基于XGBoost的混合模式门级硬件木马检测方法

张颖; 李森; 陈鑫; 姚嘉祺; 毛志明

doi:10.11999/JEIT200874

基于XGBoost的混合模式门级硬件木马检测方法

doi: 10.11999/JEIT200874

南京航空航天大学电子信息工程学院南京 211106

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金(61701228, 61106029)，模拟集成电路重点实验室基金(61428020304)，航空科学基金(20180852005)

详细信息

作者简介:
张颖：女，1977年生，博士，讲师，研究方向为集成电路设计、验证与测试、硬件安全

李森：男，1995年生，硕士生，研究方向为集成电路验证与测试、硬件安全

陈鑫：男，1982年生，博士，副教授，研究方向为数字集成电路设计

姚嘉祺：男，1996年生，硕士生，研究方向为集成电路验证与测试、硬件安全

毛志明：男，1997年生，硕士生，研究方向为集成电路验证与测试

通讯作者:
张颖　tracy403@nuaa.edu.cn

中图分类号: TP309.5; TN47
计量
- 文章访问数: 934
- HTML全文浏览量: 510
- PDF下载量: 83
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-10-12
- 修回日期: 2021-07-20
- 网络出版日期: 2021-07-30
- 刊出日期: 2021-10-18

Hybrid Multi-level Hardware Trojan Detection Method for Gate-level Netlists Based on XGBoost

College of Electronics and Information Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, China

Funds: The National Natural Science Foundation of China (61701228, 61106029), The Science and Technology on Analog Integrated Circuit Laboratory (61428020304), The AeronauticalScience Foundation of China (20180852005)

摘要

摘要: 针对恶意的第三方厂商在电路设计阶段中植入硬件木马的问题，该文提出一种基于XGBoost的混合模式门级硬件木马检测方法。该检测方法将电路的每个线网类型作为节点，采用混合模式3层级的检测方式。首先，基于提取的电路静态特征，利用XGBoost算法实现第1层级的检测。继而，通过分析扫描链的结构特征，对第1层级分离得到的正常电路继续进行第2层级的面向扫描链中存在木马电路的静态检测。最后，在第3层级采用动态检测方法进一步提升检测的准确性。Trust-Hub基准测试集的实测结果表明，该方法与现有的其他检测方法相比具有较优的木马检测率，可达到94.0%的平均真阳率(TPR)和99.3%的平均真阴率(TNR)。
- 硬件木马检测 /
- XGBoost算法 /
- 门级网表 /
- 静态检测 /
- 动态检测
Abstract: A hybrid multi-level hardware Trojan detection method based on XGBoost algorithm is proposed for the problem of hardware Trojans implanted by malicious third-party manufacturers. The detection method treats each wire in gate-level netlist as a node and detects Trojans in three levels. Firstly, the effective static features of the circuit are extracted and the XGBoost algorithm is applied to detect the suspicious Trojan circuits. Common circuits distinguished at the first level continued to be detected at the second level by analyzing scan chain structural features. Finally, dynamic detection is used to increase further the accuracy of Trojans detection. Experimental results on Trust-hub benchmark show that this method has a higher accuracy compared with other existing detection methods. This detection method can finally achieve 94.0% average True Positive Rate (TPR) and 99.3% average True Negative Rate (TNR).
- Hardware Trojan detection /
- XGBoost /
- Gate-level netlists /
- Static detection /
- Dynamic detection

HTML全文

图 1 3级触发网络特征示意图

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 环形振荡器结构特征示意图

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 基于XGBoost的混合多层级硬件木马检测框图

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 扫描链中木马电路结构特征

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 特征有效性箱型图结果对比

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 两种方法检测结果比较

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 各层级检测结果详细参数

层级电路		第1层级						第2层级						第3层级
测试电路		TN	FP	FN	TP	TPR	TNR	TN	FP	FN	TP	TPR	TNR	TN	FP	FN	TP	TPR	TNR
Trust-Hub	s38417-T100	5461	10	4	7	0.636	0.998	5461	10	4	7	0.636	0.998	5461	10	0	11	1	0.998
	s38417-T200	5462	9	0	11	1	0.998	5462	9	0	11	1	0.998	5462	9	0	11	1	0.998
	s38417-T300	5467	1	4	43	0.915	0.999	5467	1	3	44	0.936	0.999	5467	1	2	43	0.956	0.999
	s35932-T100	5867	0	0	17	1	1.000	5867	0	0	17	1	1	5867	0	0	17	1	1
	s35932-T200	5857	9	4	8	0.667	0.999	5857	9	2	10	0.833	0.999	5857	9	2	10	0.833	0.999
	s35932-T300	5862	4	2	34	0.944	0.999	5862	4	0	36	1	0.999	5862	4	0	36	1	0.999
	s15850-T100	2122	58	11	15	0.577	0.973	2122	58	9	17	0.654	0.973	2122	58	9	17	0.654	0.973
	RS232-T1000	238	2	0	37	1	0.992	238	2	0	37	1	0.992	238	2	0	37	1	0.992
	RS232-T1100	242	7	6	32	0.842	0.972	242	7	6	32	0.842	0.972	242	7	6	32	0.842	0.972
	RS232-T1200	252	1	3	30	0.909	0.996	252	1	3	30	0.909	0.996	252	1	3	30	0.909	0.996
	RS232-T1300	251	2	0	27	1	0.992	251	2	0	27	1	0.992	251	2	0	27	1	0.992
	RS232-T1400	237	2	0	44	1	0.992	237	2	0	44	1	0.992	237	2	0	44	1	0.992
	RS232-T1500	245	2	0	38	1	0.992	245	2	0	38	1	0.992	245	2	0	38	1	0.992
	RS232-T1600	250	2	3	22	0.880	0.992	250	2	3	22	0.880	0.992	250	2	1	24	0.960	0.992
	平均值	TPR:88.4% TNR:99.3%						TPR:90.6% TNR:99.3%						TPR:94.0% TNR:99.3%
DeTrust	DT-1	575	53	4	17	0.810	0.916	575	53	4	17	0.810	0.916	575	40	4	19	0.826	0.920
	DT-2	570	49	5	18	0.783	0.921	570	49	5	18	0.783	0.921	570	47	4	18	0.818	0.924
	DT-3	552	51	4	15	0.789	0.915	552	51	4	15	0.789	0.915	552	46	4	17	0.810	0.923
	DT-4	582	55	5	19	0.792	0.914	582	55	5	19	0.792	0.914	582	52	5	21	0.808	0.918
	DT-5	563	49	3	15	0.833	0.920	563	49	3	15	0.833	0.920	563	46	3	16	0.842	0.924
	平均值	TPR:80.1% TNR:91.7%						TPR:80.1% TNR:91.7%						TPR:82.1% TNR:92.2%
平均值		TPR:84.2% TNR:95.5%						TPR:85.3% TNR:95.5%						TPR:88.1% TNR:95.8%

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(20)

[1]	ELNAGGAR R, CHAKRABARTY K, and TAHOORI M B. Hardware Trojan detection using changepoint-based anomaly detection techniques[J]. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, 2019, 27(12): 2706–2719. doi: 10.1109/TVLSI.2019.2925807
[2]	CHEN Jinghui, DONG Chen, ZHANG Fan, et al. A Hardware-Trojans detection approach based on eXtreme Gradient Boosting[C]. 2019 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering Technology (CCET), Beijing, China, 2019: 69–73.
[3]	张毅军, 张晓, 林少锋, 等. 基于功耗特征的硬件木马检测方法[J]. 电脑知识与技术, 2019, 15(31): 15–16, 26. ZHANG Yijun, ZHANG Xiao, LIN Shaofeng, et al. Hardware Trojan detection method based on power consumption features[J]. Computer Knowledge and Technology, 2019, 15(31): 15–16, 26.
[4]	SAAD W, SANJAB A, WANG Yunpeng, et al. Hardware Trojan detection game: A prospect-theoretic approach[J]. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2017, 66(9): 7697–7710. doi: 10.1109/TVT.2017.2686853
[5]	佟鑫, 李莹, 陈岚. SVM算法在硬件木马旁路分析检测中的应用[J]. 电子与信息学报, 2020, 42(7): 1643–1651. doi: 10.11999/JEIT190532 TONG Xin, LI Ying, and CHEN Lan. Application of SVM machine learning to hardware Trojan detection using side-channel analysis[J]. Journal of Electronics &Information Technology, 2020, 42(7): 1643–1651. doi: 10.11999/JEIT190532
[6]	王晓晗, 王韬, 李雄伟, 等. 基于人工蜂群的硬件木马测试向量生成方法[J]. 上海交通大学学报, 2019, 53(10): 1218–1224. WANG Xiaohan, WANG Tao, LI Xiongwei, et al. Test pattern generation method for hardware Trojan detection based on artificial bee colony[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2019, 53(10): 1218–1224.
[7]	LIU Yanjiang, ZHAO Yiqiang, HE Jiaji, et al. A statistical test generation based on mutation analysis for improving the Hardware Trojan detection[J]. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, 2020, 29(3): 2050049. doi: 10.1142/S0218126620500498
[8]	SALMANI H. COTD: Reference-free hardware Trojan detection and recovery based on controllability and observability in gate-level netlist[J]. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2017, 12(2): 338–350. doi: 10.1109/TIFS.2016.2613842
[9]	CUI Xiaotong, KOOPAHI E, WU Kaijie, et al. Hardware Trojan detection using the order of path delay[J]. ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems, 2018, 14(3): 33.
[10]	WAKSMAN A, SUOZZO M, and SETHUMADHAVAN S. FANCI: Identification of stealthy malicious logic using Boolean functional analysis[C]. The 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security (ACM-CCS), Berlin, Germany, 2013: 697–708.
[11]	HASEGAWA K, OYA M, YANAGISAWA M, et al. Hardware Trojans classification for gate-level netlists based on machine learning[C]. 2016 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on On-Line Testing and Robust System Design (IOLTS), Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain, 2016: 203–206.
[12]	HASEGAWA K, YANAGISAWA M, and TOGAWA N. Hardware Trojans classification for gate-level netlists using multi-layer neural networks[C]. 2017 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on On-line Testing and Robust System Design, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2017: 227–232.
[13]	HASEGAWA K, YANAGISAWA M, and TOGAWA N. Trojan-feature extraction at gate-level netlists and its application to hardware-Trojan detection using random forest classifier[C]. 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS 2017), Baltimore, USA, 2017: 1–4.
[14]	HASEGAWA K, YANAGISAWA M, and TOGAWA N. A hardware-Trojan classification method utilizing boundary net structures[C]. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, USA, 2018: 1–4.
[15]	Trust-Hub [EB/OL]. http://www.trust-hub.org, 2021.
[16]	ZHANG Jie, YUAN Feng, and XU Qiang. DeTrust: Defeating hardware trust verification with stealthy implicitly-triggered hardware Trojans[C]. The 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Scottsdale, USA, 2014: 153–166.
[17]	HUANG Zhao, WANG Quan, CHEN Yin, et al. A survey on machine learning against hardware Trojan attacks: Recent advances and challenges[J]. IEEE Access, 2020, 8: 10796–10826. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2965016
[18]	BHUNIA S, HSIAO M S, BANGA M, et al. Hardware Trojan attacks: Threat analysis and countermeasures[J]. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2014, 102(8): 1229–1247. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2014.2334493
[19]	HU Wei, CHANG C H, SENGUPTA A, et al. An overview of hardware security and trust: Threats, countermeasures, and design tools[J]. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2021, 40(6): 1010–1038. doi: 10.1109/TCAD.2020.3047976
[20]	CHEN Tianqi and GUESTRIN C. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system[C]. The 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, USA, 2016: 785–794.