4.3 Article

Hardware/software security co-verification and vulnerability detection: An information flow perspective

期刊

INTEGRATION-THE VLSI JOURNAL
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vlsi.2023.102089

关键词

Hardware and software security co-verification; Information flow security; Security model; Security property; Vulnerability detection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a hardware/software security co-verification method based on information flow analysis, which effectively detects and locates security vulnerabilities in a system. The information flow security model and properties are described using standard hardware design and verification languages.
Security vulnerabilities provide attackers unauthorized access to critical resources and effective attack surfaces to compromise a system. Security verification is an emerging technique for detecting and locating such threats. However, existing security verification methods are typically restricted within the hardware or software boundary and incapable of meeting cross-layer verification requirements due to the differences in design semantics and the lack of a security model that fits both hardware and software. We attempt to address such a limitation from the perspective of information flow analysis and propose a hardware/software security co-verification method, which can check information flow security properties on fine-grained hardware information flow models. The proposed method can pinpoint security vulnerabilities by capturing information flow security property violations under clues of malicious information flows. Our information flow security model and properties are described using standard hardware design and verification languages, which allows our method to be seamlessly integrated with electronics design automation flows. Experimental results using RISC-V hardware/software designs show that the proposed method detects software, hardware and system-level security vulnerabilities, effectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据