Secure Goal-Oriented Communication: Defending against Eavesdropping Timing Attacks

Andrea Zanella; Federico Chiariotti; Federico Mason; Pietro Talli

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Secure Goal-Oriented Communication: Defending against Eavesdropping Timing Attacks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Goal-oriented schedulers leak the monitored state through transmission timing, and two heuristics cut the leakage roughly in half.

desk verdict GoC timing side channel is a real problem, and the two defenses are sensible, but the index error in Eq. (8) undermines the printed numbers until corrected. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14212 v1 pith:UWVIKRGR submitted 2025-07-15 cs.CR cs.SYeess.SY

Federico Mason , Federico Chiariotti , Pietro Talli , Andrea Zanella This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CRcs.SYeess.SY

keywords goal-orientedcommunicationtimingsidechanneleavesdroppinghiddenMarkovmodelinformationleakageopacityremoteestimationcontrol

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

Goal-oriented communication (GoC) schedules transmissions only when an update serves the receiver's task, yet this paper argues that the very timing of those transmissions is a side channel: an eavesdropper who knows the Markov process and the scheduling rule can infer the remote state even when message content is perfectly encrypted. The authors formalize the attack as a hidden Markov model with a leakage metric based on an opacity time gap, and show that a naive GoC scheduler lets Eve guess the state about 60% of the time. They then propose two heuristics—Alternating Defense from Eavesdropping (ADE), which switches to periodic updates when estimated leakage crosses thresholds, and Packing Defense from Eavesdropping (PDE), which maps several states to the same transmission interval to reduce scheduling entropy—and report that these can halve the leakage with only a marginal loss of GoC advantage. If correct, the work establishes timing-based leakage as a first-order security concern for GoC systems and provides practical countermeasures that do not require changing message content.

What carries the argument

The central object is the timing signal $\tau(k)$ — the number of steps between consecutive update requests — which turns the goal-oriented scheduler into a hidden Markov model whose observations are transmission times. Eve's inference is carried by the forward-backward recursion: Eq. (8) updates the forward probability $f_k(s)$ by propagating the previous state through the $\tau$-step transition distribution and enforcing consistency with the observed interval through the scheduling map $\sigma(\cdot)$, and Eq. (9) runs the same update backward; the product $f_k(s)b_k(s;n)$ gives the smoothed posterior $\varphi_k(s;n)$ used for maximum a posteriori state estimates. The secrecy metric is the information leakage $L_E(n;D)$, the maximum normalized entropy drop of Eve's belief over the last $D$ steps (with steady-state floor $L_{\min}$). On the defense side, ADE is driven by an online estimate of $L_E$ with hysteresis thresholds $(L_{\mathrm{low}}, L_{\mathrm{high}})$, while PDE is driven by the scheduling entropy $H(\sigma)$ defined in Eq. (14): it repeatedly applies the single-state deviation $\xi_{\sigma}^{(s^*,\tau)}$ that maximizes expected reward among policies with lower entropy, until a target entropy $H^*$ is reached. The theorem that any periodic policy is perfectly private (Theorem 2) is what licenses ADE's fallback mode.

What would settle it

Re-implement the attack on a small chain ($|\mathcal{S}|=2$) with Eq. (8) exactly as printed and compare Eve's posterior against a brute-force HMM filter; if the printed indices are used literally, the posterior diverges and the leakage curves cannot reproduce, whereas the paper's claims require the corrected recurrence $\zeta_{\tau(k),s'}(s)\,f_{k-1}(s')$ in place of the printed product.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in pull-based goal-oriented remote monitoring and control of a Markov process, the inter-transmission intervals chosen by the scheduler are themselves a hidden-state observation channel. Even if Alice's updates are encrypted with information-theoretic security, Eve—knowing the transition matrix $P$, the initial distribution, and the scheduling policy $\sigma(s)$—can run a forward-backward algorithm on the observed timing signal $\tau(k)$ to compute a posterior belief over the process state and beat steady-state guessing by a wide margin. The paper defines information leakage $L_E(n; D)$ as the normalized entropy drop of Eve's belief over the last $D$ steps, proves that any periodic policy is perfectly private in the estimation setting (leakage falls to the steady-state floor $L_{\min}$), and proves that computing the Nash equilibrium of the zero-sum game between Bob and Eve is exponentially hard in the state-space size. The constructive contributions are the ADE heuristic, which tracks Eve's leakage online and alternates between goal-oriented and periodic scheduling, and the PDE heuristic, which greedily packs scheduling intervals so that different states share transmission periods, lowering the entropy $H(\sigma)$ of the timing signal. Simulations over 30-state chains show that naive GoC lets Eve guess correctly about 60% of the time, while ADE and PDE roughly halve the leakage with a small reward penalty; the preferred heuristic flips by scenario, with ADE winning in estimation and PDE in control.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results depend on Eve's belief-update recursion in Eq. (8), printed with swapped state indices; the reported leakage and defense numbers rest on an unstated corrected version of that recursion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In pull-based GoC monitoring, an eavesdropper with knowledge of the process statistics and scheduling rule can estimate the state from transmission timing alone, so content encryption (even one-time pad) does not protect the system state.
Periodic scheduling is perfectly private in estimation tasks: as $n$ grows, leakage falls to the process's steady-state floor $L_{\min}$, because timing carries no state information.
Finding the jointly optimal defense under rational eavesdropping (the Nash equilibrium of the zero-sum one-sided partially observable stochastic game) is computationally intractable for nontrivial state spaces, so practical defenses must be heuristic.
The ADE heuristic caps leakage at a chosen threshold $L_{\mathrm{high}}$ while preserving roughly 10% reward gain over periodic scheduling in estimation tasks.
The PDE heuristic halves the entropy of the scheduling policy and, in control tasks, can reduce leakage from about 0.5 to below 0.2 while keeping reward close to the unsecured optimum.

Reading between the lines

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

The same timing side channel likely extends to push-based GoC, where Alice decides autonomously when to transmit; the paper's HMM framing should transfer if Alice's policy is known to Eve, and testing PDE-style interval packing there is a natural next step.
The leakage metric $L_E(n;D)$ with a finite opacity window suggests a stronger definition: a scheduler that keeps $L_E$ below a threshold for all $n$ is guaranteeing a form of finite-time opacity, which could be verified by model checking on the product of the Markov chain and the belief-state automaton.
PDE's entropy-packing objective is a promising template for cheap defenses on constrained IoT hardware: because it is computed offline as a lookup table, it avoids the online belief-tracking cost that ADE requires, which may matter more at scale than the estimation-scenario reward gap.

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

Two things to know. First, the paper identifies a genuine and under-explored vulnerability: in pull-based goal-oriented communication, the timing of Bob's requests leaks the state of a Markov process even when message content is perfectly encrypted. That claim is plausible and well-motivated. Second, the printed attack model is wrong: Eq. (8) has the indices of the transition kernel reversed. The forward recursion should use ζ_{τ(k),s'}(s), not ζ_{τ(k),s}(s'). As written, Eve's belief conditions on the future state, not the past. The kernel in Eq. (17) is asymmetric, so this is not a typo with no effect: the corrected and printed recursions give different beliefs. Since the leakage metric, Eve's accuracy, and the ADE switching rule all consume these beliefs, every quantitative result in Figs. 4–19 rests on an unstated correction. That is a load-bearing flaw, but it is fixable.

What the paper does well: the overall framework is sensible. The leak metric based on opacity time gap is reasonable; the two defenses (ADE and PDE) are intuitive and the experiments span estimation and control. The qualitative lesson — GoC schedules reveal state via timing, and periodic/packed schedules trade secrecy for efficiency — is likely correct and useful. I agree with the reader that this is not a circularity problem; the self-citation to the authors' MPI algorithm is legitimate.

The smaller soft spots: Theorem 1 claims exponential hardness of finding a Nash equilibrium, but the proof only shows the explicit LP has exponential size, not that the problem is inherently hard. The simulations use 10 episodes per configuration without error bars, the θ range in the text ([1,27]) disagrees with the figures (log2(θ) up to 7), and no code or data are provided. Theorem 2's statement about perfect privacy for periodic policies is also overbroad for control scenarios, which the authors partly acknowledge.

Bottom line: this paper deserves a serious referee, but only after major revision. A referee should demand a corrected Eq. (8), rerun or verify the simulations, and ask for the artifacts. The core idea is worth engaging with; the numbers as printed are not trustworthy.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies timing side-channel attacks against pull-based goal-oriented communication (GoC) for remote estimation and control of a finite Markov process. Alice observes the state, Bob requests updates according to a GoC scheduling policy, and Eve observes only the timing of requests while knowing the transition matrix and the policy. The paper defines an opacity-gap leakage metric L_E(n;D), models Eve's inference as an HMM with forward-backward recursions, claims computational hardness of finding a Nash equilibrium for the resulting game, and proposes two heuristics, ADE and PDE, to trade off secrecy against task reward. The claims are supported by Monte Carlo simulations in both estimation and control scenarios comparing the MPI GoC policy, a periodic policy, and the two heuristics in terms of leakage, reward, and Eve's accuracy.

Significance. If correct, the paper is a timely and useful contribution: it identifies a side channel that is specific to GoC, quantifies it with an opacity-based leakage metric, and offers two practical defenses with plausible trade-offs. The qualitative claim that naive GoC scheduling leaks substantial state information through transmission timing, and that heuristic defenses can reduce leakage with limited reward loss, is plausible and worth publishing. However, several load-bearing issues remain: Eq. (8) contains a likely index error in the forward recursion that all quantitative results depend on, the simulation settings are inconsistent and statistically weak, and the hardness proof of Theorem 1 does not establish the stated lower bound. The paper does not provide code or detailed per-configuration statistics, which amplifies reproducibility concerns. With these issues fixed, the contribution would be suitable for a journal publication.

major comments (4)

[Eq. (8), Sec. IV-B] The forward recursion as printed is f_k(s) = Σ_{s'} ζ_{τ(k),s}(s') δ(τ(k), σ(s')) f_{k-1}(s'). By Eq. (3), ζ_{τ,s}(s') is the probability of being in state s' after τ steps starting from state s, so the printed kernel propagates information backward from the current state s to the previous state s', rather than forward from s' to s. Because the transition law in Eq. (17) is asymmetric, the correct recursion must use ζ_{τ(k),s'}(s). The inconsistency is confirmed by the proof of Theorem 2, which uses (P^T)_{s',s}, i.e., the corrected orientation. Since L_E(n;D), η, ϕ_k, and Algorithm 1 all consume this recursion, the quantitative results in Figs. 4–9 and 12–19 rest on an unstated correction. The authors must state which recursion was implemented and, if the printed one was used, recompute all affected results.
[Theorem 1, Sec. V] The proof that finding a Nash equilibrium is computationally hard does not establish the claim. From the fact that Bob's policy space has exponentially many elements, it only follows that the explicit Dantzig LP written down in Eq. (13) has exponential size; it does not rule out polynomial-time algorithms for the structured one-sided zero-sum POMDP, nor does it show that the LP cannot be solved in time polynomial in the natural parameters of the problem. The authors should either provide a proper hardness reduction from a known hard problem, or restate the claim as a complexity statement about the explicit matrix-game formulation rather than about the original game-theoretic problem.
[Sec. VI-A and Figs. 5–8, 13–16] The simulation settings are not reproducible as written and the statistics are too weak for the quantitative claims. The text states θ ∈ [1, 27], but the heatmaps use log2(θ) up to 7 (θ = 128) and the single-episode and D-sweep experiments use θ = 32; this discrepancy must be resolved. In addition, the heatmaps use only Nep = 10 episodes per configuration with no error bars, which is insufficient for a 30-state Markov chain over 200 steps to support comparisons such as 'ADE halves leakage' or 'PDE is better than ADE in control.' The authors should report the exact parameter grid, increase the number of episodes, and provide confidence intervals or error bars for all averaged quantities.
[Algorithm 1, Sec. V-A] The ADE pseudocode is not fully specified. The calls LE(σ(s)) and LE(T) in lines 3 and 8 are not defined: the leakage L_E in Eq. (5) depends on the current time n, the observation history, and the opacity gap D, and it is not clear how these are combined with the planned next transmission interval. The function inputs f, b, τ are also unused in the pseudocode. Without a precise definition of the leakage computation used inside the scheduler, a reader cannot reproduce the ADE results.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (5)-(6), Sec. IV-A] The statement that leakage can never be less than Lmin = 1 − H(µ)/H0 should be qualified: it holds when the delay d can reach the stationary regime within the window {0,...,D}, i.e., when D is at least on the order of the mixing time of the chain.
[Eq. (11), Sec. IV-B] Equation (11) appears to factor the posterior probability of the two transmitted states s′ and s″ as ϕ_k(s′)ϕ_{k+1}(s″), which is an approximation unless the posterior marginals are independent; this should be stated explicitly.
[Figs. 2-3 and 10-11] The heatmap color bars and axis ranges are not accompanied by the number of runs or standard deviations; please add this information either in the captions or in the text.
[Sec. VI-C, Fig. 13] The text says that for PP 'the performance does not change in the different scenarios,' but Fig. 13a shows that PP leakage in the control scenario is non-negligible and varies with θ and β; please reconcile this wording with the displayed results.
[Sec. VI-A] The paper refers to θ ∈ [1, 27] but also uses θ = 32 in Figs. 4, 9, 12, 17, 18, and 19; please correct the stated range or the experimental values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the attack metric, defenses, and simulations are independently defined, and the only self-citation (MPI baseline) is not load-bearing for the security claims.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the claimed security results. The leakage metric L_E in Eq. (5) is defined from Eve's HMM beliefs and is not fitted to the defenses; ADE's thresholding is an explicit control loop rather than a hidden fit, and the paper states 'By design, the ADE algorithm keeps the leakage between Llow and Lhigh,' so the reported containment is a design property that is also explored over a Pareto frontier of threshold settings. PDE is derived from an entropy proxy H(σ) and then evaluated against L_E, so the proxy is not assumed equal to the leakage metric. The use of the authors' prior MPI algorithm [11] as the GoC baseline, and the citation of [11, Th. 2] for GoC's reward advantage, are self-citations, but they are not load-bearing for the timing-attack analysis: the attack model and the defenses would be defined for any non-periodic scheduler, and the MPI policy is only a comparison point. The internal index inconsistency in Eq. (8) is a correctness and reproducibility concern about the printed forward recursion, not a circularity of the argument, and therefore does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several hand-chosen simulation parameters (beta, theta, D, Llow, Lhigh, H*, Tmax) and on the correctness of the HMM forward-backward recursion. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unstated premise is that the MPI policy from [11] is truly optimal and that the printed Eq. (8) is a typographical error rather than the implemented recursion.

free parameters (6)

transmission cost beta = 0.2 to 2 (sweep)
Swept over a range in simulations; the trade-off between GoC reward and leakage depends on it. Not fitted to data, but central to reported trade-offs.
density decay theta = 1 to 27 (text) / up to 128 (figures)
Controls the predictability of the Markov chain; the paper's inconsistency between the stated range and the plotted range (theta=32) is a text error.
opacity time gap D = 5 (default), 1, 10, 15 in parameter study
Chosen by hand; leakage grows with D, and the relative ranking of ADE and PDE reverses with D.
ADE thresholds Llow, Lhigh = 0.4 and 0.6
Hand-chosen; they directly set the operating point of the ADE defense and the reported leakage bound.
PDE target entropy H* = 0.5 * H(sigma(0))
Hand-chosen stopping criterion; determines how much entropy (and leakage) PDE removes.
maximum scheduling interval Tmax = 10
Chosen for tractability; limits the scheduling function and the timing signal Eve can observe.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The remote process is a discrete-time recurrent Markov chain with known transition matrix P and initial distribution mu0 (Sec. III).
The entire HMM attack and GoC scheduling rely on this stochastic model.
domain assumption Communication delay is shorter than one time step, so a transmission reveals the current state to Bob immediately (Sec. III).
Simplifies the belief update to a renewal process; without it the timing signal changes.
domain assumption Eve knows P, mu0, the scheduling rule sigma, and all past transmission instants, but not the message content (Sec. IV).
This threat model is stated up front; if Eve does not know sigma, the attack and leakage values change.
domain assumption Bob's scheduling is pull-based and deterministic, with inter-transmission intervals sigma(s) determined by the last reported state (Eq. (4)).
The leakage formulas are built on this renewal structure.
standard math The optimal GoC policy is computed by the modified policy iteration algorithm of the authors' prior work [11] and is treated as a given input (Sec. III).
The paper relies on [11] for the baseline scheduling policy; no independent derivation or code is provided for this step.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secure Goal-Oriented Communication: Defending against Eavesdropping Timing Attacks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWVIKRGR

@misc{pith2026250714212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secure Goal-Oriented Communication: Defending against Eavesdropping Timing Attacks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWVIKRGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14212}
}

read the original abstract

Goal-oriented Communication (GoC) is a new paradigm that plans data transmission to occur only when it is instrumental for the receiver to achieve a certain goal. This leads to the advantage of reducing the frequency of transmissions significantly while maintaining adherence to the receiver's objectives. However, GoC scheduling also opens a timing-based side channel that an eavesdropper can exploit to obtain information about the state of the system. This type of attack sidesteps even information-theoretic security, as it exploits the timing of updates rather than their content. In this work, we study such an eavesdropping attack against pull-based goal-oriented scheduling for remote monitoring and control of Markov processes. We provide a theoretical framework for defining the effectiveness of the attack and propose possible countermeasures, including two practical heuristics that provide a balance between the performance gains offered by GoC and the amount of leaked information. Our results show that, while a naive goal-oriented scheduler allows the eavesdropper to correctly guess the system state about 60% of the time, our heuristic defenses can halve the leakage with a marginal reduction of the benefits of goal-oriented approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14212 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Characterization of the MPI policy as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Characterization of the PDE policy as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: shows the performance of PP while varying the communication cost β and density decay θ, and considering a total of Nep = 10 episodes for each configuration, with Nstep = 200. In addition to leakage (a), we consider the total reward R (b), defined in (1), the reward for…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: MPI performance as a function of θ and β in the estimation scenario, with D = 5. task rB (c), as well as the probability η that Eve correctly estimates the state of the Markov process (d), the latter defined as in (7). First, we observe that LE ≈ 0 for all system confi…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: ADE performance as a function of θ and β in the estimation scenario, with D = 5. as Bob’s state estimation accuracy rB, decrease for larger transmission costs (β, which yield longer inter-transmission periods) and more erratic transition probabilities (θ ≫ 1) [PITH_FU…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Expected leakage and reward as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Information leakage during a single episode in the control scenario, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Characterization of the PDE policy as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: PP performance as a function of θ and β in the control scenario, with D = 5. updates from Alice is inconvenient and MPI associates most states with the maximum inter-transmission interval Tmax. On the other hand, the entropy increases again for θ > 64, denoting that t…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: ADE performance as a function of θ and β in the control scenario, with D = 5. 0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 β log2 (θ) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 E [LE] (a) Leakage. 0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 β log2 (θ) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 E [R] (b) Total reward. 0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: PDE performance as a function of θ and β in the control scenario, with D = 5. except in scenarios with a low value of both θ and β, in which the initial MPI scheduling is more vulnerable. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Pareto frontier of the trade-off between information leakage and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Expected leakage and reward as a function of the opacity time gap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The mathematical theory of communi- cation. University of Illinois Press, Sep. 1949

1949
[2]

Beyond transmitting bits: Context, semantics, and task-oriented communica- tions,

D. G ¨und¨uz, Z. Qin, I. E. Aguerri, H. S. Dhillon, Z. Yang et al., “Beyond transmitting bits: Context, semantics, and task-oriented communica- tions,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 5–41, Jan. 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Deep joint source- channel coding for wireless image transmission,

E. Bourtsoulatze, D. Burth Kurka, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Deep joint source- channel coding for wireless image transmission,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 567–579, May 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Goal-oriented policies for cost of actuation error minimization in wireless autonomous sys- tems,

E. Fountoulakis, N. Pappas, and M. Kountouris, “Goal-oriented policies for cost of actuation error minimization in wireless autonomous sys- tems,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 2323–2327, Sep. 2023

work page 2023
[5]

A survey on semantic communication networks: Architecture, security, and privacy,

S. Guo, Y . Wang, N. Zhang, Z. Su, T. H. Luan, Z. Tian, and X. Shen, “A survey on semantic communication networks: Architecture, security, and privacy,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , Dec. 2024, Early Access

work page 2024
[6]

Deep joint source-channel and encryption coding: Secure semantic communications,

T.-Y . Tung and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Deep joint source-channel and encryption coding: Secure semantic communications,” in Proc. International Con- ference on Communications (ICC) . IEEE, May 2023, pp. 5620–5625

work page 2023
[7]

SemProtector: A unified framework for semantic protection in deep learning-based semantic communication systems,

X. Liu, G. Nan, Q. Cui, Z. Li, P. Liu et al. , “SemProtector: A unified framework for semantic protection in deep learning-based semantic communication systems,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 56–62, Nov. 2023

work page 2023
[8]

A compressive privacy approach to generalized informa- tion bottleneck and privacy funnel problems,

S. Y . Kung, “A compressive privacy approach to generalized informa- tion bottleneck and privacy funnel problems,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 355, no. 4, pp. 1846–1872, Mar. 2018

work page 2018

Show all 35 references

[9]

A nearly information theoretically secure approach for semantic communications over wiretap channel,

W. Chen, S. Shao, Q. Yang, Z. Zhang, and P. Zhang, “A nearly information theoretically secure approach for semantic communications over wiretap channel,” arXiv Preprint 2401.13980 , Jan. 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

The clock is still ticking: Timing attacks in the modern Web,

T. Van Goethem, W. Joosen, and N. Nikiforakis, “The clock is still ticking: Timing attacks in the modern Web,” in Proc. 22nd Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) . ACM SIGSAC, Oct. 2015, pp. 1382–1393

2015
[11]

Pragmatic communication for remote control of finite- state Markov processes,

P. Talli, E. D. Santi, F. Chiariotti, T. Soleymani, F. Mason, A. Zanella, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Pragmatic communication for remote control of finite- state Markov processes,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communi- cations, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 2589–2603, Jul. 2025

2025
[12]

Eavesdropping on goal-oriented communication: Timing attacks and countermeasures,

F. Mason, F. Chiariotti, P. Talli, and A. Zanella, “Eavesdropping on goal-oriented communication: Timing attacks and countermeasures,” in Proc. 8th INFOCOM Workshop on Age and Semantics of Information (INFOCOM ASoI). IEEE, May 2025

2025
[13]

Deep joint source- channel coding for image transmission with visual protection,

J. Xu, B. Ai, W. Chen, N. Wang, and M. Rodrigues, “Deep joint source- channel coding for image transmission with visual protection,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1399–1411, Dec. 2023

2023
[14]

Secure semantic communications: From perspective of physical layer security,

Y . Li, Z. Shi, H. Hu, Y . Fu, H. Wang, and H. Lei, “Secure semantic communications: From perspective of physical layer security,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 2243–2247, Oct. 2024

2024
[15]

Secure transmission in wireless semantic communications with adversarial training,

J. Shi, Q. Zhang, W. Zeng, S. Li, and Z. Qin, “Secure transmission in wireless semantic communications with adversarial training,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 487–491, Mar. 2025

2025
[16]

Semantic entropy can simultaneously benefit transmission efficiency and channel security of wireless semantic communications,

Y . Rong, G. Nan, M. Zhang, S. Chen, S. Wang et al. , “Semantic entropy can simultaneously benefit transmission efficiency and channel security of wireless semantic communications,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 20, pp. 2067–2082, Jan. 2025

2025
[17]

Secure and robust joint source- channel coding with semantic clustering and adversarial purification,

X. Huang, L. Zeng, Y . Lu, and J. An, “Secure and robust joint source- channel coding with semantic clustering and adversarial purification,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , Apr. 2025, Early Access

2025
[18]

Towards secure semantic communications in the presence of intelligent eaves- droppers,

S. Tang, Y . Chen, Q. Yang, R. Zhang, D. Niyato, and Z. Shi, “Towards secure semantic communications in the presence of intelligent eaves- droppers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23103 , Mar. 2025

2025 arXiv
[19]

CSBA: Covert semantic backdoor attack against intelligent connected vehicles,

X. Xu, Y . Chen, B. Wang, Z. Bian, S. Han et al. , “CSBA: Covert semantic backdoor attack against intelligent connected vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 73, no. 11, pp. 17 923– 17 928, Nov. 2024

2024
[20]

Secure seman- tic communications: Challenges, approaches, and opportunities,

M. Shen, J. Wang, H. Du, D. Niyato, X. Tang et al. , “Secure seman- tic communications: Challenges, approaches, and opportunities,” IEEE Network, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 197–206, Jul. 2024

2024
[21]

Secure semantic communications: Fundamentals and challenges,

Z. Yang, M. Chen, G. Li, Y . Yang, and Z. Zhang, “Secure semantic communications: Fundamentals and challenges,” IEEE Network, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 513–520, Nov. 2024

2024
[22]

A survey of secure semantic communications,

R. Meng, S. Gao, D. Fan, H. Gao, Y . Wang et al. , “A survey of secure semantic communications,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 239, p. 104181, Jul. 2025

2025
[23]

Mitigating timing side channel in shared schedulers,

S. Kadloor, N. Kiyavash, and P. Venkitasubramaniam, “Mitigating timing side channel in shared schedulers,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1562–1573, Jun. 2016

2016
[24]

TaskShuffler: A schedule randomization protocol for obfuscation against timing infer- ence attacks in real-time systems,

M.-K. Yoon, S. Mohan, C.-Y . Chen, and L. Sha, “TaskShuffler: A schedule randomization protocol for obfuscation against timing infer- ence attacks in real-time systems,” in Proc. Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS) . IEEE, Apr. 2016

2016
[25]

Timing attacks on access privacy in information centric networks and countermeasures,

A. Mohaisen, H. Mekky, X. Zhang, H. Xie, and Y . Kim, “Timing attacks on access privacy in information centric networks and countermeasures,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 675–687, Nov. 2015

2015
[26]

Decidability of opacity with non-atomic keys,

L. Mazar ´e, “Decidability of opacity with non-atomic keys,” in 18th World Computer Congress (WCC) . IFIP, Aug. 2004, pp. 71–84

2004
[27]

A new approach for the verification of infinite- step and k-step opacity using two-way observers,

X. Yin and S. Lafortune, “A new approach for the verification of infinite- step and k-step opacity using two-way observers,” Automatica, vol. 80, pp. 162–171, Jun. 2017

2017
[28]

Verification of k-step opacity and analysis of its complexity,

A. Saboori and C. N. Hadjicostis, “Verification of k-step opacity and analysis of its complexity,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 549–559, Jul. 2011

2011
[29]

Quantification of secrecy in partially observed stochastic discrete event systems,

J. Chen, M. Ibrahim, and R. Kumar, “Quantification of secrecy in partially observed stochastic discrete event systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 185–195, Jan. 2017

2017
[30]

On a notion of approximate opacity for discrete-time stochastic control systems,

S. Liu, X. Yin, and M. Zamani, “On a notion of approximate opacity for discrete-time stochastic control systems,” in Proc. American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, Jul. 2020, pp. 5413–5418

2020
[31]

Probabilistic opacity for Markov decision processes,

B. B ´erard, K. Chatterjee, and N. Sznajder, “Probabilistic opacity for Markov decision processes,” Information Processing Letters , vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 52–59, Jan. 2015

2015
[32]

Enforcement of opacity by public and private insertion functions,

Y . Ji, Y .-C. Wu, and S. Lafortune, “Enforcement of opacity by public and private insertion functions,” Automatica, vol. 93, pp. 369–378, Jul. 2018

2018
[33]

Solving zero-sum one-sided partially observable stochastic games,

K. Hor ´ak, B. Bo ˇsansk`y, V . Kova ˇr´ık, and C. Kiekintveld, “Solving zero-sum one-sided partially observable stochastic games,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 316, p. 103838, Mar. 2023

2023
[34]

HSVI can solve zero-sum partially observable stochastic games,

A. Delage, O. Buffet, J. S. Dibangoye, and A. Saffidine, “HSVI can solve zero-sum partially observable stochastic games,” Dynamic Games and Applications, vol. 14, pp. 751–805, Sep. 2023

2023
[35]

A proof of the equivalence of the programming problem and the game problem,

G. B. Dantzig, “A proof of the equivalence of the programming problem and the game problem,” in Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. John Wiley & Sons, Jan. 1951, ch. 20, pp. 330–338

1951

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The mathematical theory of communi- cation. University of Illinois Press, Sep. 1949

1949

[2] [2]

Beyond transmitting bits: Context, semantics, and task-oriented communica- tions,

D. G ¨und¨uz, Z. Qin, I. E. Aguerri, H. S. Dhillon, Z. Yang et al., “Beyond transmitting bits: Context, semantics, and task-oriented communica- tions,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 5–41, Jan. 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Deep joint source- channel coding for wireless image transmission,

E. Bourtsoulatze, D. Burth Kurka, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Deep joint source- channel coding for wireless image transmission,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 567–579, May 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Goal-oriented policies for cost of actuation error minimization in wireless autonomous sys- tems,

E. Fountoulakis, N. Pappas, and M. Kountouris, “Goal-oriented policies for cost of actuation error minimization in wireless autonomous sys- tems,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 2323–2327, Sep. 2023

work page 2023

[5] [5]

A survey on semantic communication networks: Architecture, security, and privacy,

S. Guo, Y . Wang, N. Zhang, Z. Su, T. H. Luan, Z. Tian, and X. Shen, “A survey on semantic communication networks: Architecture, security, and privacy,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , Dec. 2024, Early Access

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Deep joint source-channel and encryption coding: Secure semantic communications,

T.-Y . Tung and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Deep joint source-channel and encryption coding: Secure semantic communications,” in Proc. International Con- ference on Communications (ICC) . IEEE, May 2023, pp. 5620–5625

work page 2023

[7] [7]

SemProtector: A unified framework for semantic protection in deep learning-based semantic communication systems,

X. Liu, G. Nan, Q. Cui, Z. Li, P. Liu et al. , “SemProtector: A unified framework for semantic protection in deep learning-based semantic communication systems,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 56–62, Nov. 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

A compressive privacy approach to generalized informa- tion bottleneck and privacy funnel problems,

S. Y . Kung, “A compressive privacy approach to generalized informa- tion bottleneck and privacy funnel problems,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 355, no. 4, pp. 1846–1872, Mar. 2018

work page 2018