Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Logical Maneuvers: Detecting and Mitigating Adversarial Hardware Faults in Space

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A processor chip hit by permanent hardware faults can be kept running by sensing radiation before it strikes and then resynthesizing or reconfiguring around the damage.

desk verdict Useful integration of known fault-tolerance pieces, but the sensor-to-recovery loop is shown as separate experiments, not one end-to-end system. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13894 v2 pith:YLHYGEAA submitted 2025-01-23 cs.CR

Fatemeh Khojasteh Dana , Saleh Khalaj Monfared , Shahin Tajik This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords time-to-digitalconverterradiationdetectionhardwarefaultrecoverypartialreconfigurationinstructionresynthesisRISC-VFPGAspacesecurity
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

Satellites currently protect onboard computers from radiation with error-correcting codes and redundancy, but permanent hardware damage escapes both. This paper proposes instead to detect the radiation itself, before it turns into a fault, using small delay-based sensors embedded on the processor chip, and then to recover by rewriting affected instructions in software or, if damage is broad, by reconfiguring the damaged region of an FPGA. The authors demonstrate the chain on a RISC-V core in a 28 nm FPGA, firing a near-infrared laser to emulate radiation and permanent damage. If the detection and recovery chain works, a satellite computer could survive partial hardware destruction without a second processor standing by.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the time-to-digital converter (TDC), a tapped delay line whose registers sample a delayed clock signal and output a thermometer-like pattern; it is calibrated so the Hamming weight of the output sits near half the sensor width, and any injected energy that shifts propagation delays changes that weight. A hardware sensor controller samples the TDCs, compares each against a threshold, and raises a non-maskable interrupt on deviation; the interrupt launches the soft sanity check, the translation of failed instructions, and, when needed, FPGA partial reconfiguration through the configuration port. The argument turns on this sensing-and-response chain catching the disturbance early enough that recovery can begin before the fault corrupts state.

What would settle it

Run the same benchmark under normal operation for as long as the laser trial while recording the sensor near the ALU; if any normal-operation sample crosses the threshold that flagged the laser exposure, no threshold can separate benign workload noise from radiation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a partially damaged processor can be kept running instead of being discarded, and that the damage can be caught before it corrupts execution. Any glitch or radiation pulse perturbs the chip's power delivery network and measurably changes signal propagation delays; a calibrated time-to-digital converter (TDC) placed near the arithmetic logic unit registers that change and raises a non-maskable interrupt. Software then runs a sanity check to identify which ALU component failed. If the multiplier, adder, or AND gate is lost, a binary translator resynthesizes the program using still-working instructions: multiply becomes add-and-shift, addition becomes a ripple-carry built from XOR and AND, and AND becomes NOT and OR via De Morgan's law. If damage is widespread, the system partially reconfigures the FPGA to relocate the entire core to an undamaged area. The authors report that both recovery paths restore correct operation of a RISC-V core after laser exposure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sensors and their calibrated thresholds can tell radiation-induced delay changes apart from normal workload and environmental noise, and catch the disturbance soon enough to run the self-test before a fault corrupts state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A satellite computer can trade triple-modular redundancy for a single commercial processor plus a small radiation-hardened housekeeping controller, if the TDC sensors reliably trigger before faults occur.
  • Isolated ALU failures, such as a lost multiplier, adder, or AND gate, can be survived purely in software at the cost of extra clock cycles and a modest memory footprint.
  • Widespread damage that would normally brick the processor can be recovered by relocating the core to reserved FPGA fabric through partial reconfiguration, with the paper demonstrating correctness after relocation on a short-circuited device.
  • The reserved resources and TDC duplication are small relative to the core, so the approach is compatible with size, weight, and power constraints if the FPGA has spare logic.
  • The recovery mechanisms assume the chip's communication links and its ability to be reprogrammed survive; if the whole chip is fried, the countermeasure no longer applies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The threshold separating benign workload-induced delay shift from attack-induced shift is the crux of any real deployment: the paper shows a qualitative jump under laser exposure but also notes a slight sensor alteration during normal operation, so a practical system needs calibrated false-positive and false-negative rates before this is safe for a satellite.
  • The same detect-then-resynthesize pattern could generalize beyond space to ground data centers where processors already fail randomly due to hard errors; a reconfigurable logic layer could heal such failures without human replacement.
  • A systematic compiler-level fallback generator could automate the resynthesis for any failing functional unit, not just the multiplier, adder, and AND gate, by precomputing equivalent instruction sequences offline and selecting them at runtime.
  • The clock-cycle overhead of the fallback code, such as multiplication via loops, may be too large for real-time satellite tasks; a practical system would likely keep the fast path until damage is detected and only then switch to the slow fallback, which needs testing under realistic workloads.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a detection- and response-based countermeasure for recovering partially damaged processors in space, using time-to-digital converter (TDC) sensors to detect radiation or glitching, software instruction resynthesis to substitute faulty ALU operations, and FPGA partial reconfiguration to relocate a more extensively damaged core. The authors implement a RISC-V Rocket core on a 28 nm Kintex-7 FPGA and use a near-infrared laser to emulate both radiation below the fault threshold and permanent hard errors. The abstract claims that the sensor can confidently detect radiation and trigger processor testing and fault recovery, enabling continuous operation without interruption.

Significance. If the full detection-to-recovery loop were demonstrated, this work would be a useful step toward low-overhead recovery from permanent hardware faults in space processors. The paper has several concrete strengths: the arithmetic/logic substitution transformations in Section VI-B are elementary and correct, the overhead measurements for the pre-compiled code variants in Fig. 9 are explicit, the TDC sensing approach is motivated by prior side-channel work, and the partial-reconfiguration concept is relevant to FPGA-based space systems. However, the significance of the central claim depends on an end-to-end integration that the current experiments do not provide. The paper's value at present is in the component demonstrations and the architectural blueprint, not in a validated closed-loop system.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI-A, Fig. 8] The detection claim in the Abstract is not quantitatively supported. Fig. 8 shows only a qualitative Hamming-weight trace of TDC0 during laser exposure, with no detection threshold, no false-positive/false-negative rates, no repeated trials, and no statistical separation between normal and exposed operation. The problem is compounded by Section VI-A.1, which reports a 'slight alteration' in TDC0 during normal operation. Without a criterion distinguishing the attack-induced deviation from normal workload and environmental noise, the claim that the sensor 'confidently detect[s] the radiation' is not established.
  2. [Section VI-B] Software recovery is not shown as an automatic response to a detected fault. The experiments use four pre-compiled assembly variants generated offline by a translator script, and an external host script selects among them via UART. The paper does not demonstrate the binary translator executing at runtime, nor does it measure the latency from a sensor-triggered event to a code switch. Consequently, Fig. 9 measures the overhead of the transformed programs, not the overhead of the proposed real-time translation mechanism, and the claim that the sensor 'triggers' the software recovery is an architectural assumption rather than a demonstrated result.
  3. [Section VI-C] The hardware reconfiguration demonstration does not establish an automatically triggered recovery. The text states that under a 2.5 A laser exposure the core 'immediately crashes,' and that a computer emulating the housekeeping MCU performs the reconfiguration. No timing data, no post-recovery output, and no explicit decision rule from the TDC data to the partial-reconfiguration command are provided. The phrase 'based on the TDC sensory data captured right before the laser exposure' is vague, and the claimed recovery via partial reconfiguration is therefore not demonstrated as part of a sensor-driven reaction loop.
  4. [Abstract and Section VI-A.2] The claim that the sensor detects radiation 'even before a fault occurs' is not supported by the presented experiments. Section VI-A.2 uses a laser current of 1 A, which the authors state is below the 1.5 A threshold for inducing temporary faults, so the experiment only shows detection of sub-fault radiation. In contrast, the hard-error experiment in Section VI-C uses a current that crashes the core immediately. There is no experiment showing that the TDC-triggered NMI arrives early enough to interrupt the processor and preserve correct state before a fault corrupts the computation. This timing relationship is load-bearing for the promise of 'continuous operation without any interruption.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI-A] The phrase 'For the sake of illustrious' should be reworded; likely 'illustration' was intended.
  2. [Figs. 7 and 8] The figures would be far more informative if a threshold line, axis units, and the sampling rate were shown, and if multiple runs were overlaid to demonstrate repeatability.
  3. [Section V-D] The description of the external script that reads TDC outputs and sends commands via UART should clearly state that this script is part of the experimental harness, not the proposed on-chip sensor controller, to avoid overstating the level of automation demonstrated.
  4. [Section VI-B and VI-C] The text interchangeably refers to a 'housekeeping microcontroller' and a host computer emulating that MCU; please consistently distinguish the emulated component from the real implementation.
  5. [Section VI-C and Table I] The reserved LUTs/FFs required for partial reconfiguration are mentioned but not quantified; please report the resource overhead of the reserved regions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the recovery transformations are elementary and self-contained, and the sensor threshold is an empirical calibration rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain contains no equation-level or construction-level circularity. The software resynthesis step reduces multiplication to add-and-shift loops, addition to ripple-carry via XOR/AND, and AND to OR/XOR forms via De Morgan's law; these are standard arithmetic identities, not results fitted to the paper's own data. The hardware reconfiguration step relies on standard FPGA partial reconfiguration and is evaluated independently by physically damaging the fabric and observing a crash. The TDC sensing is justified by an externally published TDC implementation (Mahmoud et al. [17]) and the paper's own qualitative measurements (Figs. 7-8); the threshold is 'derived during the calibration' and used for comparison, which is a normal calibration procedure rather than a parameter fitted to the target claim and then renamed a prediction. The authors do cite their own prior works ([9], [12], [28]) for background claims that delay-based sensors detect voltage/EM/laser disturbances and that partial reconfiguration can be used as a countermeasure, but these citations are not load-bearing: the same background is supported by external references [7], [8], [14]-[17], and the central contribution (sensor-triggered resynthesis/reconfiguration) is tested through laser injection on an FPGA. The lack of quantitative thresholds, false-positive rates, and a full end-to-end demonstration of the sensor-triggered recovery handoff is a real evidence gap and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity under the definitions used here. Therefore, no specific circular step is identified, and the appropriate score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on sensor reliability, a functional housekeeping MCU, the validity of laser damage as a radiation proxy, and the feasibility of real-time partial reconfiguration. The first is under-quantified and the last is asserted rather than demonstrated. No free parameters are fitted beyond an undisclosed sensor threshold.

free parameters (1)
  • TDC detection threshold = not disclosed
    The paper states thresholds are 'derived during calibration' (Sect. IV) and that the TDC output should be calibrated to HW ~ N/2 (Sect. II-B), but no threshold values or calibration data are given, and the detection claim depends entirely on this threshold separating attack-induced delay changes from normal noise.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The RadHard housekeeping microcontroller and communication links (JTAG, UART) remain functional after the target processor is partially damaged.
    Stated explicitly in the Threat Model (Sect. III); the entire recovery process is orchestrated by this external controller.
  • domain assumption A laser-induced short circuit on the FPGA fabric is a valid emulation of space radiation-induced hard errors.
    The paper uses NIR laser damage to emulate TID, SEB, and ESD effects (Sect. II-A, V-B); the equivalence is asserted but not validated against actual radiation data.
  • domain assumption The TDC sensor propagation-delay response reliably reflects radiation and glitching disturbances on the power delivery network before a fault occurs.
    Central to the detection mechanism; the paper references prior work [7,9,12] and shows a qualitative plot, but does not quantify latency, sensitivity, or false-alarm rates.
  • domain assumption Partial reconfiguration can rebuild the processor core in a spare region while meeting timing constraints and preserving functionality.
    The paper performs a relocation and asserts correctness (Sect. VI-C), but does not describe bitstream generation, timing closure, or show functional output after reconfiguration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Logical Maneuvers: Detecting and Mitigating Adversarial Hardware Faults in Space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YLHYGEAA

@misc{pith2026250113894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Logical Maneuvers: Detecting and Mitigating Adversarial Hardware Faults in Space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YLHYGEAA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13894}
}
read the original abstract

Satellites are highly vulnerable to adversarial glitches or high-energy radiation in space, which could cause faults on the onboard computer. Various radiation- and fault-tolerant methods, such as error correction codes (ECC) and redundancy-based approaches, have been explored over the last decades to mitigate temporary soft errors on software and hardware. However, conventional ECC methods fail to deal with hard errors or permanent faults in the hardware components. This work introduces a detection- and response-based countermeasure to deal with partially damaged processor chips. It recovers the processor chip from permanent faults and enables continuous operation with available undamaged resources on the chip. We incorporate digitally-compatible delay-based sensors on the target processor's chip to reliably detect the incoming radiation or glitching attempts on the physical fabric of the chip, even before a fault occurs. Upon detecting a fault in one or more components of the processor's arithmetic logic unit (ALU), our countermeasure employs adaptive software recompilations to resynthesize and substitute the affected instructions with instructions of still functioning components to accomplish the task. Furthermore, if the fault is more widespread and prevents the correct operation of the entire processor, our approach deploys adaptive hardware partial reconfigurations to replace and reroute the failed components to undamaged locations of the chip. To validate our claims, we deploy a high-energy near-infrared (NIR) laser beam on a RISC-V processor implemented on a 28~nm FPGA to emulate radiation and even hard errors by partially damaging the FPGA fabric. We demonstrate that our sensor can confidently detect the radiation and trigger the processor testing and fault recovery mechanisms. Finally, we discuss the overhead imposed by our countermeasure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13894 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fault and radiation threats for hosted payloads on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. high-level implementation of a TDC-based fault detec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Proposed framework affect the satellite components and cause a current surge in the power/data lines of the onboard computer. On the other hand, a nuclear blast in space generates high-energy electromagnetic pulses in the form of X-ray and Gamma radiation, which can ionize the material and create electrical currents that can damage computer chips. C. Cosmic Radiation Finally, the source of faults could be natura… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Device under test under the objective lenses of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two different layouts of the entire Rocket System [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Translation and resynthesis of arithmetic instructions: Example of substitution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The TDC outputs represented by HW during a normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The TDC outputs represented by HW when the target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) The reflectance image of one corner of the FPGA with a highlighted region of the injected fault. (b) The zoomed-in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cybersecurity protections for spacecraft: A threat based approach,

    B. Bailey, “Cybersecurity protections for spacecraft: A threat based approach,” The Aerospace Corporation , 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Hosted Payload Interface Unit (HPIU),

    L3Harriss, “Hosted Payload Interface Unit (HPIU),” [Online]https://www. l3harris.com/all-capabilities/hosted-payload-interface-unit-hpiu, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    The Warning,

    W. Hennigan, “The Warning,” The New York Times , 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Tiny chips, big headaches

    J. Markoff, “Tiny chips, big headaches.” International New York Times , pp. NA–NA, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Silent data corruptions at scale,

    H. D. Dixit, S. Pendharkar, M. Beadon, C. Mason, T. Chakravarthy, B. Muthiah, and S. Sankar, “Silent data corruptions at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11245, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Cores that don’t count,

    P. H. Hochschild, P. Turner, J. C. Mogul, R. Govindaraju, P. Ranganathan, D. E. Culler, and A. Vahdat, “Cores that don’t count,” in Proceedings of the Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems , 2021, pp. 9–16

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Fault recovery from multi-tenant fpga voltage attacks,

    S. Moini, D. Kansagara, D. Holcomb, and R. Tessier, “Fault recovery from multi-tenant fpga voltage attacks,” inProceedings of the Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI 2023 , 2023, pp. 557–562

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Visualizing electromagnetic fault injection with timing sensors,

    M. Paquette, B. Marquis, R. Bainbridge, and J. Chapman, “Visualizing electromagnetic fault injection with timing sensors,” in 2021 IEEE Physical Assurance and Inspection of Electronics (PAINE). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8

    work page 2021

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    LaserEscape: Detecting and Mitigating Optical Probing Attacks,

    S. K. Monfared, K. Mitard, A. Cannon, D. Forte, and S. Tajik, “LaserEscape: Detecting and Mitigating Optical Probing Attacks,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2024

    2023

  2. [10]

    A secure exception mode for fault-attack-resistant pro- cessing,

    B. Yuce, C. Deshpande, M. Ghodrati, A. Bendre, L. Nazhandali, and P. Schaumont, “A secure exception mode for fault-attack-resistant pro- cessing,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 388–401, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Securing the Satellite Software Stack,

    S. Jero, J. Furgala, M. A. Heller, B. Nahill, S. Mergendahl, and R. Skowyra, “Securing the Satellite Software Stack,” in SpaceSec, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Ram- jam: Remote temperature and voltage fault attack on fpgas using memory collisions,

    M. M. Alam, S. Tajik, F. Ganji, M. Tehranipoor, and D. Forte, “Ram- jam: Remote temperature and voltage fault attack on fpgas using memory collisions,” in 2019 Workshop on Fault Diagnosis and Tolerance in Cryptography (FDTC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 48–55

    2019

  5. [13]

    Single event hard error due to terrestrial radiation,

    J.-W. Han, M. Meyyappan, and J. Kim, “Single event hard error due to terrestrial radiation,” in 2021 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium (IRPS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  6. [14]

    High- speed ring oscillator based sensors for remote side-channel attacks on fpgas,

    J. Gravellier, J.-M. Dutertre, Y . Teglia, and P. Loubet-Moundi, “High- speed ring oscillator based sensors for remote side-channel attacks on fpgas,” in 2019 International conference on ReConFigurable computing and FPGAs (ReConFig) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    2019

  7. [15]

    Sensing nanosecond-scale voltage attacks and natural transients in fpgas,

    K. M. Zick, M. Srivastav, W. Zhang, and M. French, “Sensing nanosecond-scale voltage attacks and natural transients in fpgas,” in Proceedings of the ACM/SIGDA international symposium on Field pro- grammable gate arrays , 2013, pp. 101–104

    2013

  8. [16]

    Fpga-based remote power side-channel attacks,

    M. Zhao and G. E. Suh, “Fpga-based remote power side-channel attacks,” in 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 229–244

    2018

  9. [17]

    Practical implementations of remote power side-channel and fault- injection attacks on multitenant fpgas,

    D. G. Mahmoud, O. Glamo ˇcanin, F. Regazzoni, and M. Stojilovi ´c, “Practical implementations of remote power side-channel and fault- injection attacks on multitenant fpgas,” in Security of FPGA-Accelerated Cloud Computing Environments. Springer, 2023, pp. 101–135

    2023

  10. [18]

    (2017) Zynq-7000 soc (z-7007s, z-7012s, z-7014s, z-7010, z-7015, and z7020): Dc and ac switching charac- teristics data sheet(ds187)

    Xilinx. (2017) Zynq-7000 soc (z-7007s, z-7012s, z-7014s, z-7010, z-7015, and z7020): Dc and ac switching charac- teristics data sheet(ds187). https://docs.xilinx.com/v/u/en-US/ ds187-XC7Z010-XC7Z020-Data-Sheet

    2017

  11. [19]

    Urisc: the ultimate reduced instruction set computer,

    F. Mavaddat and B. Parhami, “Urisc: the ultimate reduced instruction set computer,” International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 327–334, 1988

    1988

  12. [20]

    A grand unified theory for structural computing,

    P. J. N ¨urnberg, U. K. Wiil, and D. L. Hicks, “A grand unified theory for structural computing,” in Metainformatics: International Symposium, MIS 2003, Graz, Austria, September 17-20, 2003. Revised Papers . Springer, 2004, pp. 1–16

    2003

  13. [21]

    mov is Turing-complete,

    S. Dolan, “ mov is Turing-complete,” 2013. [Online]. Available: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/files/mov.pdf

    2013

  14. [22]

    The {Page-Fault} weird machine: Lessons in instruction-less computation,

    J. Bangert, S. Bratus, R. Shapiro, and S. W. Smith, “The {Page-Fault} weird machine: Lessons in instruction-less computation,” in 7th USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies (WOOT 13) , 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    {RDMA} is turing complete, we just did not know it yet!

    W. Reda, M. Canini, D. Kosti ´c, and S. Peter, “ {RDMA} is turing complete, we just did not know it yet!” in 19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 22) , 2022, pp. 71–85

    2022

  16. [24]

    Koch, Partial reconfiguration on FPGAs: architectures, tools and applications

    D. Koch, Partial reconfiguration on FPGAs: architectures, tools and applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, vol. 153

    2012

  17. [25]

    Dynamic fault tolerance through resource pooling,

    C. M. Fuchs, N. M. Murillo, A. Plaat, E. van der Kouwe, and T. P. Stefanov, “Dynamic fault tolerance through resource pooling,” in 2018 NASA/ESA Conference on Adaptive Hardware and Systems (AHS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 9–16

    2018

  18. [26]

    (2023, Dec) Xilinx introduction to dynamic function exchange

    Xilinx. (2023, Dec) Xilinx introduction to dynamic function exchange. https://docs.xilinx.com/r/en-US/ug909-vivado-partial-reconfiguration/ Introduction-to-Dynamic-Function-eXchange

    2023

  19. [27]

    byteman: A bitstream manipulation framework,

    K. Manev, J. Powell, K. Matas, and D. Koch, “byteman: A bitstream manipulation framework,” in 2022 International Conference on Field- Programmable Technology (ICFPT). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–9

    2022

  20. [28]

    Randohm: Mitigating impedance side-channel attacks using randomized circuit configurations,

    S. K. Monfared, D. Forte, and S. Tajik, “Randohm: Mitigating impedance side-channel attacks using randomized circuit configurations,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (IC- CAD), 2024

    2023

  21. [29]

    Space threat assessment 2024,

    C. Swope, K. A. Bingen, M. Young, M. Chang, S. Songer, and J. Tam- melleo, “Space threat assessment 2024,” 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    V oltage drop-based fault attacks on fpgas using valid bitstreams,

    D. R. Gnad, F. Oboril, and M. B. Tahoori, “V oltage drop-based fault attacks on fpgas using valid bitstreams,” in 2017 27th International Con- ference on Field Programmable Logic and Applications (FPL) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–7

    2017

  23. [31]

    Assessing scrubbing techniques for xilinx sram-based fpgas in space applications,

    F. Brosser, E. Milh, V . Geijer, and P. Larsson-Edefors, “Assessing scrubbing techniques for xilinx sram-based fpgas in space applications,” in 2014 International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology (FPT). IEEE, 2014, pp. 296–299

    2014

  24. [32]

    Glitching demystified: ana- lyzing control-flow-based glitching attacks and defenses,

    C. Spensky, A. Machiry, N. Burow, H. Okhravi, R. Housley, Z. Gu, H. Jamjoom, C. Kruegel, and G. Vigna, “Glitching demystified: ana- lyzing control-flow-based glitching attacks and defenses,” in 2021 51st Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Netwo...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Relax: An architectural framework for software recovery of hardware faults,

    M. De Kruijf, S. Nomura, and K. Sankaralingam, “Relax: An architectural framework for software recovery of hardware faults,” ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 497–508, 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    Acr: Automatic check- point/restart for soft and hard error protection,

    X. Ni, E. Meneses, N. Jain, and L. V . Kal ´e, “Acr: Automatic check- point/restart for soft and hard error protection,” in Proceedings of the international conference on high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis , 2013, pp. 1–12

    2013

  27. [35]

    Seu mitigation and validation of the leon3 soft processor using triple modular redundancy for space processing,

    M. J. Wirthlin, A. M. Keller, C. McCloskey, P. Ridd, D. Lee, and J. Draper, “Seu mitigation and validation of the leon3 soft processor using triple modular redundancy for space processing,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field-Programmable Gate...

    2016

  28. [36]

    Ibex risc-v reference guide: Exceptions and interrupts,

    “Ibex risc-v reference guide: Exceptions and interrupts,” https://ibex-core. readthedocs.io/en/latest/03 reference/exception interrupts.html, accessed: 2024-12-10

    2024

  29. [37]

    (2023, May) Xilinx 7 series fpgas configurable logic block

    Xilinx. (2023, May) Xilinx 7 series fpgas configurable logic block. https://www.eng.auburn.edu/ ∼nelson/courses/elec4200/FPGA/ ug4747SeriesCLB.pdf

    2023

  30. [38]

    Genesys 2,

    Digilent, “Genesys 2,” [Online]https://digilent.com/reference/ programmable-logic/genesys-2/start, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Single Laser Fault Injection Microscope - S- LMS,

    AlphaNov, “Single Laser Fault Injection Microscope - S- LMS,” [Online]https://www.alphanov.com/en/products-services/ single-laser-fault-injection, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    The rocket chip generator,

    K. Asanovic, R. Avizienis, J. Bachrach, S. Beamer, D. Biancolin, C. Celio, H. Cook, D. Dabbelt, J. Hauser, A. Izraelevitz et al. , “The rocket chip generator,” EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2016-17, vol. 4, pp. 6–2, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Z. F. Baruch, Structure of computer systems . UT Pres, 2002. 9

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.