| Summary: | Semiconductor technology scaling faced tough engineering challenges while moving towards and beyond the deep sub-micron range. One of the most demanding issues, limiting the shrinkage process until the present day, is the difficulty to control the leakage currents in nanometer-scaled field-effect transistors. Previous articles have shown that this source of energy dissipation, at least in case of digital CMOS logic, can successfully be exploited as a side-channel to recover the secrets of cryptographic implementations. In this work, we present the first fair technology comparison with respect to static power side-channel measurements on real silicon and demonstrate that the effect of down-scaling on the potency of this security threat is huge. To this end, we designed two ASICs in sub-100nm CMOS nodes (90 nm, 65 nm) and got them fabricated by one of the leading foundries. Our experiments, which we performed at different operating conditions, show consistently that the ASIC technology with the smaller minimum feature size (65 nm) indeed exhibits substantially more informative leakages (factor of ~10) than the 90nm one, even though all targeted instances have been derived from identical RTL code. However, the contribution of this work extends well beyond a mere technology comparison. With respect to the real-world impact of static power attacks, we present the first realistic scenarios that allow to perform a static power side-channel analysis (including noise reduction) without requiring control over the clock signal of the target. Furthermore, as a follow-up to some proof-of-concept work indicating the vulnerability of masking schemes to static powerattacks, we perform a detailed study on how the reduction of the noise level in static leakage measurements affects the security provided by masked implementations. As a result of this study, we do not only find out that the threat for masking schemes is indeed real, but also that common leakage assessment techniques, such as the Welch’s t-test, together with essentially any moment-based analysis of the leakage traces, is simply not sufficient in low-noise contexts. In fact, we are able to show that either a conversion (resp. compression) of the leakage order or the recently proposed X2 test need to be considered in assessment and attack to avoid false negatives.
|
|---|
