{"schema_version":"0.1","map_id":"paper-42-map","publication_id":42,"publication_anchor":"paper-42","slug":"paper-42","canonical_path":"/knowledge/papers/paper-42/","machine_path":"/knowledge/papers/paper-42.json","root_node_id":"paper-42","stage":"mapped_draft","contribution_type_vocabulary_version":"0.1","contribution_types":["protocol"],"title":"Reconciling Remote Attestation and Safety-Critical Operation on Simple IoT Devices","year":2018,"status":"Published · invited paper","venue":"55th Design Automation Conference (DAC)","topic":"secure-systems-networks","labels":["Theory"],"authors":["Xavier Carpent","Karim Eldefrawy","Norrathep Rattanavipanon","Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi","Gene Tsudik"],"keywords":["remote attestation","safety-critical systems","transient malware","shuffled measurement","memory locking"],"research_question":"How can remote attestation preserve malware-detection value when its atomic memory scan can delay safety-critical work, yet making the scan interruptible creates opportunities for transient or self-relocating malware?","central_answer":"There is no single cost-free reconciliation. The paper organizes a protocol design space around periodic self-measurement, randomized traversal, and lock-scheduled interruptible measurements; each changes freshness, false-negative probability, temporal consistency, availability, hardware assumptions, or communication requirements.","curation":{"drafted_at":"2026-07-11","drafted_by":[{"actor_type":"ai","name":"OpenAI Codex","role":"full-text extraction, claim mapping, and initial assessment"}],"method":"Source-grounded review of the complete six-page invited paper downloaded from NSF/UCI public routes, including visual inspection of the first and mechanism pages. The map treats the work as a protocol/design analysis, not as a new implementation or formal proof.","source_scope":"full_source_audit","approval":{"status":"pending","note":"AI-authored source map awaiting full author audit. Mechanism interpretations and ratings remain provisional until author approval."}},"sources":[{"id":"source-paper-42-author-pdf","type":"author_hosted_copy","title":"Invited: Reconciling Remote Attestation and Safety-Critical Operation on Simple IoT Devices","url":"/pubs/2018/reconcile-ra-safety-dac2018.pdf","provenance_category":"author","retrieved_from":"https://sprout.ics.uci.edu/projects/attestation/papers/reconcile-ra-safety.pdf","media_type":"application/pdf","sha256":"ba16e8faacd8788bfcc3db035f7e15d98b3b86705cf9cb7d648f38e83bdf7ef8","page_count":6},{"id":"source-paper-42-official","type":"official_publication_record","title":"DAC 2018 publication record","url":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3195970.3199853","provenance_category":"official"},{"id":"source-paper-42-archive","type":"public_archive_copy","title":"NSF Public Access copy","url":"https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10063867","provenance_category":"archive"},{"id":"source-paper-42-citations","type":"citation_index_snapshot","title":"OpenAlex work W2809340493","url":"https://openalex.org/W2809340493","accessed_at":"2026-07-11"}],"source_anchors":[{"id":"anchor-paper-42-problem","source_id":"source-paper-42-author-pdf","label":"Safety/security conflict, malware classes, and mitigation overview","locator":"Abstract and Section 1, PDF page 1","url":"/pubs/2018/reconcile-ra-safety-dac2018.pdf#page=1"},{"id":"anchor-paper-42-ra-model","source_id":"source-paper-42-author-pdf","label":"RA approaches, on-demand protocol, and coverage assumptions","locator":"Sections 2.1-2.3, PDF pages 1-2","url":"/pubs/2018/reconcile-ra-safety-dac2018.pdf#page=1"},{"id":"anchor-paper-42-overhead","source_id":"source-paper-42-author-pdf","label":"Hashing cost and safety-critical fire-alarm example","locator":"Sections 2.4-2.5 and Figure 2, PDF pages 2-3","url":"/pubs/2018/reconcile-ra-safety-dac2018.pdf#page=2"},{"id":"anchor-paper-42-threats","source_id":"source-paper-42-author-pdf","label":"Transient, self-relocating, and interrupt-triggering malware","locator":"Section 2.5, PDF page 3","url":"/pubs/2018/reconcile-ra-safety-dac2018.pdf#page=3"},{"id":"anchor-paper-42-locking","source_id":"source-paper-42-author-pdf","label":"All-Lock, decreasing-lock, and increasing-lock protocols","locator":"Section 3.1, PDF pages 3-5","url":"/pubs/2018/reconcile-ra-safety-dac2018.pdf#page=3"},{"id":"anchor-paper-42-shuffle","source_id":"source-paper-42-author-pdf","label":"SMARM shuffled-measurement analysis","locator":"Section 3.2, PDF page 5","url":"/pubs/2018/reconcile-ra-safety-dac2018.pdf#page=5"},{"id":"anchor-paper-42-self","source_id":"source-paper-42-author-pdf","label":"ERASMUS and SeED self-measurement designs and assumptions","locator":"Section 3.3, PDF pages 5-6","url":"/pubs/2018/reconcile-ra-safety-dac2018.pdf#page=5"},{"id":"anchor-paper-42-conclusion","source_id":"source-paper-42-author-pdf","label":"Conclusions and tradeoff boundary","locator":"Section 4, PDF page 6","url":"/pubs/2018/reconcile-ra-safety-dac2018.pdf#page=6"},{"id":"anchor-paper-42-publication","source_id":"source-paper-42-official","label":"Official invited-paper publication identity","locator":"DAC 2018, DOI 10.1145/3195970.3199853","url":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3195970.3199853"},{"id":"anchor-paper-42-reception","source_id":"source-paper-42-citations","label":"Dated citation-count snapshot","locator":"OpenAlex reported 12 citing works on 2026-07-11","url":"https://openalex.org/W2809340493"}],"nodes":[{"id":"paper-42","kind":"paper","parent_id":null,"order":1,"epistemic_status":"published_invited_paper","title":"Remote attestation under safety-critical constraints","summary":"A protocol-level analysis of why atomic attestation threatens availability and why interruptibility threatens malware detection, with a taxonomy of imperfect mitigations.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-problem"]},{"id":"paper-42-question","kind":"question","parent_id":"paper-42","order":1,"epistemic_status":"research_question","title":"Research question","summary":"Can a simple IoT prover remain responsive to critical events while still producing a fresh, meaningful malware measurement?","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-problem","anchor-paper-42-overhead"]},{"id":"paper-42-answer","kind":"contribution","parent_id":"paper-42","order":2,"epistemic_status":"analytical_synthesis","title":"Central answer","summary":"Use explicit tradeoffs among periodic self-measurement, randomized order, and progressive locking; no surveyed protocol dominates on freshness, detection, consistency, availability, and assumptions.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-locking","anchor-paper-42-shuffle","anchor-paper-42-self"]},{"id":"paper-42-baseline","kind":"protocol","parent_id":"paper-42","order":3,"epistemic_status":"defined","title":"On-demand RA baseline","summary":"A verifier sends a fresh challenge, the prover computes an authenticated measurement over selected memory, returns it, and the verifier checks it against an admissible state.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-ra-model"]},{"id":"paper-42-threat","kind":"threat_model","parent_id":"paper-42","order":4,"epistemic_status":"defined","title":"Malware and availability threats","summary":"Transient malware can leave between measurements, self-relocating malware can evade a predictable interruptible scan, and malware may trigger a nominally critical task to preempt attestation.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-threats"]},{"id":"paper-42-assumptions","kind":"assumption","parent_id":"paper-42","order":5,"epistemic_status":"model_dependent","title":"Mechanism-dependent assumptions","summary":"Solutions variously need secure keys and measurement code, memory-lock enforcement, secret scan order, protected clocks or counters, authenticated channels, and predictable verifier expectations.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-ra-model","anchor-paper-42-locking","anchor-paper-42-self"]},{"id":"paper-42-designs","kind":"method","parent_id":"paper-42","order":6,"epistemic_status":"comparative_analysis","title":"Mitigation design space","summary":"The paper compares three protocol families rather than presenting a single deployed system.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-locking","anchor-paper-42-shuffle","anchor-paper-42-self"]},{"id":"paper-42-design-lock","kind":"protocol","parent_id":"paper-42-designs","order":1,"epistemic_status":"specified","title":"Progressive locking","summary":"All-Lock freezes all memory; Dec-Lock releases measured blocks and targets start-time consistency; Inc-Lock progressively locks measured blocks and targets end-time consistency.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-locking"]},{"id":"paper-42-design-shuffle","kind":"protocol","parent_id":"paper-42-designs","order":2,"epistemic_status":"probability_analyzed","title":"Shuffled measurement","summary":"SMARM hides traversal order so roving malware cannot know which block is safe; one scan leaves escape probability near e^-1, so repeated independent scans reduce but do not eliminate false negatives.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-shuffle"]},{"id":"paper-42-design-self","kind":"protocol","parent_id":"paper-42-designs","order":3,"epistemic_status":"comparative_analysis","title":"Periodic self-measurement","summary":"ERASMUS decouples measurement frequency from verifier collection; SeED makes reports prover-initiated but adds protected time/replay and expected-delivery requirements.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-self"]},{"id":"paper-42-claims","kind":"claim_group","parent_id":"paper-42","order":7,"epistemic_status":"analytical","title":"Main conclusions","summary":"Atomic scans can be dangerously slow, while interruptible or scheduled protocols exchange stronger availability for weaker or more assumption-heavy detection guarantees.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-overhead","anchor-paper-42-conclusion"]},{"id":"paper-42-evidence","kind":"evidence_group","parent_id":"paper-42","order":8,"epistemic_status":"synthesis_of_prior_results","title":"Evidence basis","summary":"Support consists of measured hashing costs, worked attack scenarios, cited probability analysis for shuffled measurement, and a structured comparison of existing mechanisms; no new prototype or formal proof is reported.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-overhead","anchor-paper-42-shuffle","anchor-paper-42-self"]},{"id":"paper-42-boundaries","kind":"limitation_group","parent_id":"paper-42","order":9,"epistemic_status":"explicit","title":"Limits of reconciliation","summary":"Self-measurement can be stale; shuffled scans need repetition; locking impairs writes; protected time and communication expectations add hardware and availability assumptions; on-demand RA remains necessary for maximum freshness.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-locking","anchor-paper-42-shuffle","anchor-paper-42-self","anchor-paper-42-conclusion"]},{"id":"paper-42-artifacts","kind":"artifact_group","parent_id":"paper-42","order":10,"epistemic_status":"publication_only","title":"Artifacts","summary":"Full author and NSF copies plus the DOI are public. The invited synthesis does not claim a new implementation, dataset, proof artifact, or reproduction package.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-problem","anchor-paper-42-publication"]},{"id":"paper-42-scrutiny","kind":"scrutiny","parent_id":"paper-42","order":11,"epistemic_status":"invited_venue_paper","title":"External scrutiny","summary":"DAC publication provides external venue exposure, while the represented source is an invited analytical paper and public review reports were not located.","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-publication"]},{"id":"paper-42-lineage","kind":"lineage","parent_id":"paper-42","order":12,"epistemic_status":"documented","title":"Relation to temporal consistency","summary":"The locking taxonomy and consistency vocabulary are drawn from the fuller treatment in paper","source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-locking","anchor-paper-42-conclusion"]}],"relations":[{"id":"paper-42-relation-answer-question","type":"addresses","from_id":"paper-42-answer","to_id":"paper-42-question"},{"id":"paper-42-relation-baseline-threat","type":"exposed_to","from_id":"paper-42-baseline","to_id":"paper-42-threat"},{"id":"paper-42-relation-lock-designs","type":"component_of","from_id":"paper-42-design-lock","to_id":"paper-42-designs"},{"id":"paper-42-relation-shuffle-designs","type":"component_of","from_id":"paper-42-design-shuffle","to_id":"paper-42-designs"},{"id":"paper-42-relation-self-designs","type":"component_of","from_id":"paper-42-design-self","to_id":"paper-42-designs"},{"id":"paper-42-relation-designs-answer","type":"supports","from_id":"paper-42-designs","to_id":"paper-42-answer"},{"id":"paper-42-relation-assumptions-designs","type":"qualifies","from_id":"paper-42-assumptions","to_id":"paper-42-designs"},{"id":"paper-42-relation-evidence-claims","type":"supports","from_id":"paper-42-evidence","to_id":"paper-42-claims"},{"id":"paper-42-relation-boundaries-claims","type":"qualifies","from_id":"paper-42-boundaries","to_id":"paper-42-claims"},{"id":"paper-42-relation-lineage-paper","type":"contextualizes","from_id":"paper-42-lineage","to_id":"paper-42"}],"assessment":{"id":"paper-42-assessment-2026-07-11","rubric_version":"0.2","assessed_at":"2026-07-11","status":"ai_draft_author_review_pending","note":"These dimensions describe documented support and process, not truth, correctness, or a universal ranking. No composite score is calculated.","axes":[{"id":"epistemic_evidence","level":"medium","rationale":"The complete paper offers explicit threat scenarios, timing evidence, and mechanism/probability analysis, but it is an invited synthesis without a new implementation, full formal proof, or independent evaluation.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-overhead","anchor-paper-42-shuffle","anchor-paper-42-conclusion"]},{"id":"auditability","level":"high","rationale":"Checked-in author text with SHA-256/page count, an NSF copy, precise page anchors, and a DOI make all represented arguments directly inspectable.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-problem","anchor-paper-42-publication"]},{"id":"production_provenance","level":"medium","rationale":"Authorship, invited status, venue, date, DOI, and manuscript are documented; contributor roles, revision history, and exact source lineage are not.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-problem","anchor-paper-42-publication"]},{"id":"external_scrutiny","level":"medium","rationale":"DAC publication establishes external exposure, but review reports, artifact review, and independent validation of the synthesis were not found.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-publication"]},{"id":"reception","level":"high","rationale":"OpenAlex reported 12 citations on 2026-07-11; under the author-defined rule, more than 10 located citations is High.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-reception"]},{"id":"contribution_significance","level":"medium","rationale":"The paper clearly exposes a safety/security conflict and organizes practical protocol choices, but it primarily synthesizes mechanisms developed across prior work.","basis_source_anchor_ids":["anchor-paper-42-problem","anchor-paper-42-conclusion"]}]},"reception_snapshot":{"as_of":"2026-07-11","method":"OpenAlex DOI lookup","citation_count":12,"source_url":"https://openalex.org/W2809340493","signals":["OpenAlex reported 12 works citing the DAC invited paper."],"limitation":"Counts vary by index and date and do not distinguish citations to the synthesis from citations validating any particular mitigation."}}