1 files changed, 27 insertions, 21 deletions
diff --git a/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex b/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex
index e26f169..ddbc6d0 100644
--- a/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex
+++ b/paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex
@@ -43,33 +43,37 @@
 \subtitle{Changes of Major Revision compared to version submitted to TCHES 21/4}
 \maketitle
 
-This document lists the requested revisions we identified from the reviewers comments and explains how we adressed these
-requests.
+We again wish to express our deep gratitude for the reviewers' profound insights and valuable feedback in the TCHES 21/4
+review round. After the program committee's ``major revision'' decision we have reflected upon our submission with the
+new insights we have gained from the reviewers' comments. In the remainder of this document, we will list the requested
+changes that we have identified from the reviewers' helpful comments and explain how we adressed these requests in the
+enclosed major revision of our submission. We hope that by extensively reworking our initial submission we have improved
+it to the satisfaction of the reviewers and program committee.
 
 \paragraph{Lack of discussion of operational constraints.}
 
-As pointed out by Reviewer~B, our initial submission lacked a detailed discussion of the operational constraints of
-Inertial Hardware Security Modules. We have adressed this with more than two pages of new content on the operation of
-IHSMs in the new Sections~3.5 ``Long-Term Operation'' and~3.6 ``Transportation''. In these sections we address the
-reviewers' points on the continuous power supply requirement and go into detail on the likelihood of spurious tamper
-alarms triggered by external vibrations. Section~3.5 also addressses Reviewer~B's comments on failover, backup and
-replication of cryptographic secrets.
+As pointed out by Reviewers~A and~B, our initial submission lacked a detailed discussion of the operational constraints of
+Inertial Hardware Security Modules. We thank the reveiwer for this helpful observation. We have adressed this with more
+than two pages of new content on the operation of IHSMs in the new Sections~3.5 ``Long-Term Operation'' and~3.6
+``Transportation''. In these sections we address the reviewers' points on the continuous power supply requirement and go
+into detail on the likelihood of spurious tamper alarms triggered by external vibrations. Section~3.5 also addresses
+Reviewer~B's comments on failover, backup and replication of cryptographic secrets.
 
 \paragraph{Lack of discussion of improved cooling capabilities of IHSMs compared to traditional HSMs.}
 
 As Reviewer~D pointed out, our initial submission alluded to the possibility of facilitating cooling airflow through an
 IHSM's security mesh and noted that this would allow for greater processing capabilities, but did not go into detail on
-the extent of this effect. In our revised paper, we have extended Section~3.4 ``Mechanical Layout'' with an
-order-of-magnitude estimation of this effect based on real-world benchmarks and information available from vendors of
-traditional HSMs.
+the extent of this effect. To address this valid remark, in our revised paper, we have extended Section~3.4 ``Mechanical
+Layout'' with an order-of-magnitude estimation of this effect based on real-world benchmarks and information available
+from vendors of traditional HSMs.
 
 \paragraph{Mechanical Rotating Stage Attacks.}
 
 As pointed out by Reviewer~D, in our original submission our discussion of the Swivel Chair Attack discusses attacks by
 by a rotating human attacker in depth and mentions the possibility of a fully mechanized attack robot. However, our
-initial submission did not go into detail on the constraints of such a fully mechanized attack. In our revised paper we
-have completed our discussion in this section with one half page of new content and one new diagram discussing
-fully mechanized attack robots.
+initial submission did not go into detail on the constraints of such a fully mechanized attack. We are grateful to the
+reviewer for pointing out the lack of detail in this regard. In our revised paper we have completed our discussion in
+this section with one half page of new content and one new diagram discussing fully mechanized attack robots.
 
 \paragraph{Comparison of IHSM attacks to those on traditional HSMs.}
 
@@ -80,15 +84,17 @@ response, we have significantly extended Section~4 ``Attacks'' with one page of
 reader.
 
 \paragraph{Notes on future work.}
+
 Reviewer~D stated that they would find an outlook on the next design steps towards a practically usable design
 interesting. We have adressed this at the end of Section~7 ``Conclusion'' to the extent of our current plans.
 
 \paragraph{Design Artifact Availability.}
-Reviewer~D state that acceess to design artifacts would be useful for readers of the paper. While we cannot make our
+
+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 in the publication version of our
-paper will contain a link to the open-source repository containing all hardware, software and paper sources relating to
-our research project.
+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.}
 
@@ -101,8 +107,8 @@ it can provide to its payload.
 
 \paragraph{Justification of mesh monitor power consumption estimates.}
 
-A point noted by Reviewer~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.
+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.
 
 \end{document}