Commit 4c1f874a authored by Xunnamius (Zara)'s avatar Xunnamius (Zara)

better related work

parent 9734a59e
......@@ -12,25 +12,21 @@ behavior to prevent overwrites (StrongBox~\cite{StrongBox}).
Unlike StrongBox and other work, which focuses on optimizing performance despite
re-ciphering due to overwrites, SwitchCrypt maintains overwrite protections
while abstracting the idea of re-encrypting nuggets out into cipher switching;
instead of myopically pursuing a performance win, we trade off various cipher
configurations dynamically.
instead of myopically pursuing a performance win, we can pursue energy/battery
and security wins as well.
However, trading off security for energy, performance, and other concerns is not
a new idea~\cite{ScalableSecurity, WolterReinecke, ZengChow1, ZengChow2,
HaleemEtAl, LiOmiecinski}. For instance, Goodman et al. introduced selectively
decreasing security to save energy~\cite{ScalableSecurity}. Similar in intent to
VSRs, Goodman et al. minimizes energy consumption by separating low-priority
communications from high-priority and encrypting them differently. Goodman et
al.'s approach is designed for communication and only considered iteration/round
count, thus it did not anticipate the need for SwitchCrypt's generic API,
switching strategies, or security scores. Further, Wolter and Reinecke study
Further, trading off security for energy, performance, and other concerns is not
a new research area~\cite{ScalableSecurity, WolterReinecke, ZengChow1,
ZengChow2, HaleemEtAl, LiOmiecinski}. Goodman et al. introduced selectively
decreasing the security of some data to save energy~\cite{ScalableSecurity}.
However, their approach is designed for communication and only considered
iteration/round count, thus it did not anticipate the need for SwitchCrypt's
generic API, switching strategies, or security scores. Wolter and Reinecke study
approaches to quantifying security in several contexts~\cite{WolterReinecke}.
This study anticipates the value of dynamically switching ciphers but proposes
no mechanisms to enable this in FDE.
Companies like LastPass and Google have explored performance-security tradeoffs.
Google's Adiantum uses a less secure reduced round version of
ChaCha~\cite{Adiantum}; LastPass has dealt with scaling the number of iterations
of PBKDF\#2, trading performance for security~\cite{LastPass}. \TODO{Need a
summary sentence here, too. Again, need to make it clear that what we are doing
is related to this work, but solved many novel challenges.}
no mechanisms to enable this in FDE. Similarly, companies like LastPass and
Google have explored performance-security tradeoffs. Google's Adiantum (above)
uses a less secure reduced round version of ChaCha~\cite{Adiantum}. While not an
FDE solution, LastPass has dealt with scaling the number of iterations of
PBKDF\#2, trading performance for security during login
sessions~\cite{LastPass}.
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment