skip to main content

Title: Hardware Benchmarking of Round 2 Candidates in the NIST Lightweight Cryptography Standardization Process
Twenty five Round 2 candidates in the NIST Lightweight Cryptography (LWC) process have been implemented in hardware by groups from all over the world. All implementations compliant with the LWC Hardware API, proposed in 2019, have been submitted for hardware benchmarking to George Mason University's LWC benchmarking team. The received submissions were first verified for correct functionality and compliance with the hardware API's specification. Then, the execution times in clock cycles, as a function of input sizes, have been determined using behavioral simulation. The compatibility of all implementations with FPGA toolsets from three major vendors, Xilinx, Intel, and Lattice Semiconductor was verified. Optimized values of the maximum clock frequency and resource utilization metrics, such as the number of look-up tables (LUTs) and flip-flops (FFs), were obtained by running optimization tools, such as Minerva, ATHENa, and Xeda. The raw post-place and route results were then converted into values of the corresponding throughputs for long, medium-size, and short inputs. The results were presented in the form of easy to interpret graphs and tables, demonstrating the relative performance of all investigated algorithms. An effort was made to make the entire process as transparent as possible and results easily reproducible by other groups.
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1718434
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10299084
Journal Name:
2021 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE)
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
164 to 169
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Performance in hardware has typically played a major role in differentiating among leading candidates in cryptographic standardization efforts. Winners of two past NIST cryptographic contests (Rijndael in case of AES and Keccak in case of SHA-3) were ranked consistently among the two fastest candidates when implemented using FPGAs and ASICs. Hardware implementations of cryptographic operations may quite easily outperform software implementations for at least a subset of major performance metrics, such as speed, power consumption, and energy usage, as well as in terms of security against physical attacks, including side-channel analysis. Using hardware also permits much higher flexibility in trading one subset of these properties for another. A large number of candidates at the early stages of the standardization process makes the accurate and fair comparison very challenging. Nevertheless, in all major past cryptographic standardization efforts, future winners were identified quite early in the evaluation process and held their lead until the standard was selected. Additionally, identifying some candidates as either inherently slow or costly in hardware helped to eliminate a subset of candidates, saving countless hours of cryptanalysis. Finally, early implementations provided a baseline for future design space explorations, paving a way to more comprehensive and fairer benchmarking atmore »the later stages of a given cryptographic competition. In this paper, we first summarize, compare, and analyze results reported by other groups until mid-May 2020, i.e., until the end of Round 2 of the NIST PQC process. We then outline our own methodology for implementing and benchmarking PQC candidates using both hardware and software/hardware co-design approaches. We apply our hardware approach to 6 lattice-based CCA-secure Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs), representing 4 NIST PQC submissions. We then apply a software-hardware co-design approach to 12 lattice-based CCA-secure KEMs, representing 8 Round 2 submissions. We hope that, combined with results reported by other groups, our study will provide NIST with helpful information regarding the relative performance of a significant subset of Round 2 PQC candidates, assuming that at least their major operations, and possibly the entire algorithms, are off-loaded to hardware.« less
  2. Performance in hardware has typically played a major role in differentiating among leading candidates in cryptographic standardization efforts. Winners of two past NIST cryptographic contests (Rijndael in case of AES and Keccak in case of SHA-3) were ranked consistently among the two fastest candidates when implemented using FPGAs and ASICs. Hardware implementations of cryptographic operations may quite easily outperform software implementations for at least a subset of major performance metrics, such as speed, power consumption, and energy usage, as well as in terms of security against physical attacks, including side-channel analysis. Using hardware also permits much higher flexibility in trading one subset of these properties for another. A large number of candidates at the early stages of the standardization process makes the accurate and fair comparison very challenging. Nevertheless, in all major past cryptographic standardization efforts, future winners were identified quite early in the evaluation process and held their lead until the standard was selected. Additionally, identifying some candidates as either inherently slow or costly in hardware helped to eliminate a subset of candidates, saving countless hours of cryptanalysis. Finally, early implementations provided a baseline for future design space explorations, paving a way to more comprehensive and fairer benchmarking atmore »the later stages of a given cryptographic competition. In this paper, we first summarize, compare, and analyze results reported by other groups until mid-May 2020, i.e., until the end of Round 2 of the NIST PQC process. We then outline our own methodology for implementing and benchmarking PQC candidates using both hardware and software/hardware co-design approaches. We apply our hardware approach to 6 lattice-based CCA-secure Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs), representing 4 NIST PQC submissions. We then apply a software-hardware co-design approach to 12 lattice-based CCA-secure KEMs, representing 8 Round 2 submissions. We hope that, combined with results reported by other groups, our study will provide NIST with helpful information regarding the relative performance of a significant subset of Round 2 PQC candidates, assuming that at least their major operations, and possibly the entire algorithms, are off-loaded to hardware.« less
  3. Lightweight cryptography offers viable security solutions for resource constrained Internet of Things (IoT) devices. However, IoT devices have implementation vulnerabilities such as side channel attacks (SCA), where observation of physical phenomena associated with device operations can reveal sensitive internal contents. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology has called for lightweight cryptographic solutions to process authenticated encryption with associated data (AEAD), and is evaluating candidates for suitability in a Lightweight Cryptography (LWC) Standardization Process. Two Round 2 candidate variants, COMET-CHAM and SCHWAEMM, use Addition-Rotation-XOR (ARX) primitives. However, ARX ciphers are known to be costly to protect against certain SCA. In this work we implement side channel protected versions of COMET-CHAM and SCHWAEMM using register transfer level design. Identical protection schemes consisting of a threshold implementation (TI)-protected Kogge-Stone adder are adopted. Resistance to power side channel analysis is verified on an Artix-7 FPGA target device. Implementations comply with the Hardware API for Lightweight Cryptography, and use a custom-designed extension of the Development Package for the Hardware API for Lightweight Cryptography which enables test and evaluation of side channel resistant designs. We compare side channel protection costs of the two candidates against each other, against their unprotected counterparts, and against previousmore »side channel protected AEAD implementations. COMET-CHAM is shown to consume less area and power, while SCHWAEMM has higher throughput and throughput to area ratio, and is more energy efficient. On average, the costs of protecting these ciphers against SCA are 32% more in area and 38% more in power, compared to the average protection costs for a large selection of previously-evaluated ciphers of similar implementation. Our results highlight the costs involved in implementing side channel protected ARX-ciphers, and help to inform NIST LWC late round and final portfolio selections.« less
  4. It has been predicted that within the next tenfifteen years, quantum computers will have computational power sufficient to break current public-key cryptography schemes. When that happens, all traditional methods of dealing with the growing computational capabilities of potential attackers, such as increasing key sizes, will be futile. The only viable solution is to develop new standards based on algorithms that are resistant to quantum computer attacks and capable of being executed on traditional computing platforms, such as microprocessors and FPGAs. Leading candidates for new standards include lattice-based post-quantum cryptography (PQC) algorithms. In this paper, we present the results of implementing and benchmarking three lattice-based key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs) that have progressed to Round 2 of the NIST standardization process. Our implementations are based on a software/hardware codesign approach, which is particularly applicable to the current stage of the NIST PQC standardization process, where the large number and high complexity of the candidates make traditional hardware benchmarking extremely challenging. We propose and justify the choice of a suitable system-on-chip platform and design methodology. The obtained results indicate the potential for very substantial speed-ups vs. purely software implementations, reaching 28x for encapsulation and 20x for decapsulation.
  5. Lightweight authenticated ciphers are crucial in many resource-constrained applications, including hardware security. To protect Intellectual Property (IPs) from theft and reverse-engineering, multiple obfuscation methods have been developed. An essential component of such schemes is the need for secrecy and authenticity of the obfuscation keys. Such keys may need to be exchanged through the unprotected channels, and their recovery attempted using side-channel attacks. However, the use of the current AES-GCM standard to protected key exchange requires a substantial area and power overhead. NIST is currently coordinating a standardization process to select lightweight algorithms for resource-constrained applications. Although security against cryptanalysis is paramount, cost, performance, and resistance to side-channel attacks are among the most important selection criteria. Since the cost of protection against side-channel attacks is a function of the algorithm, quantifying this cost is necessary for estimating its cost and performance in real-world applications. In this work, we investigate side-channel resistant lightweight implementations of an authenticated cipher TinyJAMBU, one of ten finalists in the current NIST LWC standardization process. Our results demonstrate that these implementations achieve robust security against side-channel attacks while keeping the area and power consumption significantly lower than it is possible using the current standards.