From a3bdf3fbcc2e6d719abf506bfd2cbefb56137aef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: jaseg <git@jaseg.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 13:17:26 +0200
Subject: Finish changes letter

---
 paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex | 33 +++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

(limited to 'paper/tches-22-01-changes.tex')

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}
-- 
cgit 

