World Scientific
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at customercare@wspc.com for any enquiries.

A Hardware Trojan Detection and Diagnosis Method for Gate-Level Netlists Based on Different Machine Learning Algorithms

    https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218126622501353Cited by:7 (Source: Crossref)

    The design complexity and outsourcing trend of modern integrated circuits (ICs) have increased the chance for adversaries to implant hardware Trojans (HTs) in the development process. To effectively defend against this hardware-based security threat, many solutions have been reported in the literature, including dynamic and static techniques. However, there is still a lack of methods that can simultaneously detect and diagnose HT circuits with high accuracy and low time complexity. Therefore, to overcome these limitations, this paper presents an HT detection and diagnosis method for gate-level netlists (GLNs) based on different machine learning (ML) algorithms. Given a GLN, the proposed method first partitions it into several circuit cones and extracts seven HT-related features from each cone. Then, we repeat this process for the sample GLN to construct a dataset for the next step. After that, we use K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Decision Tree (DT) and Naive Bayes (NB) to classify all circuit cones of the target GLN. Finally, we determine whether each circuit cone is HT-implanted through the label, completing the HT detection and diagnosis for target GLN. We have applied our method to 11 GLNs from ISCAS’85 and ISCAS’89 benchmark suites. As shown in experimental results of the three ML algorithms used in our method: (1) NB costs shortest time and achieves the highest average true positive rate (ATPR) of 100%; (2) DT costs longest time but achieve the highest average true negative rate (ATNR) of 98.61%; (3) Compared to NB and DT, KNN costs a slightly longer time than NB but the ATPR and ATNR values are approximately close to DT. Moreover, it can also report the possible implantation location of a Trojan instance according to the detecting results.

    This paper was recommended by Regional Editor Tongquan Wei.