International Association
for Cryptologic Research

Locking-based intellectual property (IP) protection for integrated circuits (ICs) being manufactured at untrusted facilities has been largely defeated by the satisfiability (SAT) attack, which can retrieve the secret key needed for instantiating proprietary functionality on locked circuits. As a result, redaction-based methods have gained popularity as a more secure way of protecting hardware IP. Among these methods, transistor-level programming (TRAP) prohibits the outright use of SAT attacks due to the mismatch between the logic-level at which SAT attack operates and the switch-level at which the TRAP fabric is programmed. Herein, we discuss the challenges involved in launching SAT attacks on TRAP and we propose solutions which enable expression of TRAP in propositional logic modeling in a way that accurately reflects switch-level circuit capabilities. Results obtained using a transistor-level SAT attack tool-set that we developed and are releasing corroborate that SAT attacks can be launched against TRAP. However, the increased complexity of switch-level circuit modeling prevents the attack from realistically compromising all but the most trivial IP-protected designs.

Logic locking aims to protect the intellectual property of a circuit from a fabricator by modifying the original logic of the circuit into a new “locked” circuit such that an entity without the key should not be able to learn anything about the original circuit. While logic locking provides a promising solution to outsourcing the fabrication of chips, unfortunately, several of the proposed logic locking systems have been broken. The lack of established secure techniques stems in part from the absence of a rigorous treatment toward a notion of security for logic locking, and the disconnection between practice and formalisms. We seek to address this gap by introducing formal definitions to capture the desired security of logic locking schemes. In doing so, we investigate prior definitional efforts in this space, and show that these notions either incorrectly model the desired security goals or fail to capture a natural “compositional” property that would be desirable in a logic locking system. Finally we move to constructions. First, we show that universal circuits satisfy our security notions. Second, we show that, in order to do better than universal circuits, cryptographic assumptions are necessary.