Red Team vs. Blue Team: A Real-World Hardware Trojan Detection Case Study Across Four Modern CMOS Technology Generations

Endres Puschner, Thorben Moos, Steffen Becker, Christian Kison, A. Moradi, C. Paar
{"title":"Red Team vs. Blue Team: A Real-World Hardware Trojan Detection Case Study Across Four Modern CMOS Technology Generations","authors":"Endres Puschner, Thorben Moos, Steffen Becker, Christian Kison, A. Moradi, C. Paar","doi":"10.1109/SP46215.2023.10179341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Verifying the absence of maliciously inserted Trojans in Integrated Circuits (ICs) is a crucial task – especially for security-enabled products. Depending on the concrete threat model, different techniques can be applied for this purpose. Assuming that the original IC layout is benign and free of backdoors, the primary security threats are usually identified as the outsourced manufacturing and transportation. To ensure the absence of Trojans in commissioned chips, one straightforward solution is to compare the received semiconductor devices to the design files that were initially submitted to the foundry. Clearly, conducting such a comparison requires advanced laboratory equipment and qualified experts. Nevertheless, the fundamental techniques to detect Trojans which require evident changes to the silicon layout are nowadays well-understood. Despite this, there is a glaring lack of public case studies describing the process in its entirety while making the underlying datasets publicly available. In this work, we aim to improve upon this state of the art by presenting a public and open hardware Trojan detection case study based on four different digital ICs using a Red Team vs. Blue Team approach. Hereby, the Red Team creates small changes acting as surrogates for inserted Trojans in the layouts of 90 nm, 65 nm, 40 nm, and 28 nm ICs. The quest of the Blue Team is to detect all differences between digital layout and manufactured device by means of a GDSII–vs–SEM-image comparison. Can the Blue Team perform this task efficiently? Our results spark optimism for the Trojan seekers and answer common questions about the efficiency of such techniques for relevant IC sizes. Further, they allow to draw conclusions about the impact of technology scaling on the detection performance.","PeriodicalId":439989,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SP46215.2023.10179341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Verifying the absence of maliciously inserted Trojans in Integrated Circuits (ICs) is a crucial task – especially for security-enabled products. Depending on the concrete threat model, different techniques can be applied for this purpose. Assuming that the original IC layout is benign and free of backdoors, the primary security threats are usually identified as the outsourced manufacturing and transportation. To ensure the absence of Trojans in commissioned chips, one straightforward solution is to compare the received semiconductor devices to the design files that were initially submitted to the foundry. Clearly, conducting such a comparison requires advanced laboratory equipment and qualified experts. Nevertheless, the fundamental techniques to detect Trojans which require evident changes to the silicon layout are nowadays well-understood. Despite this, there is a glaring lack of public case studies describing the process in its entirety while making the underlying datasets publicly available. In this work, we aim to improve upon this state of the art by presenting a public and open hardware Trojan detection case study based on four different digital ICs using a Red Team vs. Blue Team approach. Hereby, the Red Team creates small changes acting as surrogates for inserted Trojans in the layouts of 90 nm, 65 nm, 40 nm, and 28 nm ICs. The quest of the Blue Team is to detect all differences between digital layout and manufactured device by means of a GDSII–vs–SEM-image comparison. Can the Blue Team perform this task efficiently? Our results spark optimism for the Trojan seekers and answer common questions about the efficiency of such techniques for relevant IC sizes. Further, they allow to draw conclusions about the impact of technology scaling on the detection performance.
红队vs.蓝队:跨越四个现代CMOS技术世代的真实硬件木马检测案例研究
验证集成电路(ic)中是否存在恶意插入的木马是一项至关重要的任务,特别是对于具有安全功能的产品。根据具体的威胁模型,可以应用不同的技术来实现这一目的。假设原始IC布局是良性的,没有后门,主要的安全威胁通常被确定为外包制造和运输。为了确保委托芯片中没有木马,一个简单的解决方案是将收到的半导体器件与最初提交给代工厂的设计文件进行比较。显然,进行这样的比较需要先进的实验室设备和合格的专家。尽管如此,检测需要明显改变硅布局的木马的基本技术现在已经很好理解了。尽管如此,在使底层数据集公开可用的同时,还明显缺乏描述整个过程的公开案例研究。在这项工作中,我们的目标是通过使用红队与蓝队的方法,提出一个基于四种不同数字ic的公开和开放的硬件木马检测案例研究,来改进这一技术水平。因此,红队在90 nm、65 nm、40 nm和28 nm的ic布局中进行了小的修改,作为插入木马的替代品。蓝队的任务是通过gdsii - sem图像比较来检测数字布局和制造设备之间的所有差异。蓝队能有效地完成这项任务吗?我们的结果激发了特洛伊搜索者的乐观情绪,并回答了有关此类技术在相关IC尺寸上的效率的常见问题。此外,它们允许得出关于技术缩放对检测性能影响的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信