Common Techniques in Fault Tolerance and Security (and Performance!)

  • Kent D. Wilken
Conference paper
Part of the Dependable Computing and Fault-Tolerant Systems book series (DEPENDABLECOMP, volume 9)


The commonality between fault tolerance techniques and security techniques is considered here as it relates to the design of general purpose computer systems. The thesis of this presentation is that although fault tolerance and security are important computer system attributes, the computer industry is driven by cost/performance. It is incumbent upon fault-tolerant-computing and computer-security researchers to seek techniques and mechanisms that have commonality with those used to achieve high performance, so that new fault tolerance or security measures have a minimal impact on cost/performance and are likely to be included in new systems. An example of a traditional technique that provides fault tolerance, security, and high performance is given below, and an emerging approach is shown to be connected to each of these properties. Other promising areas are suggested where connections among these three computer system properties might be established.


Fault Tolerance Computer Virus Covert Channel Virtual Memory Performance Overhead 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    N.J. Alewine, S.-K. Chen, C.-C. Li, W.K. Fuchs, and W.-M. Hwu. Branch recovery with compiler-assisted multiple instruction retry. In Proc. 22nd FTCS, pages 66-73. IEEE, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    T. Ball and J. Larus. Optimally profiling and tracing programs. In Principles of Programming Languages, pages 59-70, January 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Joseph and A. Avizienis. A fault tolerance approach to computer viruses. In Proc. Symp. on Security and Privacy, pages 52-58. IEEE, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. Knuth. The Art of Computer Programming: Vol. 1, Fundamental Algorithms, volume 1. Addison Wesley, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Mahmood and E. McCluskey. Concurrent error detection using watchdog processors — a survey. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 37(2): 160–174, Feb. 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    K. Wilken. An optimal graph-construction approach to placing program signatures for signature monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 42(11): 1372–1381, Nov 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    K. Wilken and T. Kong. Efficient memory access checking. In Proc. 23nd FTCS, pages 566-575. IEEE, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. Wilken and J. Shen. Concurrent error detection using signature monitoring and encryption. In Proc. 1st IFIP Working Conference on Dependable Computing for Critical Applications, pages 365-384. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kent D. Wilken
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations