Commit f24054f4 authored by Xunnamius (Zara)'s avatar Xunnamius (Zara)

updated charts

parent 72e0076e
......@@ -391,5 +391,4 @@ scores 0 and ChaCha20 scores 1\@.
\subsection{Putting It All Together} \label{subsec:summary}
Text goes here.
Let's revisit the motivating example from \secref{motivation}.
......@@ -129,14 +129,14 @@ performed), and is generally much slower than the ChaCha variants (see
\figref{tradeoff-no-ratios}). Doubly invoking Freestyle in a ratio configuration
means these penalties are paid more often, ballooning latency.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{figure}[ht]
\textbf{Mirrored and Selective Switching I/O Ratio Performance}\par\medskip
\centering
{\input{charts/mirrored-selective-baseline.tex}} \caption{Median sequential
and random read and write performance comparison of Mirrored and Selective
switching strategies to baseline.}
\label{fig:mirrored-selective-baseline}
\end{figure*}
\end{figure}
\figref{mirrored-selective-baseline} show the the performance of the Mirrored
and Selective strategies with the same configuration of ratios as
......@@ -228,4 +228,4 @@ threat model and maintains confidentiality and integrity guarantees.
\TODO{There is at least one more attack that needs to be addressed. I think this approach is susceptible to physical attacks. If we encrypt some data with ChaCha8 and then swtich the active cipher to Freestyle, if an attacker accesses data through our system, they will get the Freestyle version, right? But, if they can remove the storage from our software, the ChaCha8 version is there. I guess that I assumed forward when I wrote that, but something similar is ture for mirrored. I think we need to acknowledge (agian) that an attacker could access data that has not been switched yet. That is a new threat and the only solution I can see is to be careful. We might say that we should combine strategies in some cases. Like use selective with the best freestyle on one side and write your most sensitive data there, then on the other side, use forward switching. I may not be coherent anymore...}
\TODO{One more thing: you never explicitly say what the answer to all those qwustions is. I like the questions at the beginning. Now you need to declare victory.}
\ No newline at end of file
\TODO{One more thing: you never explicitly say what the answer to all those qwustions is. I like the questions at the beginning. Now you need to declare victory.}
......@@ -9,11 +9,11 @@ things that you discussed earlier in the paper.}
\subsection{Balancing Security Goals with a Constrained Energy Budget}
This usecase illustrates that, because latency and energy are correlated among
the ciphers we examined, we can exploit that property using temporal Forward
switching. We revisit the motivating example from \secref{motivation},
demonstrating that the ability to re-cipher individual nuggets allows us to
complete our task while staying within our energy budget.
This usecase illustrates that, because latency and energy use are correlated
among the ciphers we examined, we can exploit that property using temporal
Forward switching to save our battery. We revisit the motivating example from
\secref{motivation}, demonstrating that the ability to re-cipher individual
nuggets allows us to complete our task while staying within our energy budget.
\TODO{We may need to say something about how/why these file sizes were chosen. We want to make it clear that they are not magic numbers and the results would hold with different sizes.}
We begin sequentially writing 10 40MB files using the Freestyle Balanced cipher
......@@ -185,4 +185,4 @@ store to this locked down state. With prior work, data is either too weakly
encrypted or the device becomes too slow for daily use (latency ceiling). In
exchange, we trade off half of our drive's writeable space.
\TODO{Again, need some summary of what we just saw in this section. What are the lessons learned from these four case studies? How do they relate to the other points in the paper?}
\ No newline at end of file
\TODO{Again, need some summary of what we just saw in this section. What are the lessons learned from these four case studies? How do they relate to the other points in the paper?}
......@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
\begin{groupplot}[
group style={
group size=4 by 4,
group size=2 by 4,
xlabels at=edge bottom,
ylabels at=edge left,
xticklabels at=edge bottom,
......@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
legend style={
draw=none,
legend columns=4,
at={(2.0,1.45)},
at={(1.0,1.45)},
anchor=south,
},
]
......@@ -232,10 +232,7 @@
] {charts/mirrored-selective-baseline.dat};
\nextgroupplot[
legend to name={throwaway15},
title={40M Mirrored Writes},
xlabel={\footnotesize Security Score},
xtick={ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 },
xticklabels={ 0,,, 3, \empty }
title={40M Mirrored Writes}
]
\addplot [thick, red] table [
meta=cipher,
......@@ -275,10 +272,7 @@
] {charts/mirrored-selective-baseline.dat};
\nextgroupplot[
legend to name={throwaway16},
title={40M Selective Writes},
xlabel={\footnotesize Security Score},
xtick={ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 },
xticklabels={ 0,,, 3, \empty }
title={40M Selective Writes}
]
\addplot [thick, red] table [
meta=cipher,
......
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