Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

TOCTOU Resilient Attestation for IoT Networks (Full Version)

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TRAIN schedules every IoT device to attest at the same instant, making network attestation cost constant per device.

desk verdict Solid integration of RATA/CASU/GAROTA with synchronized attestation, but the TOCTOU-elimination claim is unsupported because the timing fields are unauthenticated and the verifier never checks the reported attestation time. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07053 v2 pith:GGHGOWRA submitted 2025-02-10 cs.CR

Pavel Frolikov , Youngil Kim , Renascence Tarafder Prapty , Gene Tsudik This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords remoteattestationIoTsecurityTOCTOUnetworkhashchainsreal-timeclocklow-endembeddeddevicesswarm
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

The paper aims to show that network-wide software attestation for low-end IoT devices can be made simultaneous rather than staggered, without raising per-device cost. Its protocol, TRAIN, schedules every device to attest at the same instant: TRAINA uses a low-cost real-time clock to honor an absolute timestamp carried in the verified request, while TRAINB approximates the same schedule from the network's spanning tree height when clocks are unavailable. Because the underlying root-of-trust (RATA or CASU) reduces each device's job to one fixed-size MAC, attestation time no longer grows with program memory. If the claims hold, a verifier can capture the software state of an entire network at essentially one moment, and transient malware has no inter-device gap in which to hide.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a broadcast attestation request carrying a hash-chain authenticator and a scheduled attestation time. A receiving device verifies the hash chain by checking $H^s(\text{Hash}_{\text{new}})$ against its stored $\text{Hash}_{\text{cur}}$, accepts the schedule, forwards the request to its children, and then hands control to the TimerTCB so that the attestation MAC is computed exactly at $t_{\text{attest}}$. The report binds the device's actual attestation time $t'_{\text{attest}}$ together with its identity, parent, challenge, and, under RATA, the last modification time into a MAC keyed with $K_{\text{Dev}}$, so the verifier can see which device said what. Clockless TRAINB substitutes the waiting interval $(\text{Height}_{\text{net}}-\text{Height}_{\text{cur}})(t_{\text{request}}+t_{\text{hash}})$ for the absolute timestamp, making the height fields the synchronization machinery.

What would settle it

Run TRAINA with a relay between the verifier and one device that rewrites $t_{\text{attest}}$ to one second later before forwarding the request. The device waits an extra second, computes its report at the altered time, and the verifier accepts the report because the MAC covers the altered timestamp; two devices have then attested at different instants, contradicting the claim that TRAINA completely removes the inter-device TOCTOU window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TRAIN is a network attestation protocol in which all devices attest at a common scheduled time instead of whenever the request happens to reach them. In TRAINA, devices equipped with real-time clocks read the scheduled time $t_{\text{attest}}$ from the verifier's request and wait until that instant; because the request is authenticated by a Lamport hash chain and the wait is enforced by a dedicated timer in the trusted computing base, malware on a device cannot make attestation start early or late. In TRAINB, devices without RTCs estimate the same schedule from the network spanning tree height, trading exact synchronization for wider deployability. On top of the RATA or CASU root-of-trust, each device computes only a fixed-size MAC, so per-device attestation time is constant regardless of program memory size. The paper claims this removes the inter-device TOCTOU window when clocks are synchronized, shrinks it sharply otherwise, and keeps the protocol resilient even with multiple compromised devices.

Load-bearing premise

The synchronization guarantee depends on the timing fields in an attestation request reaching each device unchanged; the request authentication covers only the hash-chain values, and the verifier never compares the attestation time it sent with the one each device reports.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An RTC-equipped IoT fleet can be attested at a single network-wide instant, so the inter-device TOCTOU window goes to zero for synchronized clocks.
  • Per-device attestation cost becomes independent of program-memory size, making frequent attestation practical on 8- and 16-bit microcontrollers.
  • Clockless deployments still gain a large reduction: the spanning-tree traversal component of the TOCTOU window is removed, leaving only network delay and timer drift.
  • Hash-chain authenticated requests stop unauthenticated flood-based denial of service on attestation without per-device signatures or a shared group key.
  • Hardware enforcement through the timer and network TCB means even fully malware-compromised devices cannot reschedule, drop, or forge attestation messages.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would have the verifier include the scheduled time in its MAC verification by comparing $t_{\text{attest}}$ from the request with $t'_{\text{attest}}$ from the report; the published verifier pseudocode checks the MAC but does not make that comparison, so an active network adversary can still desynchronize devices by rewriting the timing fields.
  • The same gap applies to TRAINB's $\text{Height}_{\text{cur}}$ and $\text{Height}_{\text{net}}$ fields, which are also outside the hash-chain authentication, suggesting that the synchronization guarantee needs authenticated timing metadata.
  • A testable consequence is that TRAIN's hash-chain renewal inherits TESLA-style delivery-time fragility; measuring how long a delayed request can remain undetected would quantify how often forced resynchronization occurs.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes TRAIN, a network attestation protocol for low-end IoT devices, with two variants: TRAINA for devices with real-time clocks and TRAINB for clockless devices. The scheme builds on RATA or CASU for individual attestation and GAROTA's NetTCB/TimerTCB for trusted network and timer operations, and uses Lamport hash chains to authenticate attestation requests. The paper's central claim is that TRAIN minimizes or, in TRAINA, completely removes the inter-device TOCTOU_NA window while achieving O(1) per-device attestation work. It presents an FPGA prototype on openMSP430, LTL model checking of hardware security properties, and OMNeT++ simulations up to one million devices.

Significance. If the main claim were established, TRAIN would be a useful contribution to swarm/network attestation: it targets a real problem (inter-device TOCTOU windows), keeps per-device computation constant, and ships an open-source prototype. The hardware overhead measurements and the LTL verification of the hardware enclave properties are concrete strengths, as is the scalability study. However, the central security claim about TOCTOU_NA elimination is not supported by the published algorithms: the timing fields that determine when each device attests are neither authenticated in the request nor checked against the verifier's intended schedule in the response. Because the headline contribution is precisely this TOCTOU resilience, the gap is load-bearing and the current manuscript does not establish its main result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Algorithms 1 and 2] The paper's central claim that TRAINA completely removes TOCTOU_NA is not supported by the pseudocode. In Algorithm 1, the only authentication of Att_request is the hash-chain check in steps 9-10, which binds Hash_New and HashInd_New but not t_attest. A Dolev-Yao network adversary can therefore modify t_attest before the message reaches a Prv, causing that Prv to schedule attestation for a different time. The report carries the actual attestation time t_attest' and includes it in Auth_report (Algorithm 1 steps 16-17), but the verifier in Algorithm 2 steps 11-19 only recomputes the MAC over the reported t_attest value and never compares it with the t_attest that Vrf actually broadcast. No Fail or abort transition exists for a mismatch. Thus Section 6.1's statement that adversarial modification of timing fields is 'later detected by Vrf' is not implemented in the protocol as written.
  2. [Section 4.2, Algorithm 3] TRAINB has the same authentication gap plus an additional internal inconsistency that undermines even the intended detection mechanism. Height_Cur and Height_Net in Att_request are not covered by the hash-chain check (Algorithm 3 steps 7-8), so they can be modified by a network adversary, directly affecting attestWait in step 12. Moreover, step 15 sets t_attest' to the current timer value, but step 16 computes Auth_report over t_attest (the value received in the request) rather than over t_attest'. Consequently, the reported t_attest' is not in fact authenticated by the MAC, contradicting the Section 6.1 claim. Adding a verifier-side comparison of reported vs. scheduled time would not fix TRAINB unless the MAC input is also corrected.
  3. [Section 6.1, Figure 5] The 'Formal Verification of TRAINCASU' paragraph describes LTL model checking of hardware-level properties (PMEM immutability, ISR atomicity, IRQ configuration protection, and so on). These properties do not include timing-field authenticity, verifier-side comparison of scheduled versus reported attestation times, or any network-level synchronization guarantee. The formal verification therefore does not substantiate the paper's TOCTOU_NA claims, and the paragraph should be reworded so that the scope of the verification is not overstated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 2, line 12] The identifier t_attest is reused for the field received in Att_report, while t_attest already denotes the scheduled attestation time in line 5; renaming the received field to t_attest' would avoid ambiguity and make the missing comparison with the sent value explicit.
  2. [Algorithm 3, line 16] The MAC computation should use t_attest' rather than t_attest; as written, the report's t_attest' field is not authenticated.
  3. [Section 4.3] The hash-chain renewal description states Auth = MAC(x0, x'_m), but at the time the verifier sends Att_request_{m-1}, x0 has not yet been released; please clarify that Vrf knows x0 and that devices verify Auth only after receiving x0 in the next instance.
  4. [Section 6.1, first paragraph] The text says 'Prv authenticates each Att_request by verifying HashInd_New, t_attest, and checking...'; the pseudocode authenticates only the hash-chain values, not t_attest. Update the description to match the actual algorithm, or fix the algorithm so the description becomes true.
  5. [Table 4] The SEDA participating-device row includes an unformatted expression '96 + 256*(g-1)' that appears to be a typesetting artifact; please reformat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: the TOCTOU-elimination and O(1) attestation claims are protocol constructions backed by prior published hardware artifacts, not fitted parameters or self-referential equations.

full rationale

TRAIN's central security result is a protocol construction rather than a fitted prediction. The constant-time per-device attestation claim comes from RATA/CASU's fixed-size LMT attestation, which is prior published and independently evaluated work; the synchronization mechanism is an explicit protocol design (t_attest scheduling in TRAINA, depth-based wait in TRAINB), not a parameter fitted to the target metric. The formal verification in Section 6.1 is machine-checked via NuSMV on Verilog2SMV output, and the paper explicitly drops GAROTA's re-trigger property, so no load-bearing claim is being imported as an unexamined axiom. Self-citations are numerous, but the central premises (RATA, CASU, GAROTA) are prior peer-reviewed artifacts with their own implementations and evaluations, which counts as independent support under the stated rules rather than circularity. The closest concern is a correctness gap, not circular reasoning: Section 6.1 asserts that adversarial modification of t_attest or Height fields is later detected by Vrf because t_attest' is included in Auth_report, but the verifier pseudocode (Algorithms 2 and 4) never compares the reported t_attest' with the t_attest Vrf actually sent, and TRAINB's Auth_report does not even MAC over t_attest'. That is an unproven security implication, not a self-referential derivation, so it does not raise the circularity score. Score 1 reflects only the paper's heavy reliance on same-group prior work without deriving those hardware guarantees independently here.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on prior trusted-hardware architectures, environmental timing assumptions, and standard cryptography, rather than on new fitted parameters or fictitious entities. The timing fields t_attest, Height_Cur, and Height_Net are unprotected in the request message, which is the main structural weakness.

free parameters (2)
  • t_slack = not specified
    Introduced in equations (2) and (3) to absorb unexpected delays; its value is chosen by the verifier and not derived from any stated requirement.
  • per-hop propagation delays t_request and t_report = assumed uniform across links (TRAINB)
    TRAINB's attestation-time formula (1) and Vrf's timeout (2) depend on known and identical propagation delays; in practice these vary with congestion and topology, degrading synchronization.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RATA/CASU/GAROTA provide the claimed hardware security properties, including unforgeable LMT, PMEM immutability, and guaranteed NetTCB/TimerTCB execution.
    TRAIN's TOCTOURA and liveness guarantees are inherited from these prior architectures without re-derivation; see Sections 2.4 and 3.1.
  • domain assumption Network is connected and quasi-static, and Vrf is within broadcast range of at least one Prv during attestation.
    Stated in Section 3.1; if invalid, request propagation and report collection fail.
  • domain assumption TRAINA assumes RTCs are synchronized with Vrf; TRAINB assumes uniform per-hop delays and a known network height.
    Section 4.1 and Section 6.1; synchronization precision and the claimed TOCTOU_NA reduction depend on these assumptions.
  • domain assumption Hash functions are one-way and MACs are unforgeable under the Dolev-Yao adversary.
    Standard cryptographic assumptions invoked throughout Section 6.1 for request and report authentication.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TOCTOU Resilient Attestation for IoT Networks (Full Version)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GGHGOWRA

@misc{pith2026250207053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TOCTOU Resilient Attestation for IoT Networks (Full Version)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GGHGOWRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07053}
}
read the original abstract

Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices are increasingly common in both consumer and industrial settings, often performing safety-critical functions. Although securing these devices is vital, manufacturers typically neglect security issues or address them as an afterthought. This is of particular importance in IoT networks, e.g., in the industrial automation settings. To this end, network attestation -- verifying the software state of all devices in a network -- is a promising mitigation approach. However, current network attestation schemes have certain shortcomings: (1) lengthy TOCTOU (Time-Of-Check-Time-Of-Use) vulnerability windows, (2) high latency and resource overhead, and (3) susceptibility to interference from compromised devices. To address these limitations, we construct TRAIN (TOCTOU-Resilient Attestation for IoT Networks), an efficient technique that minimizes TOCTOU windows, ensures constant-time per-device attestation, and maintains resilience even with multiple compromised devices. We demonstrate TRAIN's viability and evaluate its performance via a fully functional and publicly available prototype.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TOCTOU Window Minimized by TRAIN Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use (TOCTOU): Prior techniques do not guarantee simultaneous (synchronized) attestation across all net￾worked devices. Network structure, potential mobility, intermittent connectivity, and congestion can lead to staggered reception of RA requests, thus widening the time window for discrepancies in RA timing. Also, even if networked devices are all of the same… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Vrf State Machine 4.1 TRAINA: RTC-Based NA Technique Commodity RTCs, such as MCP7940MT-I/SM [55], are now readily available for under $0.60 per unit. This affordability marks a sig￾nificant shift from the past, when real-time security features were often too costly for IoT devices. This motivates our design of an NA protocol for devices with RTCs. We begin by presenting this simple variant of the core ideas of TRAIN… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prv State Machine P2.1: Prv checks if HashInd𝐶𝑢𝑟 > HashInd𝑁 𝑒𝑤 and t𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 > 𝑇 , where 𝑇 is its current RTC value. If either check fails, it discards Att𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡 and returns to Idle. P2.2: Prv computes and checks whether 𝐻 𝑠 (Hash𝑁 𝑒𝑤) ? = Hash𝐶𝑢𝑟, where 𝑠 = HashInd𝐶𝑢𝑟−HashInd𝑁 𝑒𝑤. 3 If not, it discards Att𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡 and returns to Idle. (Note that a Prv might receive duplicate Att𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡-s from multiple neighbors; it s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TRAIN Proof-Of-Concept with Three Prv-s Also, TimerTCB is triggered to start attestation whenever the timer expires in the Attest-Wait state. For cryptographic operations we use a formally verified cryptographic library, HACL* [26]. It pro￾vides high-assurance implemen…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TRAINCASU Hardware Security Properties capturing temporal dependencies and expected behavior over time, ensuring that TRAINCASU meets stringent security standards [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hardware Overhead Comparison Request Report Architecture Verification Generation Time (ms) Time (ms) TRAINCASU (@ 8MHz) 13.0 29.5 TRAINRATA (@ 8MHz) 12.9 29.8 SEDA Initiator (SMART) (@ 8MHz) N/A 56900 + 256 ∗ 𝑔 SEDA participating devices (SMART) (@ 8MHz) N/A 96 + 256 ∗…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TRAIN Simulation for Line/Star Topologies 6.4 Energy Consumption Dynamic power consumption measurements from Xilinx Vivado show that TRAINCASU and TRAINRATA consume 115𝑚𝑊 , of which 111𝑚𝑊 is consumed by either CASU or RATA. This represents a 2% increase in total on-chi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tigist Abera, Raad Bahmani, Ferdinand Brasser, Ahmad Ibrahim, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, and Matthias Schunter. 2019. DIAT: Data Integrity Attestation for Resilient Collaboration of Autonomous Systems.. In NDSS

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Abdulla Aldoseri, Tom Chothia, Jose Moreira, and David Oswald. 2023. Sym- bolic modelling of remote attestation protocols for device and app integrity on Android. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    2022.{GAROTA}: generalized active{Root-Of-Trust} architecture (for tiny embedded devices)

    Esmerald Aliaj, Ivan De Oliveira Nunes, and Gene Tsudik. 2022.{GAROTA}: generalized active{Root-Of-Trust} architecture (for tiny embedded devices). In 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Moreno Ambrosin, Mauro Conti, Ahmad Ibrahim, Gregory Neven, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, and Matthias Schunter. 2016. SANA: Secure and scalable aggregate network attestation. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Fatemeh Arkannezhad, Justin Feng, and Nader Sehatbakhsh. 2024. IDA: Hybrid Attestation with Support for Interrupts and TOCTOU. In 31th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Arm Ltd. 2018. Arm TrustZone. https://www.arm.com/products/security-on- arm/trustzone/

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Nadarajah Asokan, Ferdinand Brasser, Ahmad Ibrahim, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, Matthias Schunter, Gene Tsudik, and Christian Wachsmann. 2015. Seda: Scalable embedded device attestation. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Ferdinand Brasser, Brahim El Mahjoub, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, Christian Wachs- mann, and Patrick Koeberl. 2015. TyTAN: tiny trust anchor for tiny devices. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Design Automation Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, June 7-11, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Ferdinand Brasser, Kasper Bonne Rasmussen, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, and Gene Tsudik. 2016. Remote attestation for low-end embedded devices: the prover’s perspective. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC 2016, Austin, TX, USA, June 5-9, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Xavier Carpent, Karim ElDefrawy, Norrathep Rattanavipanon, and Gene Tsudik

  3. [11]

    Guoxing Chen and Yinqian Zhang. 2022. {MAGE}: Mutual Attestation for a Group of Enclaves without Trusted Third Parties. In 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Guoxing Chen, Yinqian Zhang, and Ten-Hwang Lai. 2019. Opera: Open remote attestation for intel’s secure enclaves. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    2019

  5. [13]

    Alessandro Cimatti, Edmund Clarke, Enrico Giunchiglia, Fausto Giunchiglia, Marco Pistore, Marco Roveri, Roberto Sebastiani, and Armando Tacchella. 2002. Nusmv 2: An opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In Computer Aided Verification: 14th International Conference, CAV ...

    2002

  6. [14]

    Ivan De Oliveira Nunes, Sashidhar Jakkamsetti, Youngil Kim, and Gene Tsudik

  7. [15]

    Ivan De Oliveira Nunes, Sashidhar Jakkamsetti, Norrathep Rattanavipanon, and Gene Tsudik. 2021. On the TOCTOU problem in remote attestation. In Proceed- ings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    2021

  8. [16]

    Dolev and A

    D. Dolev and A. Yao. 1983. On the security of public key protocols. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (1983)

    1983

  9. [17]

    Karim Eldefrawy, Gene Tsudik, Aurélien Francillon, and Daniele Perito. 2012. SMART: Secure and Minimal Architecture for (Establishing Dynamic) Root of Trust. In NDSS

    2012

  10. [18]

    Dmitry Evtyushkin, Jesse Elwell, Meltem Ozsoy, Dmitry Ponomarev, Nael Abu Ghazaleh, and Ryan Riley. 2014. Iso-x: A flexible architecture for hardware- managed isolated execution. In 2014 47th Annual IEEE/ACM International Sym- posium on Microarchitecture

    2014

  11. [19]

    Erhu Feng, Xu Lu, Dong Du, Bicheng Yang, Xueqiang Jiang, Yubin Xia, Binyu Zang, and Haibo Chen. 2021. Scalable memory protection in the{PENGLAI} enclave. In 15th{USENIX} Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Imple- mentation ({OSDI} 21)

    2021

  12. [20]

    2019.{PAtt}: Physics-based Attestation of Control Systems

    Hamid Reza Ghaeini, Matthew Chan, Raad Bahmani, Ferdinand Brasser, Luis Garcia, Jianying Zhou, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, Nils Ole Tippenhauer, and Saman Zonouz. 2019.{PAtt}: Physics-based Attestation of Control Systems. In 22nd International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusi...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Michele Grisafi, Mahmoud Ammar, Marco Roveri, and Bruno Crispo. 2022. {PISTIS}: Trusted Computing Architecture for Low-end Embedded Systems. In 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Ahmad Ibrahim, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, Gene Tsudik, and Shaza Zeitouni. 2016. Darpa: Device attestation resilient to physical attacks. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Security & Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks

    2016

  15. [23]

    Ahmad Ibrahim, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, and Shaza Zeitouni. 2017. SeED: secure non-interactive attestation for embedded devices. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on security and privacy in wireless and mobile networks

    2017

  16. [24]

    Intel. [n. d.]. Software Guard Extensions (Intel SGX). https://software.intel.com/ en-us/sgx/

  17. [25]

    Ahmed Irfan, Alessandro Cimatti, Alberto Griggio, Marco Roveri, and Roberto Sebastiani. 2016. Verilog2SMV: A tool for word-level verification. In2016 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 1156–1159

    2016

  18. [26]

    Protzenko J.-K

    J. Protzenko J.-K. Zinzindohoué, K. Bhargavan and B. Beurdouche. 2017. “Hacl*: A verified modern cryptographic library, In “Hacl*: A verified modern crypto- graphic library. CCS

    2017

  19. [27]

    Sashidhar Jakkamsetti, Youngil Kim, and Gene Tsudik. 2023. Caveat (IoT) Emptor: Towards Transparency of IoT Device Presence. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    2023

  20. [28]

    Patrick Koeberl, Steffen Schulz, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, and Vijay Varadharajan

  21. [29]

    Florian Kohnhäuser, Niklas Büscher, Sebastian Gabmeyer, and Stefan Katzen- beisser. 2017. Scapi: a scalable attestation protocol to detect software and physical attacks. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on security and privacy in wireless and mobile networks

    2017

  22. [30]

    Florian Kohnhäuser, Niklas Büscher, and Stefan Katzenbeisser. 2018. Salad: Secure and lightweight attestation of highly dynamic and disruptive networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    2018

  23. [31]

    Boyu Kuang, Anmin Fu, Shui Yu, Guomin Yang, Mang Su, and Yuqing Zhang

  24. [32]

    Leslie Lamport. 1981. Password Authentication with Insecure Communication. In Communications of the ACM 24.11

    1981

  25. [33]

    Yanlin Li, Jonathan M McCune, and Adrian Perrig. 2011. VIPER: Verifying the integrity of peripherals’ firmware. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security

    2011

  26. [34]

    Zhen Ling, Huaiyu Yan, Xinhui Shao, Junzhou Luo, Yiling Xu, Bryan Pearson, and Xinwen Fu. 2021. Secure boot, trusted boot and remote attestation for ARM TrustZone-based IoT Nodes. Journal of Systems Architecture (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Marwa Mamdouh, Mohamed AI Elrukhsi, and Ahmed Khattab. 2018. Securing the internet of things and wireless sensor networks via machine learning: A survey. In 2018 International Conference on Computer and Applications (ICCA)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Jonathan M McCune, Yanlin Li, Ning Qu, Zongwei Zhou, Anupam Datta, Vir- gil Gligor, and Adrian Perrig. 2010. TrustVisor: Efficient TCB reduction and attestation. In 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy

    2010

  29. [37]

    Kenneth L McMillan and Kenneth L McMillan. 1993. The SMV system.Symbolic Model Checking (1993), 61–85

    1993

  30. [38]

    Rajani Muraleedharan and Lisa Ann Osadciw. 2006. Jamming attack detection and countermeasures in wireless sensor network using ant system. In Wireless Sensing and Processing

    2006

  31. [39]

    Job Noorman, Pieter Agten, Wilfried Daniels, Raoul Strackx, Anthony Van Her- rewege, Christophe Huygens, Bart Preneel, Ingrid Verbauwhede, and Frank Piessens. 2013. Sancus: Low-cost trustworthy extensible networked devices with a zero-software trusted computing base. In 22nd U...

    2013

  32. [40]

    Ivan De Oliveira Nunes, Ghada Dessouky, Ahmad Ibrahim, Norrathep Rat- tanavipanon, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, and Gene Tsudik. 2019. Towards systematic design of collective remote attestation protocols. In 2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Ivan De Oliveira Nunes, Karim Eldefrawy, Norrathep Rattanavipanon, Michael Steiner, and Gene Tsudik. 2019. {VRASED}: A verified {Hardware/Software}{ Co-Design} for remote attestation. In 28th USENIX Secu- rity Symposium (USENIX Security 19)

    2019

  34. [42]

    2020.{APEX}: A verified architecture for proofs of execution on remote devices under full software compromise

    Ivan De Oliveira Nunes, Karim Eldefrawy, Norrathep Rattanavipanon, and Gene Tsudik. 2020.{APEX}: A verified architecture for proofs of execution on remote devices under full software compromise. In 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Johannes Obermaier and Vincent Immler. 2018. The past, present, and future of physical security enclosures: from battery-backed monitoring to puf-based inherent security and beyond. Journal of hardware and systems security (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Olivier Girard. 2009. OpenMSP430. https://opencores.org/projects/openmsp430/

    2009

  37. [45]

    OpenSim Ltd. [n. d.]. OMNeT++ Discrete Event Simulator. https://omnetpp.org/

  38. [46]

    Frolikov, Y

    P. Frolikov, Y . Kim, R. Prapty, G. Tsudik. [n. d.]. TRAIN source code. https: //github.com/sprout-uci/TRAIN

  39. [47]

    Adrian Perrig, JD Tygar, Adrian Perrig, and JD Tygar. 2003. TESLA broadcast authentication. Secure Broadcast Communication: In Wired and Wireless Networks (2003)

    2003

  40. [48]

    Lukas Petzi, Ala Eddine Ben Yahya, Alexandra Dmitrienko, Gene Tsudik, Thomas Prantl, and Samuel Kounev. 2022. {SCRAPS}: Scalable Collective Remote Attestation for{Pub-Sub}{ IoT} Networks with Untrusted Proxy Verifier. In31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Srivaths Ravi, Anand Raghunathan, and Srimat Chakradhar. 2004. Tamper resis- tance mechanisms for secure embedded systems. In VLSI Design

    2004

  42. [50]

    Nader Sehatbakhsh, Alireza Nazari, Haider Khan, Alenka Zajic, and Milos Prvulovic. 2019. Emma: Hardware/software attestation framework for embed- ded systems using electromagnetic signals. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture

    2019

  43. [51]

    Arvind Seshadri, Mark Luk, Adrian Perrig, Leendert Van Doorn, and Pradeep Khosla. 2006. SCUBA: Secure code update by attestation in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on Wireless security

    2006

  44. [52]

    Arvind Seshadri, Adrian Perrig, Leendert Van Doorn, and Pradeep Khosla. 2004. SW ATT: Software-based attestation for embedded devices. InIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2004. Proceedings. 2004

    2004

  45. [53]

    Raoul Strackx, Frank Piessens, and Bart Preneel. 2010. Efficient isolation of trusted subsystems in embedded systems. In Security and Privacy in Communica- tion Networks: 6th Iternational ICST Conference, SecureComm 2010, Singapore, September 7-9, 2010. Proceedings 6

    2010

  46. [54]

    Sebastian Surminski, Christian Niesler, Ferdinand Brasser, Lucas Davi, and Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi. 2021. Realswatt: Remote software-based attestation for embedded devices under realtime constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    2021

  47. [55]

    Microchip Technology. [n. d.]. MCP7940M: Low-Cost I2C Real-Time Clock/Calendar with SRAM. https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/ en/DeviceDoc/MCP7940M-Low-Cost%%20I2C-RTCC-with-SRAM- 20002292C.pdf

  48. [56]

    Texas Instruments. 2016. MSP430 GCC User’s Guide. https://www.ti.com/tool/ MSP430-GCC-OPENSOURCE/

    2016

  49. [57]

    2023.{ARI}: Attestation of Real-time Mission Execution Integrity

    Jinwen Wang, Yujie Wang, Ao Li, Yang Xiao, Ruide Zhang, Wenjing Lou, Y Thomas Hou, and Ning Zhang. 2023.{ARI}: Attestation of Real-time Mission Execution Integrity. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Wu Zhijun, Li Wenjing, Liu Liang, and Yue Meng. 2020. Low-rate DoS attacks, detection, defense, and challenges: A survey. IEEE access (2020). 15

    2020

  51. [2014]

    In EuroSys

    TrustLite: A security architecture for tiny embedded devices. In EuroSys

  52. [2017]

    In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    Lightweight swarm attestation: A tale of two lisa-s. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 14

    2017

  53. [2019]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2019)

    ESDRA: An efficient and secure distributed remote attestation scheme for IoT swarms. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2019)

    2019

  54. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design

    Casu: Compromise avoidance via secure update for low-end embedded systems. In Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.