Advertisement

ATPG Binning and SAT-Based Approach to Hardware Trojan Detection for Safety-Critical Systems

  • Animesh BasakChowdhuryEmail author
  • Ansuman Banerjee
  • Bhargab B. Bhattacharya
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11058)

Abstract

Combating threats and attacks imposed by Hardware Trojans that are stealthily inserted in hardware systems, has surfaced as a challenging problem in recent times. Such threats degrade the reliability and endanger security of the system. Due to scalability issues, Trojan detection remains an extremely difficult problem, especially, when the circuit size is large and Trojan sizes are small. Hardware Trojan is surreptitiously inserted into the design by selecting a few circuit nodes, where rare logic value occurs. This makes their detection probability negligibly small, thereby rendering the arrival of an input combination activating the same, an extremely rare event. Since the number of such Trojans may be exponentially large in terms of such rare nodes, almost all state-of-art techniques suffer from scalability bottlenecks and coverage issues, while generating test vectors. In this work, we propose a systematic approach to sampling in order to lessen the search space, yet preserving the diversity of population. We use binning of trigger-population based on Automatic Test Pattern Generation (ATPG), and invoke Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) solvers to generate test vectors with high Trojan coverage. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of our method with respect to prior work in terms of Trojan coverage and the cardinality of the test set.

Keywords

Hardware trojan Activation nodes Trigger instance Trojan instance Trigger Payload ATPG binning 

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal, D., et al.: Trojan detection using IC fingerprinting. In: IEEE S&P (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banga, M., et al.: ODETTE: a non-scan design-for-test methodology for trojan detection in ICs. In: HOST (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaumont, M., et al.: Hardware trojans-prevention, detection, countermeasures (a literature review). Technical report, DTIC Document (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chakraborty, R.S., et al.: Hardware trojan: threats and emerging solutions. In: HLDVT (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chakraborty, R.S., et al.: MERO: a statistical approach for hardware trojan detection. In: CHES (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chakraborty, R.S., et al.: Security against hardware trojan through a novel application of design obfuscation. In: ICCAD (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cruz, J., et al.: Hardware trojan detection using ATPG and model checking. In: VLSI Design (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacob, N., et al.: Hardware trojans: current challenges and approaches. IET Comput. Dig. Tech. 8, 264–273 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jin, Y., et al.: Hardware trojan detection using path delay fingerprint. In: HOST (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jin, Y., et al.: DFTT: Design for trojan test. In: ICECS (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, H., et al.: ATALANTA: an Efficient ATPG for Combinational Circuits. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, H.K., et al.: HOPE: an efficient parallel fault simulator for synchronous sequential circuits. In: IEEE TCAD (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahajan, Y.S., et al.: Zchaff: an efficient SAT solver. In: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mrugalski, G., et al.: Compression based on deterministic vector clustering of incompatible test cubes. In: ITC (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Narasimhan, S., et al.: TeSR: a robust temporal self-referencing approach for hardware trojan detection. In: HOST (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rad, R., et al.: A sensitivity analysis of power signal methods for detecting hardware trojans under real process and environmental conditions. In: IEEE TVLSI (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saha, S., et al.: Improved test pattern generation for hardware trojan detection using genetic algorithm and boolean satisfiability. In: CHES (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salmani, H.: TPC: Transition probability calculation (2011). https://www.trust-hub.org/
  19. 19.
    Salmani, H., et al.: A novel technique for improving hardware trojan detection and reducing trojan activation time. In: IEEE TVLSI (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tehranipoor, M., et al.: Trustworthy hardware: trojan detection and design-for-trust challenges. Computer 44, 66–74 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xiao, K., et al.: Hardware trojans: lessons learned after one decade of research. In: ACM TODAES (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xiao, K., et al.: A novel built-in self-authentication technique to prevent inserting hardware trojans. In: IEEE TCAD (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yang, K., et al.: A2: analog malicious hardware. In: IEEE S&P (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Animesh BasakChowdhury
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ansuman Banerjee
    • 2
  • Bhargab B. Bhattacharya
    • 2
  1. 1.Verification and Validation Group, TCS ResearchPuneIndia
  2. 2.ACMU, Indian Statistical InstituteKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations