《Securing System-in-Packages with Physical Unclonable Functions (PUF) Technology.pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Securing System-in-Packages with Physical Unclonable Functions (PUF) Technology.pdf(21页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、Securing System-in-Packages with PUF Technology-2-Track:ChipletsSecuring System-in-Packages with PUF TechnologyG.J.Schrijen,CTO-3-Based on Moores Law:fitting all functions on one dieIncreased valueArea size depends on technology node(technology scaling)Increased cost(e.g.expensive masks,R&D,)But we
2、are reaching the limits of Moores Law:Reticle size is limiting factor for die sizeCost increases drastically sub-28nm(process technology complexity)Analog&NVM do not scale longer time to marketTraditional Approach:Monolithic SoCMonolithic SoCCost and complexity push towards chip disaggregation-4-New
3、 Approach:Chip Disaggregation-or Heterogeneous Integration(HI)Drivers(Hyperscale)data centers,5G,HPC,AI/ML,Need high performance and low powerChallengesInterfaces and interface standardsSupply chain risksSecurity vulnerabilities at different levelsChipletInterposerSiPAdvantages of SiPKeep Moores Law
4、 alive!Shorter product development timeLower overall design costModularity and flexibilitySystem in Package(SiP)-5-Both may be physically or remotely attacked Traditional Security RisksMonolithic SoCSystem-in-PackageProtection needed against:fault injectioncontact-less probingside-channel analysis-6
5、-Extra Security Risks for SiPsMonolithic SoCChiplets from untrusted source can be:Malicious(e.g.HW Trojans)Vulnerable to attacksUnreliableCounterfeitsInjecting malicious circuits into chip is quite difficultTop-layer chip-to-chip interfaces are susceptible to man in the middle attacksOn-chip bussesF
6、oreign bodyTrusted chipletComponents put together in multiple locations trust in 3rdparties needed3rdparty can overproduce chiplets or steal IPSystem-in-Package-7-Traditional Security SolutionKeys injected from outsideRoTOTPSecure storage on chip Expensive Complex Not FeasibleHardware Root-of-Trust(