Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Report the number of correctly guessed differences in ceca.py. #30

Closed
alphan opened this issue Jan 18, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Report the number of correctly guessed differences in ceca.py. #30

alphan opened this issue Jan 18, 2021 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@alphan
Copy link
Contributor

alphan commented Jan 18, 2021

See this comment in #28.

@alphan alphan self-assigned this Jan 18, 2021
@alphan alphan changed the title Consider comparing guessed difference values to actual ones in ceca.py. Report number of guessed difference values to actual ones in ceca.py. Feb 9, 2021
@alphan alphan changed the title Report number of guessed difference values to actual ones in ceca.py. Report the number of correctly guessed difference values in ceca.py. Feb 9, 2021
@alphan alphan changed the title Report the number of correctly guessed difference values in ceca.py. Report the number of correctly guessed differences in ceca.py. Feb 9, 2021
@alphan
Copy link
Contributor Author

alphan commented Feb 9, 2021

For all 120 differences.

(We can also report the number of correct key bytes as well but based on my observation it doesn't provide a lot of information.)

@vogelpi, fyi.

vogelpi added a commit to vogelpi/ot-sca that referenced this issue Aug 20, 2021
This number is a actually a far more relevant indicator for the amount
of leakage in the traces than successful key recovery (pass/fail).
Therefore, this commit adds the functionality to compute this number and
report it on the command line.

This addresses lowRISC#30.

Signed-off-by: Pirmin Vogel <vogelpi@lowrisc.org>
vogelpi added a commit to vogelpi/ot-sca that referenced this issue Aug 24, 2021
This number is actually a far more relevant indicator for the amount of
leakage in the traces than successful key recovery (pass/fail). This
commit therefore adds the functionality to compute this number and
report it on the command line.

This addresses lowRISC#30.

Signed-off-by: Pirmin Vogel <vogelpi@lowrisc.org>
vogelpi added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 24, 2021
This number is actually a far more relevant indicator for the amount of
leakage in the traces than successful key recovery (pass/fail). This
commit therefore adds the functionality to compute this number and
report it on the command line.

This addresses #30.

Signed-off-by: Pirmin Vogel <vogelpi@lowrisc.org>
@vogelpi
Copy link
Collaborator

vogelpi commented Aug 24, 2021

This got resolved with #53 .

@vogelpi vogelpi closed this as completed Aug 24, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants