Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 5 references

Physical and Software Based Fault Injection Attacks Against TEEs in Mobile Devices: A Systemisation of Knowledge

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

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

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that non-invasive fault injection, especially electromagnetic fault injection, is a growing and practical threat to Trusted Execution Environments that current architectures are not designed to stop.

desk verdict A serviceable narrative review of FI against TEEs with useful case-study numbers; not a systematic SoK, but the core EMFI claim survives the weak methodology once you look at the peer-reviewed sources. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14878 v1 pith:6XP5VS2N submitted 2024-11-22 cs.CR

Aaron Joy , Ben Soh , Zhi Zhang , Sri Parameswaran , Darshana Jayasinghe This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords faultinjectiontrustedexecutionenvironmentEMFIhardwaresoftwaresecurebootbypassTEEsecurityside-channeltrigger
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

This paper is a systematisation of what is known about fault injection against Trusted Execution Environments, the isolated processor zones that guard secure boot, keys, and payments on most phones. It tries to establish that the threat is dominated by non-invasive methods, above all electromagnetic fault injection, because they leave no physical trace, do not require opening the chip, and are harder to detect than older invasive attacks. If the paper's reading of the case studies is right, current TEE architectures are not designed for this class of attacker, and defences should shift toward real-time anomaly detection, electromagnetic shielding, and mandatory fault-injection testing before devices ship. A fair reader would take away that the security promise of TEEs is narrower than it appears, and that the bypasses are documented with concrete success rates rather than hypotheticals.

What carries the argument

The organising machinery is a two-dimensional classification: FI methods are split into hardware (clock, voltage, optical, electromagnetic) and software (code mutation, data corruption, resource exhaustion), and each attack is described by its trigger (side-channel leakage, timing, events, or environment manipulation) and the TEE component it targets (secure boot, cryptographic functions, restricted shell access, device functionality). This classification is what lets the paper aggregate heterogeneous case studies into a single threat assessment; the case-study collection is the load-bearing part of the argument, because each success rate is evidence for a particular attack's practicality.

What would settle it

A controlled replication study that took several current phones and IoT boards, repeated the cited EMFI, VFI, and software-based attacks under standard lab conditions, and measured bypass rates would settle the claim. If a dozen common TEE models showed near-zero successful bypasses with the same low-cost equipment, the paper's core threat assessment would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Trusted Execution Environments are increasingly vulnerable to fault injection attacks, and that the most worrying attacks are non-invasive: electromagnetic fault injection and voltage fault injection require no physical modification of the hardware and no contact with the die, so they can be mounted with low-cost, DIY equipment against real devices. The paper supports this with a structured survey of hardware fault injection (clock, voltage, optical, electromagnetic) and software fault injection (code mutation, data corruption, resource exhaustion), including documented case studies where secure boot checks, range checks, and cryptographic operations in TEEs were bypassed with success rates between 0.55% and 99%. It concludes that current TEE architectures lack adequate countermeasures, and that manufacturers and standards bodies should respond with dynamic anomaly detection, hardened designs, and mandatory fault-injection testing.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions rest on the accuracy and representativeness of the published and informal case studies summarised in Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.6; if those reports overstate success rates or skew toward the most spectacular attacks, the claim that non-invasive FI is a severe and growing threat loses its footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If non-invasive FI is as practical as the case studies suggest, secure boot on ARM TrustZone, QSEE, and similar TEEs should be assumed bypassable by an attacker with inexpensive DIY equipment and a timing side channel.
  • Fault injection should be treated as a standard item in TEE threat models, alongside software exploits, rather than as an exotic physical attack that only well-funded laboratories can mount.
  • Countermeasures that detect anomalies at runtime, such as monitoring voltage, clock, and electromagnetic environment, become a necessary complement to static isolation and cryptographic attestation.
  • Standards bodies and manufacturers would need to mandate fault-injection testing during design and production, because post-deployment patching does not fix a hardware behaviour that allows a glitch to skip an integrity check.
  • Hybrid software-hardware attacks, such as CLKSCREW and PMFault, show that software bugs in power-management interfaces can turn a remote attacker into a fault-injection attacker, expanding the attack surface beyond physical proximity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the success rates here are representative, the practical difference between 'hardware' and 'software' fault injection is blurring: several cited attacks are software-triggered glitches, so remote attackers might reproduce physical FI effects without ever touching the device.
  • The wide spread of reported success rates, from 0.55% to 99%, suggests the field would benefit from a standard reporting metric, such as number of injection attempts per successful security bypass, before countermeasure priorities can be compared across devices.
  • One testable extension is a public benchmark that replays the five or six cited attacks on current-generation devices to see whether hardening efforts have already changed the outcomes.
  • Another extension is to treat the trigger-mechanism taxonomy as a design checklist: if a chip's power-management or clock interface is reachable from normal software, that is a fault-injection vulnerability even when no physical probe is used.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a survey of fault injection (FI) techniques against Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs), organized into hardware-based methods (CFI, VFI, OFI, EMFI) and software-based methods (code mutation, data corruption, resource exhaustion, MSR/DVFS abuse, and cache manipulation). It compiles a set of case studies with concrete success rates, then draws conclusions about the growing practicality of non-invasive FI, particularly EMFI, and offers recommendations for countermeasures, standards, and future research.

Significance. If its claims stand, the paper is a useful reference for researchers and practitioners who want a compact map of physical and software FI attacks against TEEs. Its strengths include concrete success-rate data from selected primary sources, attention to low-cost tooling, and a clear enumeration of trigger mechanisms and targeted components in Sections 3.1.1-3.1.3 and 3.2.4-3.2.6. However, the case corpus is a convenience sample rather than a systematically selected and quality-filtered collection, and several conclusions about prevalence and effectiveness are stronger than the presented evidence supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.3 and Section 3.2.6; Abstract] The central claim that non-invasive FI, and EMFI in particular, is a growing, practical threat that current TEE defenses fail to mitigate is supported only by a small list of 'notable' case studies assembled without stated search or inclusion criteria. The list mixes peer-reviewed work with informal writeups ([Lim20], [Rae21]) and does not report how papers were located, screened, or quality-appraised. Because the Abstract and Sections 4-6 assert prevalence and trend ('growing accessibility and effectiveness', 'increasingly vulnerable'), the lack of a transparent corpus makes the main conclusion non-verifiable: the selected cases could be atypical high-success examples. A SoK should either add a methodology section with reproducible search and inclusion criteria, or explicitly re-frame the conclusions as observations on a convenience sample.
  2. [Section 3.1.3, Section 3.2.6, Section 4] The survey uses heterogeneous success rates as comparable evidence for its threat claim without normalizing for the different experimental conditions. For instance, [Fan+23] reports 83/15000 (0.55%) successful injections for bypassing Android secure-boot authentication, while [CH17] reports 72% success in reaching a U-Boot shell; these measure different goals, use different triggers, target different SoCs, and define 'success' differently. The paper does not analyze these dimensions before concluding in Section 4 that EMFI/VFI are increasingly effective. The success-rate data should be tabulated with target, fault type, trigger, and success definition, or the trend conclusion should be weakened.
  3. [Sections 5-6] The recommendations section presents measures such as dynamic anomaly detection, EMI shielding, and mandatory FI testing as direct implications of the survey, but the surveyed case studies are not used to evaluate whether these countermeasures would have prevented any of the described attacks, and no countermeasure literature is systematically reviewed. These are plausible directions, but as written they are generic advice rather than conclusions derived from the corpus. They should be either supported with references to existing countermeasure work or explicitly labeled as open research directions.
  4. [Title, Section 1, Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.6] The paper's stated scope is 'mobile devices', but the case-study set includes a server CPU (PMFault, [CO23]), Intel desktop CPUs (SGX-bomb, [Jan+17]), a Cisco IP phone ([CH17]), and a Qualcomm network-processor SoC ([Rae21]). The abstract also includes cloud platforms. The manuscript should define the intended target population and the inclusion criteria for case studies; otherwise the reader cannot determine which conclusions are meant to apply to mobile TEEs and which to other platforms.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1.2] The citation [Haq+20] for the definition of secure boot functions is incorrect: the cited paper is about semantic similarity metrics for source-code summarization, not secure boot. This reference should be replaced with a source that actually discusses secure boot.
  2. [Section 2.6] The paragraph labeled 'Non-Invasive Fault Injection Attacks' appears to summarize another survey or assessment, but no citation is given. In a systemisation of knowledge, every summarized work must be identifiable; add the citation or clearly identify this as the authors' own framework.
  3. [Section 2.5.1] The related-work heading cites '[Mun+2]', which should be '[Mun+23]' to match the bibliography entry [Mun+23].
  4. [Section 3.2.6] There are two small accuracy issues in the CLKSCREW case study: 'instruction skilling' should be 'instruction skipping', and the PMFault entry says 'BCM IC' where the context indicates 'BMC' (Baseboard Management Controller).
  5. [Section 3.2.6] The CacheWarp case study describes the attack as 'resource exhaustion of the AMD SEV's Cache function'; this is imprecise relative to the source paper's description of the attack mechanism. Please align the summary with [Zha+24].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a survey whose claims trace to external primary sources; no self-citation, fitted-input, or definitional reduction is present.

full rationale

This paper is a Systemisation of Knowledge, not a derivation. Its central claim—that non-invasive FI, especially EMFI, poses a practical and growing threat to TEEs—is supported by a compiled list of external case studies (e.g., [CH17], [Fan+23]) and by prior surveys ([BH22], [She+22]), not by equations or by the paper's own definitions. No parameter is fitted and no quantity is predicted from another quantity defined in terms of it. There are no self-citations among the authors, so no load-bearing self-citation chain exists. The main methodological weakness, that the 'notable papers' in Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.6 are selected without a stated systematic search or quality filter, is a validity/selection-bias concern, not a circularity concern: the conclusion is not equivalent to its input by construction, it simply inherits the reliability of the secondary sources. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a survey and introduces no free parameters or invented entities. The load-bearing assumptions are the reliability of the cited literature, the representativeness of the selected case studies, and the vendor-provided descriptions of TEE security features.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The cited primary sources accurately report the attacks, their success rates, and their impacts.
    The survey builds its evidence base entirely on descriptions of attacks from papers and blog posts (e.g., [Lim20], [Rae21], [Zha+24]). If any of these sources are inaccurate or misinterpreted, the survey's conclusions about the threat landscape and its recommendations are compromised. This assumption is load-bearing because the paper provides no independent verification.
  • domain assumption The set of selected case studies and reviewed papers is representative of fault injection threats to TEEs.
    The survey does not describe a systematic search or selection methodology; it states it assesses 'some of the notable papers' (Section 3.1.3). The lack of inclusion criteria means the selection may be biased, and if the sample is not representative, the generalization that TEEs are increasingly vulnerable and that EMFI is the most important vector may not hold.
  • domain assumption The definitions and security properties of TEEs, such as isolation and secure boot, are as described in the cited vendor documentation.
    The background in Section 2.4 relies on vendor datasheets and technical documentation (e.g., [ARM04], [Int22], [Qua11]) without independent validation of the security guarantees. If these documents misstate capabilities, the framing of what is at risk changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physical and Software Based Fault Injection Attacks Against TEEs in Mobile Devices: A Systemisation of Knowledge." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6XP5VS2N

@misc{pith2026241114878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physical and Software Based Fault Injection Attacks Against TEEs in Mobile Devices: A Systemisation of Knowledge},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6XP5VS2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14878}
}
read the original abstract

Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) are critical components of modern secure computing, providing isolated zones in processors to safeguard sensitive data and execute secure operations. Despite their importance, TEEs are increasingly vulnerable to fault injection (FI) attacks, including both physical methods, such as Electromagnetic Fault Injection (EMFI), and software-based techniques. This survey examines these FI methodologies, exploring their ability to disrupt TEE operations and expose vulnerabilities in devices ranging from smartphones and IoT systems to cloud platforms. The study highlights the evolution and effectiveness of non-invasive techniques, such as EMFI, which induce faults through electromagnetic disturbances without physical modifications to hardware, making them harder to detect and mitigate. Real-world case studies illustrate the significant risks posed by these attacks, including unauthorised access, privilege escalation, and data corruption. In addition, the survey identifies gaps in existing TEE security architectures and emphasises the need for enhanced countermeasures, such as dynamic anomaly detection and updated threat models. The findings underline the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration to address these vulnerabilities, involving researchers, manufacturers, and policymakers. This survey provides actionable insights and recommendations to guide the development of more robust TEE architectures in mobile devices, fortify FI resilience, and shape global security standards. By advancing TEE security, this research aims to protect critical digital infrastructure and maintain trust in secure computing systems worldwide.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [488]

    Fault Attacks on Secure Em- bedded Software: Threats, Design, and Evaluation

    issn: 1553877X. doi: 10.1109/COMST.2017.2779824. [YSW18] Bilgiday Yuce, Patrick Schaumont, and Mar c Witteman. “Fault Attacks on Secure Em- bedded Software: Threats, Design, and Evaluation”. In: Journal of Hardware and Systems Security 2 (2 June 2018), pp. 111–130. issn: 2509-3428. doi: 10.1007/s41635-018-0038-1. [ARM19] ARM. TrustZone for Armv8-A. 2019. ...

    arXiv 2019

  2. [1996]

    Fault injection techniques and tools

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/185403.185412. [THI97] T.K Tsai, Mei-Chen Hsueh, and R.K. Iye r. “Fault injection techniques and tools”. In: Computer 30 (4 Apr. 1997), pp. 75–82. issn: 00189162. doi: 10.1109/2.585157. url: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/585157/. [CCS99] J.V. Carreira, D. Costa, and J.G. Silva . “Fault injection spot-checks computer syst...

    work page arXiv 2006

  3. [2012]

    Fault Inj ection Attacks on Cryptographic Devices: The- ory, Practice, and Countermeasures

    url: http://www.amd.com.. [Bar+12] Alessandro Barenghi et al. “Fault Inj ection Attacks on Cryptographic Devices: The- ory, Practice, and Countermeasures”. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 100 (11 Nov. 2012), pp. 3056–

    work page 2012

  4. [2020]

    Semantic Similarity Metrics for Evaluating Source Code Summariza- tion

    url: https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/epyc-business- docs / white - papers / SEV - SNP - strengthening - vm - isolation - with - integrity - protection-and-more.pdf. [BWM20] Marcel Busch, Johannes Westphal, and Tilo Mu¨ ller. Unearthing the TrustedCore: A Crit- ical Review on Huawei’s Trusted Execution Env ironment . 2020. url: https : / /...

    arXiv 2024

  5. [3076]

    Experimental Analy sis of Binary-Level Software Fault Injection in Complex Software

    issn: 0018-9219. doi: 10 . 1109 / JPROC . 2012 . 2188769. url: http : / / ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6178001/. [Cot+12] D. Cotroneo et al. “Experimental Analy sis of Binary-Level Software Fault Injection in Complex Software”. In: 2012 Ninth European Dependable Computing Conference. IEEE, May 2012, pp. 162–172. isbn: 978-1-4673-0938-7. doi: 10.1109/EDCC....

    work page arXiv 2012

Pith tools

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