RISecure-PUF: Multipurpose PUF-Driven Security Extensions with Lookaside Buffer in RISC-V

Chenghao Chen; Chi Zhang; Dawu Gu; Kailun Qin; Tengfei Wang; Tianyi Huang; Xiaolin Zhang; Yipeng Shi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 21 references

RISecure-PUF: Multipurpose PUF-Driven Security Extensions with Lookaside Buffer in RISC-V

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read RISC-V gets a PUF extension with provable modeling-attack security.

desk verdict The RISC-V ISE and lookaside buffer are plausible engineering, but the 'provable security' proof is invalid and the abstract overstates the measured benefits. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14025 v1 pith:3EICBDPG submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CR

Chenghao Chen , Xiaolin Zhang , Kailun Qin , Tengfei Wang , Yipeng Shi , Tianyi Huang , Chi Zhang , Dawu Gu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CR

keywords physicalunclonablefunctionRISC-VinstructionsetextensionprovablesecuritymodelingattacklookasidebufferfuzzyextractorFPGAimplementation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

RISecure-PUF adds Physical Unclonable Function (PUF) support to RISC-V as a compact instruction-set extension, letting one hardware primitive serve both secure key generation and secure protocol roles. The core claim is that hashing the internal PUF response together with the external challenge, R3 = Hash(R2||C), makes the resulting challenge-response pairs cryptographically provable against modeling and cloning attacks. On a Genesys 2 FPGA the extension costs only 1.2% to 10.6% single-sampling slowdown, and a lookaside buffer gives at least 2.72x speedup for batch sampling, so the security gain is bought with small practical overhead.

What carries the argument

The central object is the construction R3 = Hash(R2||C), where R2 is the error-corrected inner PUF response and C is the external challenge with fixed bit widths. This one-way composition is what the paper claims converts an ordinary PUF into a modeling-resistant, provably secure primitive; the lookaside buffer is a secondary mechanism that accelerates repeated sampling by caching R2 and helper data to skip ECC on cache hits.

What would settle it

Measure the actual min-entropy of R2 after error correction on a batch of SRAM PUF instances, and test whether R3 = Hash(R2||C) for fixed C and random R2 is distinguishable from uniform using a standard statistical test suite; a decisive failure would be the ability to predict R3 for a fresh C given many other CRPs with accuracy noticeably above chance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper asserts that a simple hash composition turns any PUF into a primitive with cryptographically provable resistance to modeling attacks, without requiring HMAC or a full fuzzy extractor redesign. The central construction fixes the lengths of the inner response R2 and the outer challenge C, computes R3 = Hash(R2||C), and argues via a hybrid argument that R3 is computationally indistinguishable from a truly random function of C when the inner response behaves like a high-entropy secret and the hash is modeled as a random oracle. It also introduces a lookaside buffer that caches stabilized inner responses and helper data, so repeated challenges in batch scenarios bypass the slow error-correction step, improving throughput by 2.72x (Reed-Solomon) and 1.63x (BCH) at batch size 16.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes the error-corrected inner PUF response R2 is statistically close to a uniform random secret with enough entropy, so that hashing it with the challenge produces an unpredictable output; the paper provides no entropy, bias, or correlation measurements for its SRAM PUF to establish this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the security argument holds, any existing SRAM or strong PUF can be retrofitted into a modeling-resistant primitive by adding one hash module, without redesigning the PUF cell itself.
The fixed-length challenge and response make the scheme immune to length-extension attacks on Merkle-Damgard hashes, so a plain hash suffices where HMAC would normally be required.
The lookaside buffer makes batch CRP generation practical enough for protocols like key agreement and authenticated encryption that need many responses quickly.
Reusing hash modules already present in RISC-V cryptographic extensions keeps the added hardware cost to connection overhead in realistic implementations.
The two-instruction interface (inner_puf_init and outer_puf_chal) gives a standard, portable way for software to drive PUF key generation and protocol use on RISC-V.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves open a testable prediction: an attacker with full knowledge of a PUF's response distribution but no direct key access should still be unable to predict R3 for a fresh random C, because the hash masks any residual bias; this could be checked empirically on real SRAM PUFs.
The security proof depends on the inner response being close to uniform; if future measurements show substantial bias or low entropy after ECC, the right fix would be a randomness extractor or HKDF-style construction rather than plain hashing.
The lookaside buffer stores raw responses and helper data for reuse, which could create a new side channel (timing or power) distinguishing cache hits from misses; hardening against non-invasive side-channel attacks is an explicit future need.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this paper's hardware idea is reasonable, but its central security claim does not hold. The two-instruction RISC-V extension (inner_puf_init, outer_puf_chal) that hashes the inner PUF response with the external challenge, plus a lookaside buffer to skip ECC in batch sampling, is a genuine contribution relative to OASIS and Controlled PUF. The FPGA evaluation on Genesys 2 with Reed-Solomon and BCH is concrete, and the lookaside buffer speedups (2.72x for RS, 1.63x for BCH at batch size 16) are believable. The authors also state plainly that non-invasive side channels are out of scope, which is honest.

The soft spot is the 'Proof Scratch' in Section IV-B. The first hybrid step asserts that Hash(R2||C) and Hash(C) are indistinguishable via Merkle-Damgard. That is simply false: an adversary who sees a response can test whether it equals Hash(C). The next step says 'Since C is random, H2 and H0 are computationally indistinguishable,' but in a modeling attack the adversary chooses C, so C is not an unknown random secret. And the paper provides no entropy, bias, or correlation measurements for the stabilized R2, so the precondition for any hybrid argument is unestablished. The 'provable security against modeling attacks' claim is therefore unsupported.

The performance claims are also worded too strongly. The abstract says 'at least 2.72x' but BCH gives 1.63x. The hardware overhead is described as 'negligible' even though the paper reports 2.2x to 6.7x more LUTs/FFs; the reuse argument is plausible, but the abstract's phrasing is misleading.

That said, the engineering seems salvageable. If the authors drop or repair the formal security claim, correct the abstract, and present the hash layer as a heuristic modeling-attack countermeasure, this becomes a decent systems paper. As it stands, the load-bearing proof is wrong, so the security conclusions should not be taken at face value.

Who this is for: hardware security and RISC-V ISA researchers, especially those working on PUF integration. It deserves a serious referee if the proof is fixed; as submitted, I would not accept the security claims. For peer review, I would send it out with a request for major revision, focusing on the proof and the performance framing.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RISecure-PUF, a RISC-V instruction set extension that combines an inner PUF, an ECC stabilizer, and a one-way hash function to produce outer responses of the form R3 = Hash(R2||C). A lookaside buffer is added to accelerate batch sampling of challenge-response pairs. The authors report FPGA implementation on Genesys 2, resource overheads, performance measurements in single and batch scenarios, and a security argument (Section IV-B) intended to prove resistance to modeling and cloning attacks. The central technical claim is that the hash construction provides cryptographically provable security while introducing only 1.2%–10.6% single-sample slowdown and up to 2.72x batch speedup.

Significance. If the security claim held, the paper would provide a useful blueprint for integrating PUFs into RISC-V with a formal guarantee against modeling attacks. The engineering contributions—the two-instruction ISE, the ECC-bypassing lookaside buffer, and the FPGA measurements—are concrete and potentially reusable. However, the paper's headline contribution, the provable security argument, is invalid as presented because the proof's central hybrid step is false. The measured speedups and hardware numbers may stand independently, but the paper does not establish its principal security claim, which substantially reduces its significance.

major comments (4)

[Section IV-B] The Proof Scratch defines H0 = Hash(R2||C) and H1 = Hash(C) and claims that H0 and H1 are indistinguishable by the Merkle-Damgård construction. This is false. An adversary who chooses a challenge C and receives a candidate response y can simply test whether y = Hash(C); under H1 this holds with probability 1, under H0 only with negligible probability if R2 has entropy. The Merkle-Damgård structure is irrelevant to this equality test. Consequently, the subsequent step to H2 = RO(C) does not establish indistinguishability of H0 and the random oracle. The proof also states 'Since C is random', but in the modeling-attack game the external challenge C is chosen by the adversary, not sampled uniformly at random by the system. The central claim of provable security is therefore unsupported.
[Section IV-B] The proof assumes that the stabilized inner PUF response R2 is statistically close to a uniform random secret with sufficient entropy. The paper provides no entropy, bias, or correlation measurements for the SRAM PUF, nor any analysis of how ECC enrollment and reconstruction affect the entropy of R2. Without such evidence, the hybrid argument over R2 has no basis, and the claim that Hash(R2||C) is a pseudorandom function is unjustified. This is a load-bearing missing component for the alleged security proof.
[Abstract and Table VIII] The abstract claims the design 'improves at least 2.72x in batch scenarios', but Table VIII reports a 2.72x speedup for Reed-Solomon and only 1.63x for BCH. The stated lower bound is contradicted by the paper's own data. The abstract also states 'negligible hardware overhead', yet Table VI shows 2.2x to 6.7x additional LUT/FF counts in the evaluated configurations; the argument that existing hash modules can be reused is not backed by an implementation or synthesis result, so the 'negligible' claim is not demonstrated.
[Section IV-B and VI] The treatment of cloning attacks (A2) is not a proof. The sentence 'by fixing the lengths of R2 and C, it becomes impossible for adversaries to extrapolate from the hash result R3' does not address physical cloning of the PUF or model extraction of the inner PUF; at best it prevents length-extension attacks on the hash. The paper does not define a formal adversary model for cloning or provide a reduction from cloning resistance to any established assumption. Thus the claim in Section IV-A that A2 is 'Provable Secure in IV-B' is unsupported.

minor comments (5)

[Table VIII] The table header contains a typo: 'lookasdie buffer' should read 'lookaside buffer'.
[Section II-B] The phrase 'Although the both types' is ungrammatical; it should be 'Although both types'.
[Section IV-B] The paper defines HMAC(k,m) = h(k||m), which is not the standard HMAC construction. Standard HMAC uses inner and outer padding (ipad and opad). This mischaracterization weakens the motivation for preferring a plain hash over HMAC, though it is secondary to the proof defect.
[Figure 4] The logarithmic scale of the y-axis is not labeled in the figure; the reader cannot infer the axis units or the transformation. The label 'RISecure-PUF+ -RS' is ambiguous and should be clarified.
[References] Reference [13] is cited as an arXiv preprint with no publication venue; if it has since appeared, the published version should be cited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the claimed PUF-hash security is independent of measured data, though the Section IV-B proof is invalid.

full rationale

No circular step can be exhibited. The central construction R3 = Hash(R2||C) is not fitted to data and is not equal to its inputs by construction; the lookaside-buffer speedups and hardware overheads are measured engineering results. Self-citations [12], [13], [17] appear only as background examples of PUF protocols or as standard fuzzy-extractor references, and they do not carry the paper's unique load-bearing claim. The paper's own limitation statement in Section IV-C ('In this paper, we do not consider countermeasures for A3.2') is an acknowledged scope restriction, not circular reasoning. The genuine weakness is rigor: Section IV-B's 'Proof Scratch' asserts that H0 = Hash(R2||C) and H1 = Hash(C) are indistinguishable by the Merkle-Damgard construction, but they are trivially distinguishable by testing y = Hash(C), and no entropy or bias measurements for the stabilized R2 are provided to justify the hybrid argument. Those are correctness and evidence failures, not circularity: the claimed prediction does not reduce to its own input. The paper is therefore scored 0 for circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central security claim rests on the random-oracle idealization of the hash and on the inner PUF response being close to uniform random after ECC. No free parameters are fitted to data. The lookaside buffer is an implemented hardware component, not a new physical or theoretical entity.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The hash function behaves as a random oracle.
Section IV-B defines H2 with R3 = RO(C) and uses the random oracle assumption to conclude indistinguishability. This is an idealization, not a proof in the standard model.
domain assumption The stabilized PUF response R2 is statistically close to a truly uniform random variable.
Section IV-B says 'we need to reduce the distribution of PUF's response R to a truly uniformly random variable U using the Hybrid Argument', but no entropy or bias measurement for the SRAM PUF is provided.
domain assumption Fixed input lengths of R2 and C prevent Merkle-Damgård length-extension attacks.
Section IV-B argues that because both inputs have fixed lengths, HMAC is unnecessary. This assumes the protocol never accepts variable-length challenges or padding variations.
domain assumption The ECC module correctly stabilizes PUF outputs.
The design relies on Reed-Solomon or BCH to produce stable R2, but no measured bit error rate or ECC failure probability is reported for the implementation.
standard math Standard hybrid argument technique.
The proof invokes the hybrid argument from [20]. This is a standard technique in cryptography, but the paper does not apply it correctly.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RISecure-PUF: Multipurpose PUF-Driven Security Extensions with Lookaside Buffer in RISC-V." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3EICBDPG

@misc{pith2026241114025,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RISecure-PUF: Multipurpose PUF-Driven Security Extensions with Lookaside Buffer in RISC-V},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3EICBDPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14025}
}

abstract

RISC-V's limited security features hinder its use in confidential computing and heterogeneous platforms. This paper introduces RISecure-PUF, a security extension utilizing existing Physical Unclonable Functions for key generation and secure protocol purposes. A one-way hash function is integrated to ensure provable security against modeling attacks, while a lookaside buffer accelerates batch sampling and minimizes reliance on error correction codes. Implemented on the Genesys 2 FPGA, RISecure-PUF improves at least $2.72\times$ in batch scenarios with negligible hardware overhead and a maximum performance reduction of $10.7\%$, enabled by reusing the hash function module in integrated environments such as cryptographic engines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14025 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** RISecure-PUF architecture overview In general process, the internal PUF module generates a raw response (R1) based on a challenge, which is then stabilized by the ECC module (if needed) to produce a stable response (R2). The stable response is used as part of the input to the hash module, where it is combined with an external challenge using direct concatenation, like Hash(R2||C), to generate the final response (R3)… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Lookaside buffer for batch sampling C. PUF Instruction Design RISC-V instruction set is designed to be modular and simple. The proposed PUF ISE follows this design philosophy, only extends necessary instructions to support PUF operations. In [14], the OASIS was proposed to provide an x86 platform ISE with PUFs operations. However, the OASIS is not suitable for RISC-V architecture due to its complexity and lack of mo… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Performance evaluation of extra lookaside buffer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Physical Unclonable Function (PUF)

“Physical Unclonable Function (PUF).” [Online]. Available: https://ww w.synopsys.com/designware-ip/security-ip/cryptography-ip/puf.html

work page
[2]

LPC5500 Series: Arm Cortex-M33 Based Microcontrollers for the general embedded market

“LPC5500 Series: Arm Cortex-M33 Based Microcontrollers for the general embedded market.” [Online]. Available: https://www.nxp.com/ products/processors-and-microcontrollers/arm-microcontrollers/genera l-purpose-mcus/lpc5500-arm-cortex-m33:LPC5500 SERIES

work page
[3]

Intel Stratix 10 FPGAs Overview

“Intel Stratix 10 FPGAs Overview.” [Online]. Available: https://www. intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/fpga/stratix/10.html

work page
[4]

Low power and high density Ternary-SRAM for always-on applications,

Y .-E. Choi, W.-S. Kim, M. Kim, M. W. Ryu, and K. R. Kim, “Low power and high density Ternary-SRAM for always-on applications,” in 2023 Device Research Conference (DRC) , 2023, pp. 1–2

work page 2023
[5]

16.3 3nm physical unclonable function with multi-mode self-destruction and 3.48×10-5 bit error rate,

E. Hunt-Schroeder, P. Lin-Butler, A. Degada, and T. Xia, “16.3 3nm physical unclonable function with multi-mode self-destruction and 3.48×10-5 bit error rate,” in 2024 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), vol. 67, 2024, pp. 300–302

work page 2024
[6]

S. N. U.S. Samsung Introduces Exynos i T100 for Secure and Reliable IoT Devices with Short-Range Connectivity. [Online]. Available: https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-introduces-exynos-t100-secure-r eliable-iot-devices-short-range-connectivity

work page
[7]

A survey on silicon PUFs,

F. Zerrouki, S. Ouchani, and H. Bouarfa, “A survey on silicon PUFs,” J. Syst. Archit. , vol. 127, no. C, Jun. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2022.102514

arXiv 2022
[8]

Reliable and efficient PUF-based key generation using pattern matching ,

Z. Paral and S. Devadas, “ Reliable and efficient PUF-based key generation using pattern matching ,” in 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Hardware-Oriented Security and Trust (HOST) . Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, Jun. 2011, pp. 128–133. [Online]. Available: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HST. 2011.5955010

work page arXiv 2011

Show all 21 references

[9]

Slender PUF protocol: A lightweight, robust, and secure authentication by substring matching,

M. Majzoobi, M. Rostami, F. Koushanfar, D. S. Wallach, and S. Devadas, “Slender PUF protocol: A lightweight, robust, and secure authentication by substring matching,” in 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops, 2012, pp. 33–44

2012
[10]

Building PUF based authentication and key exchange protocol for IoT without explicit CRPs in verifier database,

U. Chatterjee, V . Govindan, R. Sadhukhan, D. Mukhopadhyay, R. S. Chakraborty, D. Mahata, and M. M. Prabhu, “Building PUF based authentication and key exchange protocol for IoT without explicit CRPs in verifier database,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, v...

2019
[11]

PUF-RAKE: A PUF-based robust and lightweight authentication and key establishment protocol,

M. A. Qureshi and A. Munir, “PUF-RAKE: A PUF-based robust and lightweight authentication and key establishment protocol,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2457–2475, 2022

2022
[12]

Old school, new primitive: Toward scalable PUf-based authenticated encryption scheme in IoT,

X. Zhang, D. Gu, T. Wang, and Y . Huang, “Old school, new primitive: Toward scalable PUf-based authenticated encryption scheme in IoT,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 4569–4582, 2023

2023
[13]

Armored core of PKI: Remove signing keys for CA via efficient and trusted physical certification

X. Zhang, C. Chen, K. Qin, Y . Wang, S. Qu, T. Wang, C. Zhang, and D. Gu, “Armored core of PKI: Remove signing keys for CA via efficient and trusted physical certification.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15582

arXiv
[14]

OASIS: on achieving a sanctuary for integrity and secrecy on untrusted platforms,

E. Owusu, J. Guajardo, J. McCune, J. Newsome, A. Perrig, and A. Vasudevan, “OASIS: on achieving a sanctuary for integrity and secrecy on untrusted platforms,” in Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security , ser. CCS ’13. New York, NY , ...

2013
[15]

PUF modeling attacks: An introduction and overview,

U. R ¨uhrmair and J. S ¨olter, “PUF modeling attacks: An introduction and overview,” in 2014 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2014, pp. 1–6

2014
[16]

SoK: Instruction set extensions for cryptographers,

H. Cheng, J. Großsch ¨adl, B. Marshall, D. Page, and M.-J. O. Saarinen, “SoK: Instruction set extensions for cryptographers,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2024/1323, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/1323

2024
[17]

Effi- cient fuzzy extraction of PUF-induced secrets: Theory and applications,

J. Delvaux, D. Gu, I. Verbauwhede, M. Hiller, and M.-D. M. Yu, “Effi- cient fuzzy extraction of PUF-induced secrets: Theory and applications,” in Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems – CHES 2016 , B. Gierlichs and A. Y . Poschmann, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berl...

2016
[18]

Controlled phys- ical random functions,

B. Gassend, D. Clarke, M. van Dijk, and S. Devadas, “Controlled phys- ical random functions,” in 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2002. Proceedings. , 2002, pp. 149–160

2002
[19]

The Interpose PUF: Secure PUF design against state-of- the-art machine learning attacks,

P. H. Nguyen, D. P. Sahoo, C. Jin, K. Mahmood, U. R ¨uhrmair, and M. v. Dijk, “The Interpose PUF: Secure PUF design against state-of- the-art machine learning attacks,” IACR Transactions on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems , pp. 243–290, Aug. 2019. [Online]. Availab...

2019
[20]

An overview of the hybrid argument,

M. Fischlin and A. Mittelbach, “An overview of the hybrid argument,”
[2021]

Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/088

[Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/088

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Physical Unclonable Function (PUF)

“Physical Unclonable Function (PUF).” [Online]. Available: https://ww w.synopsys.com/designware-ip/security-ip/cryptography-ip/puf.html

work page

[2] [2]

LPC5500 Series: Arm Cortex-M33 Based Microcontrollers for the general embedded market

“LPC5500 Series: Arm Cortex-M33 Based Microcontrollers for the general embedded market.” [Online]. Available: https://www.nxp.com/ products/processors-and-microcontrollers/arm-microcontrollers/genera l-purpose-mcus/lpc5500-arm-cortex-m33:LPC5500 SERIES

work page

[3] [3]

Intel Stratix 10 FPGAs Overview

“Intel Stratix 10 FPGAs Overview.” [Online]. Available: https://www. intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/fpga/stratix/10.html

work page

[4] [4]

Low power and high density Ternary-SRAM for always-on applications,

Y .-E. Choi, W.-S. Kim, M. Kim, M. W. Ryu, and K. R. Kim, “Low power and high density Ternary-SRAM for always-on applications,” in 2023 Device Research Conference (DRC) , 2023, pp. 1–2

work page 2023

[5] [5]

16.3 3nm physical unclonable function with multi-mode self-destruction and 3.48×10-5 bit error rate,

E. Hunt-Schroeder, P. Lin-Butler, A. Degada, and T. Xia, “16.3 3nm physical unclonable function with multi-mode self-destruction and 3.48×10-5 bit error rate,” in 2024 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), vol. 67, 2024, pp. 300–302

work page 2024

[6] [6]

S. N. U.S. Samsung Introduces Exynos i T100 for Secure and Reliable IoT Devices with Short-Range Connectivity. [Online]. Available: https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-introduces-exynos-t100-secure-r eliable-iot-devices-short-range-connectivity

work page

[7] [7]

A survey on silicon PUFs,

F. Zerrouki, S. Ouchani, and H. Bouarfa, “A survey on silicon PUFs,” J. Syst. Archit. , vol. 127, no. C, Jun. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2022.102514

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Reliable and efficient PUF-based key generation using pattern matching ,

Z. Paral and S. Devadas, “ Reliable and efficient PUF-based key generation using pattern matching ,” in 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Hardware-Oriented Security and Trust (HOST) . Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, Jun. 2011, pp. 128–133. [Online]. Available: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HST. 2011.5955010

work page arXiv 2011