Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

TrojanWhisper: Evaluating Pre-trained LLMs to Detect and Localize Hardware Trojans

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2412.07636 v1 pith:FHO33PAI submitted 2024-12-10 cs.CR cs.AI

classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords detectionllmscoveragegeminigpt-4ohardwaremodelspotential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Existing Hardware Trojans (HT) detection methods face several critical limitations: logic testing struggles with scalability and coverage for large designs, side-channel analysis requires golden reference chips, and formal verification methods suffer from state-space explosion. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers a promising new direction for HT detection by leveraging their natural language understanding and reasoning capabilities. For the first time, this paper explores the potential of general-purpose LLMs in detecting various HTs inserted in Register Transfer Level (RTL) designs, including SRAM, AES, and UART modules. We propose a novel tool for this goal that systematically assesses state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 pro, and Llama 3.1) in detecting HTs without prior fine-tuning. To address potential training data bias, the tool implements perturbation techniques, i.e., variable name obfuscation, and design restructuring, that make the cases more sophisticated for the used LLMs. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates perfect detection rates by GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 pro in baseline scenarios (100%/100% precision/recall), with both models achieving better trigger line coverage (TLC: 0.82-0.98) than payload line coverage (PLC: 0.32-0.46). Under code perturbation, while Gemini 1.5 pro maintains perfect detection performance (100%/100%), GPT-4o (100%/85.7%) and Llama 3.1 (66.7%/85.7%) show some degradation in detection rates, and all models experience decreased accuracy in localizing both triggers and payloads. This paper validates the potential of LLM approaches for hardware security applications, highlighting areas for future improvement.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. TrojanGYM: A Detector-in-the-Loop LLM for Adaptive RTL Hardware Trojan Insertion

    cs.CR 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TrojanGYM couples LLM-driven RTL Trojan insertion with GNN detector feedback, producing evasive Trojans (up to 83.33% evasion under best-LLM oracle selection).

  2. SV-LLM: An Agentic Approach for SoC Security Verification using Large Language Models

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SV-LLM automates SoC security verification with six cooperating LLM agents, reaching 84.8% vulnerability detection accuracy and 82% to 89% bug validation rates on benchmarks the paper does not disclose.

  3. Transformers for Secure Hardware Systems: Applications, Challenges, and Outlook

    cs.CR 2025-05 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A concise survey of Transformer applications in hardware security, reporting that attention-based models are increasingly used for Trojan, side-channel, and malware detection but face practical deployment hurdles.

Pith tools