pith. sign in

arxiv: 2404.05946 · v2 · submitted 2024-04-09 · ⚛️ physics.ins-det

Differential fuzz testing to detect tampering in sensor systems and its application to arms control authentication

Jayson R Vavrek , Luozhong Zhou , Joshua Boverhof , Elisa R Heymann , Barton P Miller , Sean Peisert This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 02:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ins-det
keywords differential fuzz testingtamper detectionarms control authenticationradiation measurementcyber-physical systemsnuclear verificationgamma ray spectrometerPoisson noise handling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Physical differential fuzz testing detects tampering in radiation sensors by comparing output sequences from the same randomized input sequences.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes physical differential fuzz testing as a challenge-response method to authenticate cyber-physical systems such as radiation detectors in nuclear arms control. It establishes a baseline output time series by randomly sampling the untampered system's parameter space, then reapplies the identical input sequence to a suspect system and checks for differences. Tampering in software, firmware, hardware, libraries, or environment variables alters the outputs enough to trigger an alarm, with a mechanism to handle Poisson noise in the measurements. This matters because static checks like code hashing cannot catch physical or runtime modifications, while this approach tests the full system holistically. Demonstration measurements on a sodium iodide gamma spectrometer show detection of two tamper types.

Core claim

Physical differential fuzz testing creates a baseline signature by fuzzing the parameter space of an untampered radiation measurement system with randomized inputs, including off-normal values, and records the resulting output time series. Applying the same input sequence to a tampered system yields a modified output sequence that raises an alarm, even when Poisson noise is present, through a dedicated comparison mechanism. The method simultaneously verifies all layers of the cyber-physical system and was shown to detect two classes of tamper attempts on a NaI spectrometer.

What carries the argument

physical differential fuzz testing, a challenge-response process that records baseline output sequences from randomized inputs and compares them to outputs from the same inputs on a suspect system

If this is right

  • Tampering with environment variables, external libraries, firmware, or hardware becomes detectable in one integrated test.
  • Radiation measurement equipment in nuclear weapon verification systems can be authenticated without relying solely on software integrity checks.
  • Stochastic outputs from radiation detectors can still be compared reliably using the noise-handling mechanism.
  • The approach provides a framework usable for authenticating other cyber-physical systems in safeguards and arms control.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same randomized-input comparison could apply to non-radiation sensors if their outputs show consistent baseline behavior under repeated inputs.
  • Longer input sequences or adaptive fuzzing ranges might improve detection sensitivity for subtle tampering.
  • Combining this method with existing hashing techniques could create layered authentication that covers both static and dynamic states.

Load-bearing premise

A tampered system will produce a measurably different output sequence from the untampered baseline under the same randomized inputs, and the noise-handling comparison can reliably separate tampering from normal Poisson variation without excessive errors.

What would settle it

Running the fuzz test protocol on a known-tampered NaI spectrometer and finding that its output sequence matches the baseline within the noise threshold, or that the comparison mechanism flags untampered runs as tampered at high rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2404.05946 by Barton P Miller, Elisa R Heymann, Jayson R Vavrek, Joshua Boverhof, Luozhong Zhou, Sean Peisert.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Photograph of the sodium iodide (NaI) detector and source in the demonstration setup. Identification System (TRIS), which has historically been used to measure the gamma ray spectra of nuclear weapons [35]. However, as discussed later in Section 4, a general-purpose computer such as the Intel NUC used in this proof-of-concept is unlikely to be deployed in a real treaty verification scenario. A radiation me… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of time-based attack detection by fuzzing the system time. Here and in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of counts-based attack detection by fuzzing detector parameters that affect total counts. Once again, this attack can be detected by the fuzz testing procedure. Fuzzing detector parameters 10/22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detection of the time-based attack via fuzz testing. Left: sequence of χ 2/ν values from an untampered system. Right: sequence of χ 2/ν values from a tampered system, with 38 out of 100 values crossing the χ 2/ν = 2 alarm threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of two fuzz testing measurement pairs from the tampered system (the last two points in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the χ 2/ν metric as a function of measurement number when the pseudorandom fuzz random inputs are repeated on a system that has not been tampered with; nearly all χ 2/ν values are below 4, which we choose as our threshold. This required threshold of 4 is larger than the threshold of 2 used in the time-based attack, and is likely due to larger environment-dependent NaI+PMT gain shifts between measurem… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of two fuzz testing measurement pairs from the tampered system (measurement numbers 97 and 98 in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In future nuclear arms control treaties, it will be necessary to authenticate the hardware and software components of verification measurement systems, i.e., to ensure these systems are functioning as intended and have not been tampered with by malicious actors. While methods such as source code hashing and static analysis can help verify the integrity of software components, they may not be capable of detecting tampering with environment variables, external libraries, or the firmware and hardware of radiation measurement systems. In this article, we introduce the concept of physical differential fuzz testing as a challenge-response-style tamper indicator that can holistically and simultaneously test all the above components in a cyber-physical system. In essence, we randomly sample (or "fuzz") the untampered system's parameter space, including both normal and off-normal parameter values, and consider the time series of outputs as the baseline signature of the system. Re-running the same input sequence on a untampered system will produce an output sequence consistent with this baseline, while running the same input sequence on a tampered system will produce a modified output sequence and raise an alarm. We then apply this concept to authenticating the radiation measurement equipment in nuclear weapon verification systems and conduct demonstration fuzz testing measurements with a sodium iodide (NaI) gamma ray spectrometer. Because there is Poisson noise in the measured output spectra, we also use a mechanism for comparing inherently noisy or stochastic fuzzing sequences. We show that physical differential fuzz testing can detect two types of tamper attempts, and conclude that it is a promising framework for authenticating future cyber-physical systems in nuclear arms control, safeguards, and beyond.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes physical differential fuzz testing as a challenge-response tamper detection method for cyber-physical sensor systems. It generates a baseline output signature by applying randomized input sequences (including off-normal values) to an untampered system, then compares subsequent runs of the same sequence; deviations indicate tampering. The approach is demonstrated on a NaI gamma-ray spectrometer to authenticate radiation measurement equipment for nuclear arms control verification, with a mechanism to handle Poisson noise in the output spectra. The central claim is that the method detects two types of tamper attempts and offers a holistic test beyond software integrity checks.

Significance. If the detection reliability can be quantified and the baseline-establishment issue resolved, the framework could provide a practical, hardware-level complement to code hashing for authenticating complex verification systems in arms control and safeguards. The use of real hardware demonstration and explicit handling of stochastic noise are positive elements, but the absence of metrics and the unaddressed adversarial baseline requirement limit the immediate significance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and application to radiation measurement equipment] Introduction and application sections: The method requires generating the baseline signature from a known-untampered system, yet no procedure is described for establishing or attesting this reference when the inspected party supplies the equipment in an arms-control authentication scenario; this assumption is load-bearing for the claimed applicability.
  2. [Demonstration with NaI spectrometer] Demonstration description (NaI spectrometer section): The claim that two tamper types are detected is presented without quantitative metrics, false-positive/negative rates, error analysis, or a full specification of the Poisson-noise comparison algorithm (e.g., distance metric, threshold, or statistical test), leaving the central detection result only qualitatively supported.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'a untampered system' should read 'an untampered system'.
  2. [Method description] Notation for the input/output sequences and comparison mechanism could be formalized with equations to improve clarity and reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major comment below, agreeing that both points identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened through clarification and additional detail.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Introduction and application sections: The method requires generating the baseline signature from a known-untampered system, yet no procedure is described for establishing or attesting this reference when the inspected party supplies the equipment in an arms-control authentication scenario; this assumption is load-bearing for the claimed applicability.

    Authors: We agree this is a substantive point for real-world applicability. The manuscript presents the differential fuzz testing method under the assumption that a trusted baseline can be obtained beforehand. In revision we will expand the introduction and application sections to outline a practical procedure, for example by having the inspecting party perform the initial baseline measurements in a controlled environment prior to equipment handover, or by combining the method with independent hardware attestation steps. This will make the load-bearing assumption explicit and address how it can be satisfied in an arms-control workflow. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Demonstration description (NaI spectrometer section): The claim that two tamper types are detected is presented without quantitative metrics, false-positive/negative rates, error analysis, or a full specification of the Poisson-noise comparison algorithm (e.g., distance metric, threshold, or statistical test), leaving the central detection result only qualitatively supported.

    Authors: We accept that the demonstration is currently qualitative. In the revised manuscript we will augment the NaI spectrometer section with quantitative support: repeated-trial false-positive and false-negative rates, an error analysis that incorporates the Poisson statistics of the spectra, and a complete description of the comparison algorithm (including the chosen distance metric, threshold selection, and statistical test). These additions will place the detection claims on a firmer quantitative footing while remaining consistent with the existing experimental data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; method is an independent experimental concept

full rationale

The paper presents physical differential fuzz testing as a new challenge-response framework for tamper detection in cyber-physical systems. It defines the baseline signature explicitly as the output time series obtained by fuzzing an untampered unit, then compares subsequent runs against that reference. This is a definitional construction of the test procedure itself, not a derivation in which a claimed prediction or result reduces by construction to its own inputs. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations appear in the provided text that would create self-definitional, fitted-input, or uniqueness-imported circularity. The noise-handling comparison for Poisson statistics is described as an auxiliary mechanism rather than a load-bearing derivation. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the domain assumption that tampering alters the system's input-output mapping in a detectable way and that stochastic outputs can be compared reliably; no free parameters or invented entities are specified in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Tampering with any component of the cyber-physical system will produce a detectable deviation in the output time series for the same randomized input sequence.
    This premise underpins the entire detection logic described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5840 in / 1208 out tokens · 23664 ms · 2026-05-24T02:35:38.025946+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    New START Treaty,

    “New START Treaty,” retrieved Nov. 17, 2023 from https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties- and-regimes/treaty-between-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-russian-federation-on- measures-for-the-further-reduction-and-limitation-of-strategic-offensive-arms/

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    A zero-knowledge protocol for nuclear warhead verifica- tion,

    A. Glaser, B. Barak, and R. J. Goldston, “A zero-knowledge protocol for nuclear warhead verifica- tion,”Nature, vol. 510, no. 7506, pp. 497–502, 2014. 18/22

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    A physical zero-knowledge object- comparison system for nuclear warhead verification,

    S. Philippe, R. J. Goldston, A. Glaser, and F. d’Errico, “A physical zero-knowledge object- comparison system for nuclear warhead verification,”Nature Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 12890, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Physical cryptographic verification of nuclear warheads,

    R. S. Kemp, A. Danagoulian, R. R. Macdonald, and J. R. Vavrek, “Physical cryptographic verification of nuclear warheads,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 31, pp. 8618– 8623, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Experimental demonstration of an isotope- sensitive warhead verification technique using nuclear resonance fluorescence,

    J. R. Vavrek, B. S. Henderson, and A. Danagoulian, “Experimental demonstration of an isotope- sensitive warhead verification technique using nuclear resonance fluorescence,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 17, pp. 4363–4368, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Nuclear disarmament verification via resonant phenomena,

    J. J. Hecla and A. Danagoulian, “Nuclear disarmament verification via resonant phenomena,”Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 1259, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A physically cryptographic warhead verification system using neutron induced nuclear resonances,

    E. M. Engel and A. Danagoulian, “A physically cryptographic warhead verification system using neutron induced nuclear resonances,”Nature Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 4433, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Investigation into practical implementations of a zero knowledge protocol

    P. Marleau and R. E. Krentz-Wee, “Investigation into practical implementations of a zero knowledge protocol.” Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. SAND2017-1649, 2017

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    17, 2023 from https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/newstart annex inspections.pdf

    “Annex on inspection activities to the protocol to the treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms,” retrieved Nov. 17, 2023 from https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/newstart annex inspections.pdf

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Trusting embedded hardware and software in treaty verification systems

    J. K. Brotz, “Trusting embedded hardware and software in treaty verification systems.” Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. SAND2019- 5077C, 2019

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Next-generation arms-control agreements based on emerging radiation detection technologies

    M. C. Hamel, “Next-generation arms-control agreements based on emerging radiation detection technologies.” Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. SAND2018-6183C, 2018

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Vintage electronics for trusted radiation measurements and verified disman- tlement of nuclear weapons,

    M. K¨utt and A. Glaser, “Vintage electronics for trusted radiation measurements and verified disman- tlement of nuclear weapons,”PLOS One, vol. 14, no. 10, p. e0224149, 2019

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Increasing inspectability of hardware and software for arms control and nonproliferation regimes,

    G. White, “Increasing inspectability of hardware and software for arms control and nonproliferation regimes,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States), Tech. Rep. UCRL-JC-144409, 2001. 19/22

    work page 2001

  14. [14]

    Computer language choices in arms control and nonproliferation regimes,

    ——, “Computer language choices in arms control and nonproliferation regimes,” Lawrence Liv- ermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States), Tech. Rep. UCRL-CONF- 212857, 2005

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    Equipment design best practices for authentication,

    T. Weber, D. Maierhafer, R. Helguero, M. Coram, J. Benz, M. Williamson, A. Swift, and J. Warner, “Equipment design best practices for authentication,” Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. SAND2023-05546, 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Software development and authentication for arms control information barriers,

    N. Evans, “Software development and authentication for arms control information barriers,” in FM 2015: Formal Methods: 20th International Symposium, Oslo, Norway, June 24-26, 2015, Proceedings 20. Springer, 2015, pp. 581–584

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    2022 Data Authentication Demonstration: Exploration of host and inspector confidence in hardware, software, and data,

    J. Brotz, E. Connolly, E. Enger, M. Goliath, N. Grant, I. Hayes, S. Høibr˚aten, R. Hughes, S. Kaald, J. Knowleset al., “2022 Data Authentication Demonstration: Exploration of host and inspector confidence in hardware, software, and data,” Quadrilateral Nuclear Verification Partnership, Tech. Rep., 2023

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    LETTERPRESS post-simulation report,

    “LETTERPRESS post-simulation report,” Quadrilateral Nuclear Verification Partnership, Tech. Rep., 2020, retrieved Dec. 11, 2023 from https://quad-nvp.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/LP- Post-Simulation-Report P2P.pdf

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Verification of operating software for cooperative monitoring applications,

    K. M. Tolk and R. K. Rembold, “Verification of operating software for cooperative monitoring applications,” Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. SAND-97-1785C, 1997

    work page 1997

  20. [20]

    Authentication of monitoring systems for non-proliferation and arms control,

    R. T. Kouzes and J. L. Fuller, “Authentication of monitoring systems for non-proliferation and arms control,” inProc. Symposium on International Safeguards: Verification and Nuclear Material Security, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 2001

    work page 2001

  21. [21]

    Defining the questions: a research agenda for nontraditional authentication in arms control,

    D. K. Hauck, D. W. Mac Arthur, M. K. Smith, J. L. Thron, and K. Budlong-Sylvester, “Defining the questions: a research agenda for nontraditional authentication in arms control,” Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. LA-UR-10-03785, 2010

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Simultaneous authentication and certification of arms- control measurement systems,

    D. MacArthur, D. Hauck, and J. Thron, “Simultaneous authentication and certification of arms- control measurement systems,” inProceedings of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management 53 rd Annual Meeting, Orlando, 2012, pp. 15–19

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Tools for authentication,

    G. White, “Tools for authentication,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States), Tech. Rep. LLNL-CONF-405315, 2008

    work page 2008

  24. [24]

    Trends in hardware authentication,

    ——, “Trends in hardware authentication,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States), Tech. Rep. LLNL-CONF-674264, 2015. 20/22

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    An empirical study of the reliability of UNIX utilities,

    B. P. Miller, L. Fredriksen, and B. So, “An empirical study of the reliability of UNIX utilities,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 32–44, 1990, also appears (in German translation) as “Fatale Fehlertractigkeit: Eine Empirische Studie zur Zuverlassigkeit von UNIX-Utilities”, iX, March 1991

    work page 1990

  26. [26]

    Evaluating fuzz testing,

    G. Klees, A. Ruef, B. Cooper, S. Wei, and M. Hicks, “Evaluating fuzz testing,” inProceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, 2018, pp. 2123–2138

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    The relevance of classic fuzz testing: Have we solved this one?

    B. P. Miller, M. Zhang, and E. R. Heymann, “The relevance of classic fuzz testing: Have we solved this one?”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 2028–2039, 2020

    work page 2028

  28. [28]

    Kaner, J

    C. Kaner, J. Faulk, and H. Nguyen,Testing Computer Software. Wiley Computer Publishing, 1999

    work page 1999

  29. [29]

    Differential testing for software,

    W. M. McKeeman, “Differential testing for software,”Digital Technical Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 100–107, 1998

    work page 1998

  30. [30]

    Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers,

    X. Yang, Y . Chen, E. Eide, and J. Regehr, “Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers,” inProceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, 2011, pp. 283–294

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    Remote inspection of adversary-controlled environments,

    J. Tobisch, S. Philippe, B. Barak, G. Kaplun, C. Zenger, A. Glaser, C. Paar, and U. R ¨uhrmair, “Remote inspection of adversary-controlled environments,”Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 6566, 2023

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Portal monitor for diversion safeguards,

    W. Chambers, H. Atwater, P. Fehlau, R. Hastings, C. Henry, W. Kunz, T. Sampson, T. Whittlesey, and G. Worth, “Portal monitor for diversion safeguards,” Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. LA-5681, 1974

    work page 1974

  33. [33]

    Overview of the US-UK Portal Monitor for Authentication and Certification (PMAC) Project [slides],

    A. Swift, “Overview of the US-UK Portal Monitor for Authentication and Certification (PMAC) Project [slides],” Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant (Y-12), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), Tech. Rep., 2020

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Testing Consistency of Two Histograms

    F. C. Porter, “Testing consistency of two histograms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:0804.0380, 2008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    Trusted Radiation Identification System,

    K. Seager, D. Mitchell, T. Laub, K. Tolk, R. Lucero, and K. Insch, “Trusted Radiation Identification System,” inProceedings of the 42nd Annual INMM Meeting, 2001

    work page 2001

  36. [36]

    Array programming with NumPy,

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. Fern ´andez del R ´ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G ´erard-Marchant, K. Sheppard, T. Reddy, W. Weckesser, H. Abbasi, C. Gohlke, and T. E. Oliphant, “Ar...

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    To kill a centrifuge: A technical analysis of what Stuxnet’s creators tried to achieve,

    R. Langner, “To kill a centrifuge: A technical analysis of what Stuxnet’s creators tried to achieve,” The Langner Group, vol. 37, 2013. 21/22

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    Zetter,Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the launch of the world’s first digital weapon

    K. Zetter,Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the launch of the world’s first digital weapon. Crown Publishing Group, 2014

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    The science behind the V olkswagen emissions scandal,

    Q. Schiermeier, “The science behind the V olkswagen emissions scandal,”Nature, vol. 9, p. 24, 2015

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    ‘Underhanded C’ contest highlights challenges for nuclear arms control verification technologies,

    “‘Underhanded C’ contest highlights challenges for nuclear arms control verification technologies,” retrieved Dec. 5, 2023 from https://www.nti.org/news/underhanded-c-contest-highlights-challenges- nuclear-arms-control-verification-technologies/

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Effect of temperature on the performance of a CZT radiation detector,

    S. Park, J. Ha, J. Lee, H. Kim, Y . Cho, S. Cheon, and D. Hong, “Effect of temperature on the performance of a CZT radiation detector,”Journal of the Korean Physical Society, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1079–1082, 2010

    work page 2010

  42. [42]

    Reflections on trusting trust,

    K. Thompson, “Reflections on trusting trust,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 761–763, 1984

    work page 1984

  43. [43]

    Timeline of the xz open source attack,

    R. Cox, “Timeline of the xz open source attack,” retrieved Apr. 2, 2024 from https://research.swtch. com/xz-timeline

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Non-RF Chain of Custody Item Monitor (CoCIM) development report,

    J. K. Brotz, J. R. Wade, and S. R. Schwartz, “Non-RF Chain of Custody Item Monitor (CoCIM) development report,” Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. SAND2017-9716, 2017

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Information barriers—a historical perspective,

    D. Close, D. MacArthur, and N. Nicholas, “Information barriers—a historical perspective,” Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. LA-UR-01-2180, 2001

    work page 2001

  46. [46]

    UK-Norway Initiative: Research into information barriers to allow warhead attribute verification without release of sensitive or proliferative information,

    D. M. Chambers and M. David, “UK-Norway Initiative: Research into information barriers to allow warhead attribute verification without release of sensitive or proliferative information,” in Proceedings of the 51 st Annual Meeting of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, Baltimore, MD, 2010

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    Nuclear warhead verification: A review of attribute and template systems,

    J. Yan and A. Glaser, “Nuclear warhead verification: A review of attribute and template systems,” Science & Global Security, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 157–170, 2015

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    Information barrier experimental: Toward a trusted and open-source computing platform for nuclear warhead verification,

    M. K ¨utt, M. G ¨ottsche, and A. Glaser, “Information barrier experimental: Toward a trusted and open-source computing platform for nuclear warhead verification,”Measurement, vol. 114, pp. 185–190, 2018

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Development of a general, modular, reprogrammable information barrier for arms control applications,

    J. K. Brotz, J. K. Polack, R. Helguero, M. Hamel, T. Weber, and P. Marleau, “Development of a general, modular, reprogrammable information barrier for arms control applications,” Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), Tech. Rep. SAND2023- 03283A, 2023. 22/22

    work page 2023