcan. 2010. The improbable differential attack: Cryptanalysis of reduced round CLEFIA. In International Conference on Cryptology in India. Springer, 197--209.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Gregor Leander, Christof Paar, Axel Poschmann, and Kai Schramm. 2007. New Lightweight DES Variants. Springer, Berlin, 196--210. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74619-5_13Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicolas T. Courtois. 2012. Security evaluation of GOST 28147-89 in view of international standardisation. Cryptologia 36, 1 (2012), 2--13. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01611194.2011.632807Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Itai Dinur, Orr Dunkelman, and Adi Shamir. 2012. Improved attacks on full GOST. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 9--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Deukjo Hong, Jaechul Sung, Seokhie Hong, Jongin Lim, Sangjin Lee, Bon-Seok Koo, Changhoon Lee, Donghoon Chang, Jesang Lee, Kitae Jeong, Hyun Kim, Jongsung Kim, and Seongtaek Chee. 2006. HIGHT: A New Block Cipher Suitable for Low-Resource Device. Springer, Berlin, 46--59. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11894063_4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Deukjo Hong, Bonwook Koo, and Daesung Kwon. 2011. Biclique attack on the full HIGHT. In International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology. Springer, 365--374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Bonwook Koo, Deukjo Hong, and Daesung Kwon. 2010. Related-key attack on the full HIGHT. In International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology. Springer, 49--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Onur Özen, Kerem Varıcı, Cihangir Tezcan, and Çelebi Kocair. 2009. Lightweight block ciphers revisited: Cryptanalysis of reduced round PRESENT and HIGHT. In Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy. Springer, 90--107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Peng Zhang, Bing Sun, and Chao Li. 2009. Saturation attack on the block cipher HIGHT. In International Conference on Cryptology and Network Security. Springer, 76--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Francois-Xavier Standaert, Gilles Piret, Gael Rouvroy, Jean-Jacques Quisquater, and Jean-Didier Legat. 2004. ICEBERG: An Involutional Cipher Efficient for Block Encryption in Reconfigurable Hardware. Springer, Berlin, 279--298. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25937-4_18Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Yue Sun. 2012. Linear cryptanalysis of light-weight block cipher ICEBERG. In Advances in Electronic Commerce, Web Application and Communication. Springer, 529--532.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Yue Sun, Meiqin Wang, Shujia Jiang, and Qiumei Sun. 2012. Differential cryptanalysis of reduced-round ICEBERG. In International Conference on Cryptology in Africa. Springer, 155--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Xuejia Lai and James L. Massey. 1991. A Proposal for a New Block Encryption Standard. Springer, Berlin, 389--404. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46877-3_35Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. John Kelsey, Bruce Schneier, and David Wagner. 1996. Key-schedule cryptanalysis of idea, g-des, gost, safer, and triple-des. In Annual International Cryptology Conference. Springer, 237--251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Eli Biham, Alex Biryukov, and Adi Shamir. 1999. Miss in the middle attacks on IDEA and Khufu. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 124--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Ferhat Karakoç, Hüseyin Demirci, and A. Emre Harmancı. 2013. ITUbee: A Software Oriented Lightweight Block Cipher. Springer, Berlin, 16--27. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40392-7_2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Hadi Soleimany. 2014. Self-similarity cryptanalysis of the block cipher ITUbee. IET Information Security 9, 3 (2014), 179--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Christophe De Cannière, Orr Dunkelman, and Miroslav Knežević. 2009. KATAN and KTANTAN — A Family of Small and Efficient Hardware-Oriented Block Ciphers. Springer, Berlin, 272--288. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04138-9_20Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin R. Albrecht and Gregor Leander. 2012. An all-in-one approach to differential cryptanalysis for small block ciphers. In International Conference on Selected Areas in Cryptography. Springer, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Bo Zhu and Guang Gong. 2014. Multidimensional meet-in-the-middle attack and its applications to KATAN32/48/64. Cryptography and Communications 6, 4 (2014), 313--333.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Andrey Bogdanov and Christian Rechberger. 2010. A 3-subset meet-in-the-middle attack: Cryptanalysis of the lightweight block cipher KTANTAN. In International Workshop on Selected Areas in Cryptography. Springer, 229--240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Souvik Kolay and Debdeep Mukhopadhyay. 2014. Khudra: A New Lightweight Block Cipher for FPGAs. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 126--145. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12060-7_9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Qianqian Yang, Lei Hu, Siwei Sun, and Ling Song. 2016. Related-key impossible differential analysis of full Khudra. In International Workshop on Security. Springer, 135--146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Xiaoshuang Ma and Kexin Qiao. 2015. Related-key rectangle attack on round-reduced Khudra block cipher. In International Conference on Network and System Security. Springer, 331--344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Zheng Gong, Svetla Nikova, and Yee Wei Law. 2012. KLEIN: A New Family of Lightweight Block Ciphers. Springer, Berlin, 1--18. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25286-0_1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Jean-Philippe Aumasson, María Naya-Plasencia, and Markku-Juhani O. Saarinen. 2011. Practical attack on 8 rounds of the lightweight block cipher KLEIN. In International Conference on Cryptology in India. Springer, 134--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Virginie Lallemand and María Naya-Plasencia. 2014. Cryptanalysis of KLEIN (Full version). IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2014 (2014), 90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Wenling Wu and Lei Zhang. 2011. LBlock: A Lightweight Block Cipher. Springer, Berlin, 327--344. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21554-4_19Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Christina Boura, Marine Minier, María Naya-Plasencia, and Valentin Suder. 2014. Improved Impossible Differential Attacks Against Round-Reduced LBlock. Ph.D. dissertation. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Yu Sasaki and Lei Wang. 2012. Comprehensive study of integral analysis on 22-round LBlock. In International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology. Springer, 156--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Hadi Soleimany and Kaisa Nyberg. 2014. Zero-correlation linear cryptanalysis of reduced-round LBlock. Designs, Codes and Cryptography 73, 2 (2014), 683--698.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Ya Liu, Dawu Gu, Zhiqiang Liu, and Wei Li. 2012. Impossible differential attacks on reduced-round LBlock. In International Conference on Information Security Practice and Experience. Springer, 97--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Marine Minier and María Naya-Plasencia. 2012. A related key impossible differential attack against 22 rounds of the lightweight block cipher LBlock. Information Processing Letters 112, 16 (2012), 624--629.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Deukjo Hong, Jung-Keun Lee, Dong-Chan Kim, Daesung Kwon, Kwon Ho Ryu, and Dong-Geon Lee. 2014. LEA: A 128-Bit Block Cipher for Fast Encryption on Common Processors. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3--27. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05149-9_1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Ling Song, Zhangjie Huang, and Qianqian Yang. 2016. Automatic differential analysis of ARX block ciphers with application to SPECK and LEA. In Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy. Springer, 379--394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Ashutosh Dhar Dwivedi and Gautam Srivastava. 2018. Differential cryptanalysis of round-reduced LEA. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 79105--79113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Jian Guo, Thomas Peyrin, Axel Poschmann, and Matt Robshaw. 2011. The LED Block Cipher. Springer, Berlin, 326--341. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23951-9_22Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhihao Jiang, Miroslav Pajic, and Rahul Mangharam. 2012. Cyber--physical modeling of implantable cardiac medical devices. Proceedings of the IEEE 100, 1 (2012), 122--137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Ivica Nikolić, Lei Wang, and Shuang Wu. 2013. Cryptanalysis of round-reduced LED. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 112--129.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Vincent Grosso, Gaëtan Leurent, François-Xavier Standaert, and Kerem Varıcı. 2014. LS-designs: Bitslice encryption for efficient masked software implementations. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 18--37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Gregor Leander, Brice Minaud, and Sondre Rønjom. 2015. A generic approach to invariant subspace attacks: Cryptanalysis of Robin, iSCREAM and Zorro. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 254--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Chae Hoon Lim and Tymur Korkishko. 2006. mCrypton -- A Lightweight Block Cipher for Security of Low-Cost RFID Tags and Sensors. Springer, Berlin, 243--258. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11604938_19Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Yonglin Hao, Dongxia Bai, and Leibo Li. 2014. A meet-in-the-middle attack on round-reduced mCrypton using the differential enumeration technique. In Network and System Security, Man Ho Au, Barbara Carminati, and C.-C. Jay Kuo (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 166--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Maryam Izadi, Babak Sadeghiyan, Seyed Saeed Sadeghian, and Hossein Arabnezhad Khanooki. 2009. MIBS: A New Lightweight Block Cipher. Springer, Berlin, 334--348. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10433-6_22Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Asli Bay, Jorge Nakahara, and Serge Vaudenay. 2010. Cryptanalysis of reduced-round MIBS block cipher. In International Conference on Cryptology and Network Security. Springer, 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Aslı Bay, Jialin Huang, and Serge Vaudenay. 2014. Improved linear cryptanalysis of reduced-round MIBS. In International Workshop on Security. Springer, 204--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Subhadeep Banik, Andrey Bogdanov, Takanori Isobe, Kyoji Shibutani, Harunaga Hiwatari, Toru Akishita, and Francesco Regazzoni. 2014. Midori: A block cipher for low energy. In International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. Springer, 411--436.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhan Chen and X. Y. Wang. 2017. Impossible differential cryptanalysis of midori. In Mechatronics and Automation Engineering: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation Engineering (ICMAE’16). World Scientific, 221--229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. David Gérault and Pascal Lafourcade. 2016. Related-key cryptanalysis of Midori. In International Conference on Cryptology in India. Springer, 287--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Yu Sasaki and Yosuke Todo. 2017. New impossible differential search tool from design and cryptanalysis aspects. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 185--215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Mitsuru Matsui. 1997. New Block Encryption Algorithm MISTY. Springer, Berlin, 54--68. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052334Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Achiya Bar-On and Nathan Keller. 2016. A 270 attack on the full MISTY1. In Annual International Cryptology Conference. Springer, 435--456.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Yosuke Todo. 2017. Integral cryptanalysis on full MISTY1. Journal of Cryptology 30, 3 (2017), 920--959.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Anthony Journault, François-Xavier Standaert, and Kerem Varici. 2017. Improving the security and efficiency of block ciphers based on LS-designs. Designs, Codes and Cryptography 82, 1–2 (2017), 495--509.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. M. Peeters, G. Van Assche, J. Daemen, and V. Rijmen. 2000. Nessie Proposal: NOEKEON. (2000). http://gro.noekeon.org/Noekeon-spec.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Muhammad Reza Z’aba, Håvard Raddum, Matt Henricksen, and Ed Dawson. 2008. Bit-pattern based integral attack. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 363--381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Gilles Piret, Thomas Roche, and Claude Carlet. 2012. PICARO—A block cipher allowing efficient higher-order side-channel resistance. In International Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security. Springer, 311--328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Anne Canteaut, Virginie Lallemand, and María Naya-Plasencia. 2015. Related-key attack on full-round PICARO. In International Conference on Selected Areas in Cryptography. Springer, 86--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Kyoji Shibutani, Takanori Isobe, Harunaga Hiwatari, Atsushi Mitsuda, Toru Akishita, and Taizo Shirai. 2011. Piccolo: An Ultra-Lightweight Blockcipher. Springer, Berlin, 342--357. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23951-9_23Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Marine Minier. 2013. On the security of Piccolo lightweight block cipher against related-key impossible differentials. In International Conference on Cryptology in India. Springer, 308--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Yanfeng Wang, Wenling Wu, and Xiaoli Yu. 2012. Biclique cryptanalysis of reduced-round piccolo block cipher. In International Conference on Information Security Practice and Experience. Springer, 337--352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. A. Bogdanov, L. R. Knudsen, G. Leander, C. Paar, A. Poschmann, M. J. B. Robshaw, Y. Seurin, and C. Vikkelsoe. 2007. PRESENT: An Ultra-Lightweight Block Cipher. Springer, Berlin, 450--466. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74735-2_31Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Joo Yeon Cho. 2010. Linear cryptanalysis of reduced-round PRESENT. In Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conference. Springer, 302--317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Baudoin Collard and F.-X. Standaert. 2009. A statistical saturation attack against the block cipher PRESENT. In Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conference. Springer, 195--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Céline Blondeau and Kaisa Nyberg. 2014. Links between truncated differential and multidimensional linear properties of block ciphers and underlying attack complexities. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 165--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. Julia Borghoff, Anne Canteaut, Tim Güneysu, Elif Bilge Kavun, Miroslav Knezevic, Lars R. Knudsen, Gregor Leander, Ventzislav Nikov, Christof Paar, Christian Rechberger, Peter Rombouts, Søren S. Thomsen, and Tolga Yalçın. 2012. PRINCE -- A Low-Latency Block Cipher for Pervasive Computing Applications. Springer, Berlin, 208--225. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34961-4_14Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Anne Canteaut, María Naya-Plasencia, and Bastien Vayssiere. 2013. Sieve-in-the-middle: Improved MITM attacks. In Annual Cryptology Conference. Springer, 222--240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Hadi Soleimany, Céline Blondeau, Xiaoli Yu, Wenling Wu, Kaisa Nyberg, Huiling Zhang, Lei Zhang, and Yanfeng Wang. 2015. Reflection cryptanalysis of PRINCE-like ciphers. Journal of Cryptology 28, 3 (2015), 718--744.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Lars Knudsen, Gregor Leander, Axel Poschmann, and Matthew J. B. Robshaw. 2010. PRINTcipher: A Block Cipher for IC-Printing. Springer, Berlin, 16--32. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15031-9_2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Mohamed Ahmed Abdelraheem, Gregor Leander, and Erik Zenner. 2011. Differential cryptanalysis of round-reduced PRINTcipher: Computing roots of permutations. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Gregor Leander, Mohamed Ahmed Abdelraheem, Hoda AlKhzaimi, and Erik Zenner. 2011. A cryptanalysis of PRINTcipher: The invariant subspace attack. In Annual Cryptology Conference. Springer, 206--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  91. C. Wang and H. M. Heys. 2009. An ultra compact block cipher for serialized architecture implementations. In 2009 Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. 1085--1090. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCECE.2009.5090296Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  92. Céline Blondeau and Benoıt Gérard. 2011. Differential cryptanalysis of PUFFIN and PUFFIN2. In ECRYPT Workshop on Lightweight Cryptography. Citeseer, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Lars R. Knudsen, Vincent Rijmen, Ronald L. Rivest, and Matthew J. B. Robshaw. 1998. On the Design and Security of RC2. Springer, Berlin, 206--221. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69710-1_14Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Lars R. Knudsen, Vincent Rijmen, Ronald L. Rivest, and Matthew J. B. Robshaw. 1998. On the design and security of RC2. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 206--221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Ronald L. Rivest. 1995. The RC5 Encryption Algorithm. Springer, Berlin, 86--96. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60590-8_7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. Johan Borst, Bart Preneel, and Joos Vandewalle. 1999. Linear cryptanalysis of RC5 and RC6. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 16--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  97. Alex Biryukov and Eyal Kushilevitz. 1998. Improved cryptanalysis of RC5. In International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 85--99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  98. Sidney R. Rivest, M. Robshaw, and Y. Yin. 1998. The RC6 block cipher. In Proceedings of the First Advanced Encryption Standard Conference (AES’98).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Wentao Zhang, Zhenzhen Bao, Dongdai Lin, Vincent Rijmen, Bohan Yang, and Ingrid Verbauwhede. 2015. RECTANGLE: A bit-slice lightweight block cipher suitable for multiple platforms. Science China Information Sciences 58, (2015), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  100. Cihangir Tezcan, Galip Oral Okan, Asuman Şenol, Erol Doğan, Furkan Yücebaş, and Nazife Baykal. 2016. Differential attacks on lightweight block ciphers PRESENT, PRIDE, and RECTANGLE revisited. In International Workshop on Lightweight Cryptography for Security and Privacy. Springer, 18--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Adnan Baysal and Sühap Şahin. 2015. Roadrunner: A small and fast bitslice block cipher for low cost 8-bit processors. In International Workshop on Lightweight Cryptography for Security and Privacy. Springer, 58--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Qianqian Yang, Lei Hu, Siwei Sun, and Ling Song. 2016. Extension of meet-in-the-middle technique for truncated differential and its application to RoadRunneR. In International Conference on Network and System Security. Springer, 398--411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  103. François-Xavier Standaert, Gilles Piret, Neil Gershenfeld, and Jean-Jacques Quisquater. 2006. SEA: A Scalable Encryption Algorithm for Small Embedded Applications. Springer, Berlin, 222--236. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11733447_16Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. Jongwook Park, Sungjae Lee, Jeeyeon Kim, and Jaeil Lee. 2005. Retrieved on February 6, 2019 from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4269.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Hitoshi Yanami and Takeshi Shimoyama. 2002. Differential cryptanalysis of a reduced-round SEED. In International Conference on Security in Communication Networks. Springer, 186--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. Eli Biham, Ross Anderson, and Lars Knudsen. 1998. Serpent: A New Block Cipher Proposal. Springer, Berlin, 222--238. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69710-1_15Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. Miia Hermelin, Joo Yeon Cho, and Kaisa Nyberg. 2008. Multidimensional linear cryptanalysis of reduced round Serpent. In Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy. Springer, 203--215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  108. Gangqiang Yang, Bo Zhu, Valentin Suder, Mark D. Aagaard, and Guang Gong. 2015. The Simeck family of lightweight block ciphers. In International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems. Springer, 307--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  109. Kexin Qiao, Lei Hu, and Siwei Sun. 2015. Differential security evaluation of Simeck with dynamic key-guessing techniques. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2015 (2015), 902.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. R. Beaulieu, S. Treatman-Clark, D. Shors, B. Weeks, J. Smith, and L. Wingers. 2015. The SIMON and SPECK lightweight block ciphers. In 2015 52nd ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC’15). 1--6. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2744769.2747946Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. Ning Wang, Xiaoyun Wang, Keting Jia, and Jingyuan Zhao. 2014. Improved differential attacks on reduced SIMON versions. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2014 (2014), 448.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  112. Farzaneh Abed, Eik List, Stefan Lucks, and Jakob Wenzel. 2013. Differential and linear cryptanalysis of reduced-round SIMON. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2013/526, 2013 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. Huaifeng Chen and Xiaoyun Wang. 2016. Improved linear hull attack on round-reduced Simon with dynamic key-guessing techniques. In International Conference on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 428--449.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  114. Alex Biryukov, Arnab Roy, and Vesselin Velichkov. 2014. Differential analysis of block ciphers SIMON and SPECK. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 546--570.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. Christof Beierle, Jérémy Jean, Stefan Kölbl, Gregor Leander, Amir Moradi, Thomas Peyrin, Yu Sasaki, Pascal Sasdrich, and Siang Meng Sim. 2016. The SKINNY family of block ciphers and its low-latency variant MANTIS. In Annual Cryptology Conference. Springer, 123--153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  116. Mohamed Tolba, Ahmed Abdelkhalek, and Amr M. Youssef. 2017. Impossible differential cryptanalysis of reduced-round SKINNY. In International Conference on Cryptology in Africa. Springer, 117--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  117. Eli Biham, Alex Biryukov, and Adi Shamir. 1999. Cryptanalysis of Skipjack Reduced to 31 Rounds Using Impossible Differentials. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 12--23. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48910-X_2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  118. Eli Biham, Alex Biryukov, and Adi Shamir. 1999. Cryptanalysis of skipjack reduced to 31 rounds using impossible differentials. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT’99, Jacques Stern (Ed.). Springer, Berlin, 12--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  119. Daniel Dinu, Léo Perrin, Aleksei Udovenko, Vesselin Velichkov, Johann Großschädl, and Alex Biryukov. 2016. Design strategies for ARX with provable bounds: Sparx and LAX. In International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. Springer, 484--513.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  120. Ahmed Abdelkhalek, Mohamed Tolba, and Amr M. Youssef. 2017. Impossible differential attack on reduced round SPARX-64/128. In Progress in Cryptology—AFRICACRYPT’17, Marc Joye and Abderrahmane Nitaj (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 135--146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  121. Farzaneh Abed, Eik List, Stefan Lucks, and Jakob Wenzel. 2015. Differential cryptanalysis of round-reduced Simon and Speck. In Fast Software Encryption, Carlos Cid and Christian Rechberger (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 525--545.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  122. Itai Dinur. 2014. Improved differential cryptanalysis of round-reduced speck. In Selected Areas in Cryptography—SAC’14, Antoine Joux and Amr Youssef (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 147--164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  123. David Wheeler and Roger Needham. 1995. TEA, a Tiny Encryption Algorithm. Springer-Verlag, 97--110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  124. Dukjae Moon, Kyungdeok Hwang, Wonil Lee, Sangjin Lee, and Jongin Lim. 2002. Impossible differential cryptanalysis of reduced round XTEA and TEA. In Fast Software Encryption, Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 49--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  125. Bruce Schneier, John Kelsey, Doug Whiting, David Wagner, Chris Hall, and Niels Ferguson. 1998. Twofish: A 128-bit block cipher. In First Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  126. Stefan Lucks. 2002. The saturation attack—A bait for twofish. In Fast Software Encryption, Mitsuru Matsui (Ed.). Springer, Berlin, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  127. Tomoyasu Suzaki, Kazuhiko Minematsu, Sumio Morioka, and Eita Kobayashi. 2011. Twine: A lightweight, versatile block cipher. In ECRYPT Workshop on Lightweight Cryptography (Vol. 2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  128. Mustafa Çoban, Ferhat Karakoç, and Özkan Boztaş. 2012. Biclique cryptanalysis of TWINE. In Cryptology and Network Security, Josef Pieprzyk, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, and Mark Manulis (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 43--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  129. Roger M. Needham, David J. Wheeler, and David Wagner. Tea extensions. Retrieved from http://www.tcl.tk/doc/tea/TEAOverview.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  130. Benoît Gérard, Vincent Grosso, María Naya-Plasencia, and François-Xavier Standaert. 2013. Block ciphers that are easier to mask: How far can we go? In International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems. Springer, 383--399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  131. Gregor Leander, Brice Minaud, and Sondre Rønjom. 2015. A generic approach to invariant subspace attacks: Cryptanalysis of Robin, iSCREAM and Zorro. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT’15, Elisabeth Oswald and Marc Fischlin (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 254--283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  132. Daniel J. Bernstein. ChaCha, a variant of Salsa20. ([n.d.]). http://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/2ea9/7a1597dfa8d74c6e544fb4709532ef587c69.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  133. Subhamoy Maitra. 2016. Chosen IV cryptanalysis on reduced round ChaCha and Salsa. Discrete Applied Mathematics 208 (2016), 88--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  134. Kakumani K. C. Deepthi and Kunwar Singh. 2017. Cryptanalysis of Salsa and ChaCha: Revisited. In International Conference on Mobile Networks and Management. Springer, 324--338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  135. Franço̧ois Arnault, Thierry Berger, Cédric Lauradoux, Marine Minier, and Benjamin Pousse. 2009. A New Approach for FCSRs. Springer, Berlin, 433--448. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05445-7_27Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  136. Éliane Jaulmes and Frédéric Muller. 2005. Cryptanalysis of the F-FCSR stream cipher family. In International Workshop on Selected Areas in Cryptography. Springer, 20--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  137. Martin Hell and Thomas Johansson. 2008. Breaking the F-FCSR-H stream cipher in real time. In International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. Springer, 557--569.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  138. Martin Hell, Thomas Johansson, Alexander Maximov, and Willi Meier. 2006. A stream cipher proposal: Grain-128. In 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory. IEEE, 1614--1618.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  139. Martin Hell, Thomas Johansson, and Willi Meier. 2007. Grain: A stream cipher for constrained environments. International Journal of Wireless and Mobile Computing 2, 1 (2007), 86--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  140. P. R. Hridya and J. Jose. 2019. Cryptanalysis of the grain family of ciphers: A review. In 2019 International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP’19). 0892--0897. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCSP.2019.8697972Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  141. Martin Boesgaard, Mette Vesterager, Thomas Pedersen, Jesper Christiansen, and Ove Scavenius. 2003. Rabbit: A New High-Performance Stream Cipher. Springer, Berlin, 307--329. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39887-5_23Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  142. Yi Lu, Huaxiong Wang, and San Ling. 2008. Cryptanalysis of rabbit. In International Conference on Information Security. Springer, 204--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  143. Christophe De Cannière. 2006. Trivium: A stream cipher construction inspired by block cipher design principles. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Security. Springer-Verlag, 171--186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  144. Michal Hojsík and Bohuslav Rudolf. 2008. Differential fault analysis of Trivium. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 158--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  145. Steve Babbage and Matthew Dodd. 2008. The MICKEY stream ciphers. In New Stream Cipher Designs. Springer, 191--209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  146. Lin Ding and Jie Guan. 2013. Cryptanalysis of MICKEY family of stream ciphers. Security and Communication Networks 6, 8 (2013), 936--941.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  147. Hongjun Wu. 2008. The stream cipher HC-128. New Stream Cipher Designs (2008), 39--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  148. Goutam Paul, Subhamoy Maitra, and Shashwat Raizada. A combinatorial analysis of HC-128. ([n.d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  149. Hongjun Wu. 2004. A new stream cipher HC-256. In Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 226--244.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  150. Côme Berbain, Olivier Billet, Anne Canteaut, Nicolas Courtois, Henri Gilbert, Louis Goubin, Aline Gouget, Louis Granboulan, Cédric Lauradoux, Marine Minier, et al. 2008. Sosemanuk, a fast software-oriented stream cipher. New Stream Cipher Designs. Springer, 98--118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  151. Joo Yeon Cho and Miia Hermelin. 2009. Improved linear cryptanalysis of SOSEMANUK. In International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology. Springer, 101--117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  152. Daniel J. Bernstein. 2008. The Salsa20 family of stream ciphers. New Stream Cipher Designs Springer, 84--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  153. Jean-Philippe Aumasson, Samuel Neves, Zooko Wilcox-O’Hearn, and Christian Winnerlein. 2013. BLAKE2: Simpler, smaller, fast as MD5. In International Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security. Springer, 119--135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  154. Yonglin Hao. 2014. The boomerang attacks on BLAKE and BLAKE2. In International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology. Springer, 286--310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  155. Praveen Gauravaram, Lars R. Knudsen, Krystian Matusiewicz, Florian Mendel, Christian Rechberger, Martin Schläffer, and Søren S. Thomsen. 2009. Grøstl-a SHA-3 candidate. In Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  156. Florian Mendel, Christian Rechberger, Martin Schläffer, and Søren S. Thomsen. 2010. Rebound attacks on the reduced Grøstl hash function. In Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conference. Springer, 350--365.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  157. Florian Mendel, Vincent Rijmen, and Martin Schläffer. 2014. Collision attack on 5 rounds of Grøstl. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 509--521.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  158. Hongjun Wu. The Hash Function JH. ([n.d.]). Retrieved November 14, 2018 from https://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/wuhj/research/jh/jh_round3.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  159. Vincent Rijmen, Deniz Toz, and Kerem Varıcı. 2010. Rebound attack on reduced-round versions of JH. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 286--303.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  160. Guido Bertoni, Joan Daemen, Michaël Peeters, Gilles Van Assche, and Gaithersburg NIST. 2013. Keccak and the SHA-3 standardization. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 313--314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  161. Paweł Morawiecki and Marian Srebrny. 2013. A SAT-based preimage analysis of reduced KECCAK hash functions. Information Processing Letters 113, 10–11 (2013), 392--397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  162. Itai Dinur, Orr Dunkelman, and Adi Shamir. 2012. New attacks on Keccak-224 and Keccak-256. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 442--461.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  163. Alexandre Duc, Jian Guo, Thomas Peyrin, and Lei Wei. 2012. Unaligned rebound attack: Application to Keccak. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 402--421.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  164. Jian Guo, Thomas Peyrin, and Axel Poschmann. 2011. The PHOTON family of lightweight hash functions. Advances in Cryptology—CRYPTO’11 (2011), 222--239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  165. Chia-Yu Lu, You-Wei Lin, Shang-Ming Jen, and Jar-Ferr Yang. 2012. Cryptanalysis on PHOTON hash function using cube attack. In 2012 International Conference on Information Security and Intelligent Control. IEEE, 278--281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  166. Jean-Philippe Aumasson, Luca Henzen, Willi Meier, and Maria Naya-Plasencia. 2013. QUARK: A lightweight hash. Journal of Cryptology 26, 2 (2013), 313--339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  167. Jean-Philippe Aumasson and Daniel J. Bernstein. 2012. SipHash: A fast short-input PRF. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  168. Christoph Dobraunig, Florian Mendel, and Martin Schläffer. 2014. Differential cryptanalysis of siphash. In International Conference on Selected Areas in Cryptography. Springer, 165--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  169. Niels Ferguson and Stefan Lucks. The Skein hash function family. ([n.d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  170. Dmitry Khovratovich, Ivica Nikolić, and Christian Rechberger. 2010. Rotational rebound attacks on reduced Skein. In International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security. Springer, 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  171. Dmitry Khovratovich, Christian Rechberger, and Alexandra Savelieva. 2012. Bicliques for preimages: Attacks on Skein-512 and the SHA-2 family. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 244--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  172. Andrey Bogdanov, Miroslav Knezevic, Gregor Leander, Deniz Toz, Kerem Varici, and Ingrid Verbauwhede. 2013. Spongent: The design space of lightweight cryptographic hashing. IEEE Transactions on Computers 62, 10 (2013), 2041--2053.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  173. B. Preneel. 2005. CBC-MAC and variants. In Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security. Springer, 63--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  174. Tetsu Iwata and Kaoru Kurosawa. 2003. OMAC: One-Key CBC MAC—Addendum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  175. Phillip Rogaway. PMAC—A Parallelizable MAC—Background. ([n.d.]). Retrieved December 18, 2017 from http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/ rogaway/ocb/pmac-bak.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  176. Sheila Frankel and Howard Herbert. 2003. The AES-XCBC-MAC-96 Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec. Technical Report. RFC 3566, IETF, September.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  177. Hugo Krawczyk, Mihir Bellare, and Ran Canetti. 1997. HMAC: Keyed-hashing for Message Authentication. Technical Report. RFC 2104, IETF, February.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  178. Cameron F. Kerry. Digital signature standard (DSS). ([n.d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  179. Thomas Pornin. 2013. Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). Internet Engineering Task Force RFC, 6979. 1--79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  180. Daniel J. Bernstein, Niels Duif, Tanja Lange, Peter Schwabe, and Bo-Yin Yang. 2012. High-speed high-security signatures. Journal of Cryptographic Engineering 2, 2 (2012), 77--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  181. Jeffrey Hoffstein and Joseph H. Silverman. 2001. Polynomial rings and efficient public key authentication II. In Cryptography and Computational Number Theory. Springer, 269--286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  182. Johannes Böck. 2011. RSA-PSS--Provable secure RSA Signatures and their Implementation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  183. Shu-jen Chang, Ray Perlner, William E. Burr, Meltem Sönmez Turan, John M. Kelsey, Souradyuti Paul, and Lawrence E. Bassham. 2012. Third-round report of the SHA-3 cryptographic hash algorithm competition. NIST Interagency Report 7896 (2012), 121.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  184. Shay Gueron. AES-GCM for efficient authenticated encryption--ending the reign of HMAC-SHA-1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  185. R. Housley. 2007. Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS). RFC 5084, November.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  186. Tadayoshi Kohno, John Viega, and Doug Whiting. 2004. CWC: A high-performance conventional authenticated encryption mode. In Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 408--426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  187. M. Bellare, P. Rogaway, and D. Wagner. 2003. EAX: A Conventional Authenticated-Encryption Mode. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2003/069. http://eprint.iacr.org/2003/069.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  188. David McGrew and John Viega. 2005. The Galois/counter mode of operation (GCM). (2005). Retrieved from https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/block-cipher-techniques/bcm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  189. Charanjit Jutla. 2000. Parallelizable encryption mode with almost free message integrity.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  190. Phillip Rogaway, Mihir Bellare, and John Black. 2003. OCB: A block-cipher mode of operation for efficient authenticated encryption. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 6, 3 (2003), 365--403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  191. Hongjun Wu. ACORN v3. ([n.d.]). Retrieved November 16, 2018 from https://competitions.cr.yp.to/round3/acornv3.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  192. Bart Preneel Hongjun Wu. AEGIS v1.1. ([n.d.]). Retrieved November 16, 2018 from https://competitions.cr.yp.to/round3/aegisv11.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  193. Christoph Dobraunig, Maria Eichlseder, Florian Mendel, and Martin Schläffer. 2016. Ascon v1. 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  194. Jérémy Jean, Ivica Nikolic, Thomas Peyrin, and Yannick Seurin. 2016. Deoxys v1. 41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  195. Tao Huang and Hongjun Wu. 2016. Morus v2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  196. Ted Krovetz and Phillip Rogaway. 2016. OCB (v1. 1).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  197. Farzaneh Abed, Christian Forler, and Stefan Lucks. 2016. General classification of the authenticated encryption schemes for the CAESAR competition. Computer Science Review 22 (2016), 13--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  198. Daniel J. Bernstein. 2006. Curve25519: New Diffie-Hellman speed records. In International Workshop on Public Key Cryptography. Springer, 207--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  199. WolfCrypt website. Retrieved February 6, 2019 from https://www.wolfssl.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  200. LibTomCrypt website. Retrieved February 6, 2019 from https://www.libtom.net/LibTomCrypt/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  201. Daniel J. Bernstein and Tanja Lange. 2013. eBACS: ECRYPT benchmarking of cryptographic systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  202. Daniel Dinu, Yann Le Corre, Dmitry Khovratovich, Léo Perrin, Johann Großschädl, and Alex Biryukov. 2015. Triathlon of lightweight block ciphers for the Internet of Things. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2015 (2015), 209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  203. Bluetooth 4.0 NRF51822 Eval Kit. Retrieved September 17, 2019 from https://www.waveshare.com/nrf51822-eval-kit.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  204. GCC. Retrieved September 17, 2019 from https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  205. Arduino Uno Rev3. Retrieved September 17, 2019 from https://store.arduino.cc/arduino-uno-rev3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  206. Thomas Eisenbarth and Sandeep Kumar. 2007. A survey of lightweight-cryptography implementations. IEEE Design 8 Test of Computers 24, 6 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  207. Carsten Rolfes, Axel Poschmann, Gregor Leander, and Christof Paar. Ultra-lightweight implementations for smart devices—Security for 1000 gate equivalents. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  208. Panasayya Yalla and Jens-Peter Kaps. 2009. Lightweight cryptography for FPGAs. In International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs (ReConFig’09). IEEE, 225--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  209. Thomas Eisenbarth, Zheng Gong, Tim Güneysu, Stefan Heyse, Sebastiaan Indesteege, Stéphanie Kerckhof, François Koeune, Tomislav Nad, Thomas Plos, Francesco Regazzoni, François-Xavier Standaert, and Loic van Oldeneel tot Oldenzeel. 2012. Compact implementation and performance evaluation of block ciphers in ATtiny devices. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cryptology in Africa (AFRICACRYPT’12). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 172--187. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31410-0_11Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  210. Stéphanie Kerckhof, François Durvaux, Cédric Hocquet, David Bol, and François-Xavier Standaert. 2012. Towards Green Cryptography: A Comparison of Lightweight Ciphers from the Energy Viewpoint. Springer, Berlin, 390--407. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33027-8_23Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  211. Neil Hanley and Maire ONeill. 2012. Hardware comparison of the iso/iec 29192-2 block ciphers. In IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on (ISVLSI’12). IEEE, 57--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  212. Lejla Batina, Amitabh Das, Baris Ege, Elif Bilge Kavun, Nele Mentens, Christof Paar, Ingrid Verbauwhede, and Tolga Yalçin. 2013. Dietary recommendations for lightweight block ciphers: Power, energy and area analysis of recently developed architectures. In RFIDSec, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8262, Michael Hutter and Jörn-Marc Schmidt (Eds.). Springer, 103--112. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/rfidsec/rfidsec2013.html#BatinaDEKMPVY13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  213. Charalampos Manifavas, George Hatzivasilis, Konstantinos Fysarakis, and Konstantinos Rantos. 2014. Lightweight cryptography for embedded systems and a comparative analysis. In Revised Selected Papers of the 8th International Workshop on Data Privacy Management and Autonomous Spontaneous Security - Volume 8247. Springer-Verlag, New York, 333--349. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54568-9_21Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  214. M. Cazorla, K. Marquet, and M. Minier. 2013. Survey and benchmark of lightweight block ciphers for wireless sensor networks. In 2013 International Conference on Security and Cryptography (SECRYPT’13). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  215. Ray Beaulieu, Douglas Shors, Jason Smith, Stefan Treatman-Clark, Bryan Weeks, and Louis Wingers. 2014. The SIMON and SPECK block ciphers on AVR 8-bit microcontrollers. In International Workshop on Lightweight Cryptography for Security and Privacy. Springer, 3--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  216. Lukas Malina, Vlastimil Clupek, Zdenek Martinasek, Jan Hajny, Kimio Oguchi, and Vaclav Zeman. 2014. Evaluation of Software-Oriented Block Ciphers on Smartphones. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 353--368. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05302-8_22Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  217. Gangqiang Yang, Bo Zhu, Valentin Suder, Mark D. Aagaard, and Guang Gong. 2015. The Simeck family of lightweight block ciphers. In International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems. Springer, 307--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  218. Subhadeep Banik, Andrey Bogdanov, and Francesco Regazzoni. 2015. Exploring energy efficiency of lightweight block ciphers. In International Conference on Selected Areas in Cryptography. Springer, 178--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  219. Andrey Bogdanov and Takanori Isobe. 2015. White-box cryptography revisited: Space-hard ciphers. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 1058--1069.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  220. W. Diehl, F. Farahmand, P. Yalla, J. P. Kaps, and K. Gaj. 2017. Comparison of hardware and software implementations of selected lightweight block ciphers. In 2017 27th International Conference on Field Programmable Logic and Applications (FPL’17). 1--4. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.23919/FPL.2017.8056808Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  221. George Hatzivasilis, Apostolos Theodoridis, Elias Gasparis, Charalampos Manifavas, and I. Papaefstathiou. 2014. ULCL-An ultra-lightweight cryptographic library for embedded systems. In PECCS. 247--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  222. Josep Balasch, Bariş Ege, Thomas Eisenbarth, Benoit Gérard, Zheng Gong, Tim Güneysu, Stefan Heyse, Stéphanie Kerckhof, François Koeune, Thomas Plos, et al. 2012. Compact implementation and performance evaluation of hash functions in ATtiny devices. In International Conference on Smart Card Research and Advanced Applications. Springer, 158--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  223. Ekawat Homsirikamol and Kris Gaj. 2015. Hardware benchmarking of cryptographic algorithms using high-level synthesis tools: The SHA-3 contest case study. In International Symposium on Applied Reconfigurable Computing. Springer, 217--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  224. Nicolas Fournel, Marine Minier, and Stéphane Ubéda. 2007. Survey and benchmark of stream ciphers for wireless sensor networks. In IFIP International Workshop on Information Security Theory and Practices. Springer, 202--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  225. Tim Good and Mohammed Benaissa. Hardware results for selected stream cipher candidates. ([n.d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  226. Charalampos Manifavas, George Hatzivasilis, Konstantinos Fysarakis, and Yannis Papaefstathiou. 2016. A survey of lightweight stream ciphers for embedded systems. Security and Communication Networks 9, 10 (2016), 1226--1246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  227. Marcos A. Simplicio, Bruno T. de Oliveira, Paulo S. L. M. Barreto, Cintia B. Margi, Tereza C. M. B. Carvalho, and Mats Naslund. 2011. Comparison of authenticated-encryption schemes in wireless sensor networks. In IEEE 36th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’11). IEEE, 450--457.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  228. Marcos A. Simplicio, Bruno T. de Oliveira, Cintia B. Margi, Paulo S. L. M. Barreto, Tereza C. M. B. Carvalho, and Mats Näslund. 2013. Survey and comparison of message authentication solutions on wireless sensor networks. Ad Hoc Networks 11, 3 (2013), 1221--1236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  229. Ted Krovetz and Phillip Rogaway. 2011. The software performance of authenticated-encryption modes. In International Workshop on Fast Software Encryption. Springer, 306--327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  230. Ralph Ankele and Robin Ankele. Software benchmarking of the 2nd round CAESAR candidates. ([n.d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  231. eSTREAM: The ECRYPT Stream Cipher Project. ([n.d.]). Retrieved May 9, 2018 from http://www.ecrypt.eu.org/stream/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  232. Abdulmonem M. Rashwan, A. E. M. Taha, and Hossam S. Hassanein. 2012. Benchmarking message authentication code functions for mobile computing. In 2012 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM’12). IEEE, 2585--2590.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  233. William Diehl and Kris Gaj. 2017. RTL implementations and FPGA benchmarking of selected CAESAR Round Two authenticated ciphers. Microprocessors and Microsystems 52 (2017), 202--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  234. Ralph Ankele and Robin Ankele. 2016. Software benchmarking of the 2nd round CAESAR candidates.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  235. R. Beaulieu, S. Treatman-Clark, D. Shors, B. Weeks, J. Smith, and L. Wingers. 2015. The SIMON and SPECK lightweight block ciphers. In 2015 52nd ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC’15). 1--6. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2744769.2747946Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  236. Brad Conte’s AES Implementation. ([n.d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  237. Semiconductor, N.O.R.D.I.C. 2013. nRF51822 Product Specification v3. 1. Trondheim, Norway, Retrieved on January 7, 2019 from http://infocenter.nordicsemi.com/pdf/nRF51822_PS_v3.1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  238. Ali Nikoukar, Mansour Abboud, Borna Samadi, Mesut Güneş, and Behnam Dezfouli. 2018. Empirical analysis and modeling of Bluetooth low-energy (BLE) advertisement channels. In 2018 17th Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop (Med-Hoc-Net’18). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  239. Jacopo Tosi, Fabrizio Taffoni, Marco Santacatterina, Roberto Sannino, and Domenico Formica. 2017. Performance evaluation of Bluetooth low energy: A systematic review. Sensors 17, 12 (2017), 2898.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  240. Kim HS, inventor; Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, assignee. 2008. Method of controlling signal power level and a Bluetooth device for performing the same. United States patent US 7,389,088. Field of the Invention: Bluetooth network, Issued date: 2008 Jun 17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  241. Elaine Barker, William Barker, William Burr, William Polk, and Miles Smid. NIST special publication 800-57. NIST Special Publication 800, 57 ([n.d.]), 1--142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  242. Dan Boneh and Hovav Shacham. Fast variants of RSA. ([n.d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  243. Chae Hoon Lim and Hyo Sun Hwang. 2000. Fast implementation of elliptic curve arithmetic in GF (). In International Workshop on Public Key Cryptography. Springer, 405--421.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  244. Giacomo De Meulenaer, François Gosset, François-Xavier Standaert, and Olivier Pereira. 2008. On the energy cost of communication and cryptography in wireless sensor networks. In IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing Networking and Communications (WIMOB 08). IEEE, 580--585.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  245. Tae-Ho Hwang, Dong-Sun Kim, and Jung-Guk Kim. 2013. An on-time power-aware scheduling scheme for medical sensor SoC-based WBAN systems. Sensors 13, 1 (2013), 375--392.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  246. Andreas Haeberlin, Adrian Zurbuchen, Sébastien Walpen, Jakob Schaerer, Thomas Niederhauser, Christoph Huber, Hildegard Tanner, Helge Servatius, Jens Seiler, Heinrich Haeberlin, et al. 2015. The first batteryless, solar-powered cardiac pacemaker. Heart Rhythm 12, 6 (2015), 1317--1323.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  247. Bitsliced AES source code. Retrieved February 6, 2019 from https://github.com/conorpp/bitsliced-aes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  248. Bitsliced PRESENT source code. Retrieved February 6, 2019 from https://github.com/conorpp/bitsliced-aes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  249. David Canright and Dag Arne Osvik. 2009. A more compact AES. In International Workshop on Selected Areas in Cryptography. Springer, 157--169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  250. D. Klose. 2016. Popular Internet of Things Forecast of 50 Billion Devices by 2020 Is Outdated. Retrieved June 18, 2018 from http://www.lightweightcrypto.org/implementations.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Design Space Exploration for Ultra-Low-Energy and Secure IoT MCUs

      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!