Architectural Bias: a Novel Statistical Metric to Evaluate Arbiter PUF Variants

This paper introduces the notion of Architectural Bias, which can be used to measure the influence of the architecture of Arbiter Physically Unclonable Functions (APUFs) on the quality of its outputs. A PUF design with less architectural bias is better than one which has more architectural bias. Architectural bias is the bias in the challenge-response behavior of a PUF due to the architectural features of the design itself, independent of the implementation platform, technology node and external factors. This bias is different from the bias observed in the APUF outputs when implemented on Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) platform. This platform induced bias is called as Implementation Bias. To overcome the effect of implementation bias in classic APUF, Programmable Delay Line APUF (PAPUF) and Double APUF (DAPUF) have been proposed as alternatives for APUF on FPGA platforms. In this work, we provide a comparative analysis of the architectures of APUF and its two design variants based on the derived linear additive delay models. Subsequently, these designs are evaluated with the architectural bias to quantify the number of good (i.e. usable) PUF instances that it can generate. We also develop a scheme to perform instance-level comparison of a pair of randomly selected PUF instances of two different PUF designs. In addition, we study the impacts of architectural bias on PUF performance metrics namely uniformity, uniqueness and reliability. We validate our theoretical findings with simulation and FPGA-based implementation results. Experimental results reveal that the classic APUF has the least architectural bias, followed by the DAPUF and the PAPUF, respectively.

[1]  Srinivas Devadas,et al.  PUF Modeling Attacks on Simulated and Silicon Data , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[2]  Jean-Luc Danger,et al.  Performance evaluation of Physically Unclonable Function by delay statistics , 2011, 2011 IEEE 9th International New Circuits and systems conference.

[3]  Srinivas Devadas,et al.  Automated Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Arbiter-based PUF on FPGA using Programmable Delay Lines , 2014, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[4]  Georg T. Becker,et al.  The Gap Between Promise and Reality: On the Insecurity of XOR Arbiter PUFs , 2015, CHES.

[5]  Debdeep Mukhopadhyay,et al.  Design of low area-overhead ring oscillator PUF with large challenge space , 2013, 2013 International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs (ReConFig).

[6]  R. Pappu,et al.  Physical One-Way Functions , 2002, Science.

[7]  Srinivas Devadas,et al.  Lightweight and Secure PUF Key Storage Using Limits of Machine Learning , 2011, CHES.

[8]  G. Edward Suh,et al.  Extracting secret keys from integrated circuits , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems.

[9]  Ingrid Verbauwhede,et al.  Physically Unclonable Functions: A Study on the State of the Art and Future Research Directions , 2010, Towards Hardware-Intrinsic Security.

[10]  Akashi Satoh,et al.  Quantitative and Statistical Performance Evaluation of Arbiter Physical Unclonable Functions on FPGAs , 2010, 2010 International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs.

[11]  Miodrag Potkonjak,et al.  Lightweight secure PUFs , 2008, 2008 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design.

[12]  Georg T. Becker,et al.  On the Scaling of Machine Learning Attacks on PUFs with Application to Noise Bifurcation , 2015, RFIDSec.

[13]  Jorge Guajardo,et al.  Extended abstract: The butterfly PUF protecting IP on every FPGA , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Workshop on Hardware-Oriented Security and Trust.

[14]  Mitsugu Iwamoto,et al.  Implementation of double arbiter PUF and its performance evaluation on FPGA , 2015, The 20th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference.

[15]  Debdeep Mukhopadhyay,et al.  A Case of Lightweight PUF Constructions: Cryptanalysis and Machine Learning Attacks , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems.

[16]  Mitsugu Iwamoto,et al.  A new mode of operation for arbiter PUF to improve uniqueness on FPGA , 2014, 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems.

[17]  Stephen A. Benton,et al.  Physical one-way functions , 2001 .

[18]  Stefan Katzenbeisser,et al.  Physically Uncloneable Functions in the Universal Composition Framework , 2011, CRYPTO.

[19]  Jean-Pierre Seifert,et al.  Laser Fault Attack on Physically Unclonable Functions , 2015, 2015 Workshop on Fault Diagnosis and Tolerance in Cryptography (FDTC).

[20]  Jan Sölter,et al.  Efficient Power and Timing Side Channels for Physical Unclonable Functions , 2014, CHES.

[21]  Frederik Armknecht,et al.  Memory Leakage-Resilient Encryption Based on Physically Unclonable Functions , 2009, ASIACRYPT.

[22]  Debdeep Mukhopadhyay,et al.  Composite PUF: A new design paradigm for Physically Unclonable Functions on FPGA , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Hardware-Oriented Security and Trust (HOST).

[23]  Patrick Schaumont,et al.  A Systematic Method to Evaluate and Compare the Performance of Physical Unclonable Functions , 2011, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[24]  Keshab K. Parhi,et al.  Statistical Analysis of MUX-Based Physical Unclonable Functions , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems.

[25]  Srinivas Devadas,et al.  FPGA PUF using programmable delay lines , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security.

[26]  Wayne P. Burleson,et al.  Side-Channel Assisted Modeling Attacks on Feed-Forward Arbiter PUFs Using Silicon Data , 2015, RFIDSec.