Pengbo Wang, Ming Tang, Shoukun Xiang, Yaru Wang, Botao Liu
{"title":"预测与真实之间的差距:泄漏检测中误报的案例研究","authors":"Pengbo Wang, Ming Tang, Shoukun Xiang, Yaru Wang, Botao Liu","doi":"10.1155/2022/6904232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since leakage detection was introduced as a popular side-channel security assessment, it has been plagued by false-positives (a.k.a. type I errors). To fix this error, the previous solutions set detection thresholds based on an assumption-based prediction of false-positive rate (FPR). However, this study points out that such a prediction (of FPR) may be inaccurate. We notice that the prediction in EuroCrypt2016 is much smaller than (approximately \n \n 1\n /\n \n 779\n \n \n times) the true FPR. The gap between prediction and truth, called underpredicted false-positives (UFP), leads to severe false-positives in leakage detection. Then, we check the statistical distribution of test statistics to analyze the cause of UFP. Our analysis indicates that the overlap between cross-validation (CV) blocks gives rise to an assumption error in the distribution of the CV-based estimates of \n \n ρ\n \n -statistics, which is the root cause of UFP. Therefore, we tackle the UFP by eliminating the overlap between blocks. Specifically, we propose a profiling-shared validation (PSV) and utilize this validation to improve the detection of any-variate any-order leakages. Our experiments show that the PSV solves the UFP and saves more than 75% of the test time costs. In summary, this article reports a potential flaw in leakage detection and provides a complete analysis of the flaw for the first time.","PeriodicalId":167643,"journal":{"name":"Secur. Commun. Networks","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gap between Prediction and Truth: A Case Study of False-Positives in Leakage Detection\",\"authors\":\"Pengbo Wang, Ming Tang, Shoukun Xiang, Yaru Wang, Botao Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/6904232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since leakage detection was introduced as a popular side-channel security assessment, it has been plagued by false-positives (a.k.a. type I errors). To fix this error, the previous solutions set detection thresholds based on an assumption-based prediction of false-positive rate (FPR). However, this study points out that such a prediction (of FPR) may be inaccurate. We notice that the prediction in EuroCrypt2016 is much smaller than (approximately \\n \\n 1\\n /\\n \\n 779\\n \\n \\n times) the true FPR. The gap between prediction and truth, called underpredicted false-positives (UFP), leads to severe false-positives in leakage detection. Then, we check the statistical distribution of test statistics to analyze the cause of UFP. Our analysis indicates that the overlap between cross-validation (CV) blocks gives rise to an assumption error in the distribution of the CV-based estimates of \\n \\n ρ\\n \\n -statistics, which is the root cause of UFP. Therefore, we tackle the UFP by eliminating the overlap between blocks. Specifically, we propose a profiling-shared validation (PSV) and utilize this validation to improve the detection of any-variate any-order leakages. Our experiments show that the PSV solves the UFP and saves more than 75% of the test time costs. In summary, this article reports a potential flaw in leakage detection and provides a complete analysis of the flaw for the first time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":167643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Secur. Commun. Networks\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Secur. Commun. Networks\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6904232\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Secur. Commun. Networks","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6904232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Gap between Prediction and Truth: A Case Study of False-Positives in Leakage Detection
Since leakage detection was introduced as a popular side-channel security assessment, it has been plagued by false-positives (a.k.a. type I errors). To fix this error, the previous solutions set detection thresholds based on an assumption-based prediction of false-positive rate (FPR). However, this study points out that such a prediction (of FPR) may be inaccurate. We notice that the prediction in EuroCrypt2016 is much smaller than (approximately
1
/
779
times) the true FPR. The gap between prediction and truth, called underpredicted false-positives (UFP), leads to severe false-positives in leakage detection. Then, we check the statistical distribution of test statistics to analyze the cause of UFP. Our analysis indicates that the overlap between cross-validation (CV) blocks gives rise to an assumption error in the distribution of the CV-based estimates of
ρ
-statistics, which is the root cause of UFP. Therefore, we tackle the UFP by eliminating the overlap between blocks. Specifically, we propose a profiling-shared validation (PSV) and utilize this validation to improve the detection of any-variate any-order leakages. Our experiments show that the PSV solves the UFP and saves more than 75% of the test time costs. In summary, this article reports a potential flaw in leakage detection and provides a complete analysis of the flaw for the first time.