From 2989fbd6904d15ef1b5a5f74ef9db0aa503682c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Wortman Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:51:29 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Push of additions to paper outline Signed-off-by: Paul Wortman --- PBDSecPaper.tex | 19 ++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/PBDSecPaper.tex b/PBDSecPaper.tex index e364c02..2b6caca 100644 --- a/PBDSecPaper.tex +++ b/PBDSecPaper.tex @@ -79,6 +79,9 @@ \begin{abstract} \begin{itemize} +\item PBD centers around minimzing the cost of development through a ``meet-in-the-middle'' methodology where successive refinements of specifications meet with abstractions of potential implementations. The goal being to obtain the same level of abstraction as is writtien into good coding functions.~\cite{Vincentelli2002} +\item Security centers around being able to gauge the trustworthiness of components as well as the larger system made of distributed components. +\item As with any new shift in design methodoloy the largest cost in this new system would be the need for rigorous documentation and standardization of the process, components, and communication elements of said components. \item Lack of design/methodology for doing platform-based design of security elements, although conceptual use in mobile embedded systems. \item Ground work for implementing security via PBD exists; this paper is centered around connecting the dots and laying the foundation for framework that will be built upon for creating security in a doucmented, rigorous, standardized way. \end{itemize} @@ -100,7 +103,12 @@ \section{Previous Work} \section{Considerations} \label{Considerations} \begin{itemize} -\item What standardization is important +\item What standardization is important, why is it important? +\item Where do we gain/lose on shifting the method of design + \begin{itemize} + \item Gain is ease of changes in development and searching of design space + \item Loss is time in developing the standards, rigors, and documentation that would be used as new standards for the industry. Ideally all manufacturers would adopt a new commodity; rather than components, `design combinations' would be the new commodity that manufacturers would peddle (e.g. instead of saying ``my components are the best'' the dialog moves towards ``My ability to combine these components is the best'') + \end{itemize} \item Hardware/Software Codesign \begin{itemize} \item Previous issues and considerations @@ -109,6 +117,11 @@ \section{Considerations} \end{itemize} \item Future considerations (end of Jurgen Teich paper~\cite{Teich2012}) \end{itemize} +\end{itemize} + +\section{Platford-based design} +\label{Platform-based design} +\begin{itemize} \item PBD (Platform-based design) \begin{itemize} \item Monetary considerations: re-use, flexibility of elements, re-programmable @@ -141,6 +154,7 @@ \section{Security} \item Hardware: tolerance, capabilities, power distribution, signal lag, cross-talk \begin{itemize} \item PUF? (Think layer above this) + \item Trusted Computing Group (TCG) created Trusted Platform Modules (TPM) which are able to validate their own functionality and if they have been tampered with. This is, in essence, a method of `self-analysis'; thus the ground work for a `self-analyzing' security component is already in place. This self checking can be used as a method for allowing the larger system of security components to locate damaged/error-prone componenets so that they can be replaced/fixed thus raising the overall trustworthiness of the system of components. \end{itemize} \item Software: capabilities, speed, uniqueness \item How to define ``trustworthiness''? @@ -182,6 +196,9 @@ \section{Conclusion} \bibitem{Lang2003} Ulrich Lang, \emph{Access policies for middleware}, University of Cambridge (May 2003) +\bibitem{Vincentelli2002} Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, +\emph{Defining platform-based design}, http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1204965 + \end{thebibliography} \end{document}