Evaluating the security of logic encryption algorithms

By Pramod Subramanyan, Sayak Ray, Sharad Malik. IEEE International Symposium on Hardware Oriented Security and Trust, 2015

734 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

On Improving the Security of Logic Locking (2016, methodology): “These techniques include watermarking [20], fingerprinting [21], metering [22], and obfuscation/logic locking [1], [3], [13]–[15], [17], [23], [24].”
SARLock: SAT attack resistant logic locking (2016, methodology): “:Miter-likecircuittodetermineDIPs[14]. toidentifythecorrectkey[14].”
Provably-Secure Logic Locking: From Theory To Practice (2017, methodology): “In particular, we launch the SAT aack [44] and the AppSAT [40] against the proposed techniques.”
AppSAT: Approximately deobfuscating integrated circuits (2017, methodology): “The most recent and strongest deobfuscation attack is one utilizing Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) solvers which we refer to as the SAT attack throughout this paper [4], [5].”
NN-Lock: A Lightweight Authorization to Prevent IP Threats of Deep Learning Models (2022, methodology): “SAT/SMT-based techniques [Azar et al. 2019; Subramanyan et al. 2015] are quite popular for breaking logic-locking constructions, and due to the similarity mentioned above,”