diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex | 33 |
1 files changed, 17 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex b/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex index dbd8f07..1bd5395 100644 --- a/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex +++ b/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex @@ -80,10 +80,10 @@ this section with one half page of new content and one new diagram discussing fu \paragraph{Comparison of IHSM attacks to those on traditional HSMs.} In addition to the previous point, Reviewer~D pointed out that the discussion of attacks on IHSMs in our initial -submission would have benefited from a more thorough contextualization of the attacks possible on traditional HSMs. In -response, we have significantly extended Section~4 ``Attacks'' with one page of new content in two new Subsections~4.2 -``Attacks that don't work'' and~4.3 ``Attacks that work on any HSM'' that provide this missing context to guide the -reader. +submission would have benefited from a more thorough contextualization of the attacks possible on traditional HSMs. We +wish to thank the reviewer for their thorough and thoughtful comments. In response to this suggestion, we have +significantly extended Section~4 ``Attacks'' with one page of new content in two new Subsections~4.2 ``Attacks that +don't work'' and~4.3 ``Attacks that work on any HSM'' that provide this missing context to guide the reader. \paragraph{Notes on future work.} @@ -92,25 +92,26 @@ interesting. We have adressed this at the end of Section~7 ``Conclusion'' to the \paragraph{Design Artifact Availability.} -Reviewer~D stated that acceess to design artifacts would be useful for readers of the paper. While we cannot make our -design artifacts available as part of the peer review process as they contain a multitude of references to the -identities of the authors and their employer, we have added a brief appendix that the publication version of our -paper will contain with a link to the open-source repository containing all hardware, software and paper sources -relating to our research project. +Reviewer~D stated that acceess to design artifacts would be useful for readers of the paper. We are thankful for their +interest in the results of our work. While we cannot make our design artifacts available as part of the peer review +process as they contain a multitude of references to the identities of the authors and their employer, we have added a +brief appendix that the publication version of our paper will contain with a link to the open-source repository +containing all hardware, software and paper sources relating to our research project. \paragraph{Detailed discussion of contactless attacks.} Reviewer~C noted that like a traditional HSM an IHSM cannot prevent contactless attacks such as electromagnetic -sidechannel attacks or laser fault injection. While our initial submission acknowledged this property of our design, our -original submission did not provide a detailed discussion of its extent. In our revised paper, we have added a new -Section~4.2 ``Attacks that work on any HSM'' that provides more detail on contactless attacks. In this section we -observe that the IHSM design allows for some mitigations against contactless attacks due to the physically larger space -it can provide to its payload. +sidechannel attacks or laser fault injection. We wish to express our gratitude for the insightful comment. While our +initial submission acknowledged this property of our design, our original submission did not provide a detailed +discussion of its extent. In our revised paper, we have added a new Section~4.2 ``Attacks that work on any HSM'' that +provides more detail on contactless attacks. In this section we observe that the IHSM design allows for some mitigations +against contactless attacks due to the physically larger space it can provide to its payload. \paragraph{Justification of mesh monitor power consumption estimates.} A point noted by Reviewers~A and~B is that in our initial submission we provided an estimate on the current consumption -of an IHSM monitoring cirucit without providing a detailed justification of our estimate. In response, we have extended -Section~5.3 ``Power transmission from stator to rotor'' with a more detailed justification of this estimate. +of an IHSM monitoring circuit without providing a detailed justification of our estimate. We wish to thank the reviewers +for thoughtfully pointing out this oversight. In response, we have extended Section~5.3 ``Power transmission from stator +to rotor'' with a more detailed justification of this estimate. \end{document} |