Electronics Guide

Fault Injection Equipment

Fault injection equipment enables security researchers and engineers to test electronic devices against physical attacks that deliberately introduce errors into system operation. By causing precisely controlled faults in processors, memory, and other components, these tools reveal vulnerabilities that could allow attackers to bypass security measures, extract cryptographic keys, or compromise device integrity.

Understanding fault injection is essential for developing secure hardware. Attackers with physical access to devices can exploit implementation weaknesses through voltage manipulation, clock signal distortion, electromagnetic pulses, focused laser beams, and environmental extremes. The equipment described in this article allows defenders to identify and address these vulnerabilities before products reach the field, where they become targets for real-world attacks.

Fundamentals of Fault Injection

Fault injection attacks exploit the physical properties of electronic circuits to cause computational errors that benefit an attacker. Digital circuits depend on stable operating conditions to produce correct results. When conditions deviate beyond design tolerances, circuits may produce incorrect outputs, skip instructions, or enter unexpected states that create security vulnerabilities.

Attack Goals and Mechanisms

Fault injection attacks typically pursue several strategic objectives that compromise device security.

  • Security bypass: Causing faults during authentication checks, signature verification, or access control decisions to make security routines return success despite invalid credentials
  • Cryptographic key extraction: Inducing computational errors during cryptographic operations to enable differential fault analysis that mathematically recovers secret keys
  • Code execution modification: Corrupting instruction fetches or program counter values to skip security checks or redirect execution to attacker-controlled code
  • Data corruption: Modifying values in memory or registers to alter program behavior, such as changing loop counters or conditional values
  • Privilege escalation: Faulting permission checks or privilege level registers to gain elevated access to protected resources

Fault Models

Different fault injection techniques produce characteristic fault types that affect circuit behavior in predictable ways.

  • Bit flip faults: Individual bits change state from zero to one or vice versa, potentially affecting any data or instruction value
  • Stuck-at faults: Values become fixed at logic high or low regardless of intended state, caused by timing violations that prevent proper signal transitions
  • Instruction skip faults: Entire instructions fail to execute, often occurring when faults corrupt instruction decode or program counter update logic
  • Random faults: Unpredictable multi-bit corruptions that affect broader circuit regions, typically from high-energy injection methods
  • Setup and hold violations: Timing faults that cause incorrect values to be latched in flip-flops when signals arrive outside valid timing windows

Spatial and Temporal Precision

Effective fault injection requires control over both where and when faults occur within the target system.

  • Temporal precision: Faults must occur during specific operations, often requiring nanosecond-level timing accuracy to target particular instructions or data accesses
  • Spatial precision: Some techniques affect entire chips uniformly while others can target specific circuit regions or even individual transistors
  • Triggering: Synchronizing fault injection with target operation requires trigger signals derived from power consumption patterns, electromagnetic emissions, or communication protocols
  • Repeatability: Research and countermeasure validation require reproducible fault injection with consistent timing and effect characteristics

Voltage Glitching Platforms

Voltage glitching represents one of the most accessible and widely used fault injection techniques. By briefly disrupting the power supply voltage to a target device, attackers can cause computational errors without requiring physical modification or optical access to the chip. Modern voltage glitching platforms provide precise control over glitch parameters, enabling systematic exploration of device vulnerabilities.

Voltage Glitching Principles

Voltage glitching exploits the relationship between supply voltage and circuit timing to cause setup and hold violations in digital logic.

  • Timing relationship: Digital circuits have minimum supply voltages below which gate delays exceed clock period constraints, causing incorrect values to be latched
  • Glitch characteristics: Brief voltage drops during specific clock cycles cause faults in operations executing at that moment while surrounding operations complete normally
  • Voltage undershoot: Dropping supply voltage below nominal causes gate delays to increase, potentially causing setup time violations
  • Voltage overshoot: Supply voltage spikes can also cause faults through different mechanisms including latch-up and accelerated aging

Glitch Parameters

Effective voltage glitching requires precise control over multiple parameters that determine fault occurrence and type.

  • Glitch width: Duration of the voltage deviation, typically ranging from nanoseconds to microseconds depending on target characteristics
  • Glitch depth: Magnitude of voltage change from nominal, with deeper glitches more likely to cause faults but also more likely to cause crashes or resets
  • Glitch offset: Time delay from trigger signal to glitch generation, requiring adjustment to target specific operations within the target's execution
  • Glitch shape: Voltage transition profile including rise time, fall time, and waveform shape that affects which circuit regions are impacted
  • Repeat rate: Multiple glitches may be needed to cause faults in redundant systems or to increase fault probability

Commercial Voltage Glitching Platforms

Several commercial platforms provide integrated voltage glitching capabilities with varying levels of sophistication.

  • ChipWhisperer: Open-source platform offering voltage glitching alongside power analysis capabilities, with extensive documentation and community support
  • Riscure Inspector FI: Professional-grade fault injection system with precise glitch timing, automated parameter search, and integration with analysis software
  • NewAE Technology tools: Range of glitching hardware from educational to professional grades, supporting both voltage and clock fault injection
  • Custom FPGA-based systems: Many research groups develop custom glitching platforms using FPGAs for precise timing control and rapid parameter exploration

Voltage Glitching Implementation

Implementing voltage glitching requires careful attention to the electrical interface between glitching hardware and target device.

  • Power supply interception: The glitching system must be able to modulate the target's supply voltage, either by replacing the power supply or by injecting signals onto the supply rail
  • Decoupling capacitor consideration: On-board and on-chip decoupling capacitors filter glitches, potentially requiring physical modification to reduce capacitance
  • Low-impedance drive: Glitching circuits must drive supply rails with low enough impedance to overcome decoupling and produce sharp voltage transitions
  • Multiple supply domains: Modern chips often have separate supply domains for core, I/O, and memory, requiring targeted glitching of specific domains

Crowbar and Shunt Techniques

Two primary methods implement voltage glitches with different trade-offs in complexity and effectiveness.

  • Crowbar glitching: Briefly shorts the power supply to ground through a low-impedance switch, causing rapid voltage drop followed by recovery
  • Shunt resistor modulation: Varies current through a series resistor to modulate voltage reaching the target, offering finer control but limited depth
  • Active voltage control: Uses fast operational amplifiers or DACs to shape arbitrary glitch waveforms with precise amplitude control
  • Hybrid approaches: Combine techniques for optimal performance, such as using crowbar for deep glitches with active control for fine adjustment

Clock Glitching Tools

Clock glitching attacks target the timing reference that synchronizes all operations within a digital system. By inserting extra clock edges, removing clock pulses, or distorting clock timing, attackers can cause instruction execution errors similar to those achieved through voltage glitching but through a different physical mechanism.

Clock Glitching Mechanisms

Clock manipulation techniques exploit the fundamental role of clock signals in synchronous digital circuits.

  • Clock insertion: Adding extra clock edges causes registers to sample data before combinational logic has settled, latching incorrect intermediate values
  • Clock deletion: Removing clock pulses prevents certain operations from completing, potentially skipping instructions or memory accesses
  • Clock stretching: Extending individual clock periods beyond design limits can cause problems in circuits with dynamic logic or charge-based storage
  • Frequency manipulation: Sudden frequency changes cause timing violations when circuits cannot adapt quickly enough to new operating conditions

Clock Access Requirements

Clock glitching requires access to the target's clock signal, which can be achieved through several approaches.

  • External clock targets: Devices using external crystal oscillators or clock inputs are directly accessible for glitching by intercepting or replacing the clock source
  • Internal oscillator challenges: Targets with internal oscillators require electromagnetic or voltage-based clock manipulation since the clock is not directly accessible
  • PLL considerations: Phase-locked loops in modern chips filter some clock perturbations, requiring faster glitches or manipulation of PLL inputs
  • Clock tree distribution: On-chip clock distribution networks may require injection at specific points for effective fault generation

Clock Glitching Hardware

Specialized hardware generates the precise clock manipulations needed for effective glitching.

  • FPGA-based generators: Field-programmable gate arrays provide the timing precision and programmability needed for clock glitch generation with sub-nanosecond control
  • Phase shifters: Analog or digital phase adjustment circuits enable fine positioning of glitch edges relative to nominal clock timing
  • Multiplexer circuits: Fast analog multiplexers switch between normal and glitched clock paths to insert precisely timed clock edges
  • Direct digital synthesis: DDS chips can generate arbitrary clock waveforms for sophisticated manipulation patterns

Clock vs. Voltage Glitching Trade-offs

Both techniques achieve similar fault effects but differ in practical implementation considerations.

  • Target preparation: Clock glitching often requires less physical modification since clock signals are typically more accessible than internal power domains
  • Fault precision: Clock glitches can potentially achieve higher temporal precision since they directly control the timing reference
  • Defense complexity: Clock monitoring countermeasures differ from voltage monitoring, requiring both protections for comprehensive defense
  • Equipment cost: Basic clock glitching can be implemented with lower-cost hardware than precision voltage glitching systems

Electromagnetic Fault Injection

Electromagnetic fault injection uses focused electromagnetic pulses to induce faults in integrated circuits without requiring direct electrical contact with the target. This non-invasive technique can inject faults through packaging and even through device enclosures, making it particularly relevant for evaluating products in their final assembled state.

EMFI Principles

Electromagnetic fault injection exploits the coupling between external electromagnetic fields and on-chip conductors.

  • Inductive coupling: Rapidly changing magnetic fields induce voltages in chip wiring and substrate, causing current flow that disturbs circuit operation
  • Local heating: Induced currents can cause localized heating that affects transistor characteristics and timing
  • Latch-up triggering: Strong EM pulses can trigger parasitic thyristor structures in CMOS circuits, causing sustained current flow and potential damage
  • Field penetration: Electromagnetic fields can penetrate many packaging materials, enabling fault injection without decapsulation

EMFI Probe Design

Electromagnetic injection probes concentrate magnetic field energy to achieve spatial precision in fault injection.

  • Coil geometry: Small-diameter coils provide better spatial resolution while larger coils affect broader circuit areas with greater energy
  • Ferrite cores: Magnetic core materials concentrate field lines and improve coupling efficiency to the target
  • Shielding: Probe shielding controls field distribution, preventing unintended coupling to nearby circuits or test equipment
  • Tip shapes: Pointed tips provide maximum localization while flat tips distribute injection over controlled areas

Pulse Generation Systems

EMFI systems require high-power pulse generators capable of producing the fast current transients needed for effective fault injection.

  • Capacitor discharge circuits: Store energy in capacitors and discharge rapidly through the injection coil to produce intense but brief magnetic pulses
  • Pulse width control: Adjustable pulse duration from nanoseconds to microseconds enables targeting different circuit features
  • Voltage levels: Systems typically operate with hundreds to thousands of volts to achieve adequate magnetic field intensity
  • Repetition rate: Some attacks require repeated pulses, requiring systems with adequate cooling and consistent performance

Commercial EMFI Systems

Several vendors offer complete electromagnetic fault injection systems for security research and evaluation.

  • Riscure EM Fault Injection: Professional system with calibrated probes, integrated pulse generator, and automation software for systematic vulnerability assessment
  • NewAE ChipSHOUTER: Cost-effective EMFI system designed for integration with ChipWhisperer platforms, providing accessible entry to electromagnetic fault injection
  • Langer EMV-Technik probes: High-quality injection probes available in various sizes and configurations for research applications
  • Custom research systems: Many laboratories develop custom EMFI equipment optimized for specific research objectives

EMFI Positioning and Scanning

Effective EMFI requires precise probe positioning to target vulnerable circuit regions.

  • XY positioning stages: Motorized stages enable systematic scanning across the chip surface to identify fault-sensitive regions
  • Z-axis control: Probe-to-chip distance critically affects coupling efficiency and must be precisely controlled
  • Cartography: Systematic scanning produces fault sensitivity maps showing which chip regions are vulnerable to electromagnetic injection
  • Optical registration: Camera systems enable accurate probe positioning relative to chip features and reproducible positioning between sessions

Laser Fault Injection

Laser fault injection uses focused light beams to induce faults in semiconductor devices with extremely high spatial precision. By targeting individual transistors or small circuit regions, laser injection enables single-bit fault attacks that are difficult or impossible to achieve with other techniques. This precision makes laser injection particularly effective for attacking cryptographic implementations and for research into device vulnerabilities.

Laser Injection Physics

Laser fault injection exploits the photoelectric effect in semiconductor materials to disturb circuit operation.

  • Photocurrent generation: Photons with energy exceeding the silicon bandgap create electron-hole pairs that contribute to circuit current flow
  • Wavelength selection: Near-infrared wavelengths around 1064nm penetrate silicon substrates while visible wavelengths are absorbed at the surface
  • Transient effects: Brief laser pulses create temporary current surges that can flip memory cell states or corrupt logic operations
  • Thermal effects: Higher power or longer pulses cause localized heating that affects transistor characteristics

Backside vs. Frontside Attack

Laser injection can target chips from either the top surface or through the silicon substrate from the backside.

  • Frontside attack: Targets through metallization layers, limited by metal density and often requiring circuit decapsulation
  • Backside attack: Near-infrared lasers penetrate the silicon substrate to reach active transistor regions from below
  • Backside preparation: Substrate thinning may be required for effective backside injection, balancing access requirements against chip damage
  • Flip-chip considerations: Modern flip-chip packaging places active regions facing the package substrate, affecting access requirements

Laser System Components

Complete laser fault injection systems integrate several sophisticated components for precise fault delivery.

  • Laser sources: Pulsed lasers with nanosecond or picosecond pulse widths provide temporal precision for fault injection
  • Optical focusing: Microscope objectives focus laser beams to spot sizes ranging from several micrometers down to diffraction limits below one micrometer
  • Beam scanning: Galvanometer mirrors or acousto-optic deflectors enable rapid beam positioning without moving the target
  • Power control: Precise attenuation controls laser energy to achieve faults without causing permanent damage
  • Imaging system: Optical microscopy enables target visualization and fault location documentation

Commercial Laser Stations

Professional laser fault injection systems combine all necessary components with software for automated testing.

  • Riscure Laser Station: Comprehensive system with multiple laser wavelengths, precision positioning, and integration with analysis software
  • Hamamatsu PHEMOS systems: Originally designed for failure analysis but applicable to security research with appropriate configuration
  • Alphanov PicoLAS: Research-grade laser fault injection system with picosecond pulse capability
  • Custom laboratory systems: Many research institutions build custom systems using commercial laser sources and optical components

Laser Injection Challenges

Laser fault injection requires significant expertise and preparation to achieve reliable results.

  • Chip preparation: Package removal and potentially substrate thinning require careful sample preparation
  • Layout analysis: Effective targeting requires knowledge of chip layout to identify security-relevant circuit regions
  • Equipment cost: Professional laser stations represent significant investment, limiting accessibility compared to other techniques
  • Safety requirements: Class 4 laser systems require appropriate safety measures including interlocks and protective equipment

Temperature Manipulation

Temperature extremes can induce faults in electronic circuits by affecting transistor characteristics, timing margins, and memory retention. While less precise than other fault injection methods, temperature manipulation requires minimal specialized equipment and can reveal vulnerabilities in devices designed without adequate thermal operating margins.

Temperature Effects on Circuits

Temperature variations affect multiple aspects of semiconductor device operation.

  • Threshold voltage shift: Transistor threshold voltages decrease with increasing temperature, affecting switching points and noise margins
  • Carrier mobility: Higher temperatures reduce carrier mobility, increasing propagation delays and potentially causing timing violations
  • Leakage current: Leakage currents increase exponentially with temperature, affecting power consumption and potentially causing thermal runaway
  • Memory retention: SRAM and flash memory cells become more susceptible to bit flips at temperature extremes

Heating Techniques

Various methods can raise target device temperature beyond normal operating limits.

  • Environmental chambers: Temperature-controlled chambers provide uniform heating across the entire device with precise temperature control
  • Hot air stations: Focused hot air enables localized heating of specific device regions
  • Heat guns: Simple heat guns provide basic heating capability for initial vulnerability assessment
  • Peltier heaters: Thermoelectric heaters mounted directly on devices provide rapid temperature changes with electrical control
  • Infrared heating: Focused infrared sources can heat specific chip regions for localized attacks

Cooling Techniques

Low temperatures also affect circuit operation and can reveal different vulnerability classes.

  • Refrigerant sprays: Aerosol cooling sprays provide rapid localized cooling to well below freezing temperatures
  • Peltier coolers: Thermoelectric coolers can reduce temperatures significantly below ambient with electrical control
  • Liquid nitrogen: Cryogenic cooling enables testing at extreme low temperatures that significantly affect semiconductor behavior
  • Cold chambers: Environmental chambers with cooling capability provide controlled low-temperature testing

Cold Boot Attacks

A specific class of temperature-based attacks exploits DRAM data remanence at low temperatures.

  • Data remanence: DRAM cells retain their contents for extended periods when cooled, even without power
  • Key extraction: Cryptographic keys stored in memory can be recovered by cooling the system, power cycling, and reading memory contents
  • Attack procedure: Cool the memory modules, remove power, transfer modules to an attacker-controlled system, and dump contents before decay
  • Defense challenges: Memory encryption and scrubbing provide partial protection but may not be fully effective against sophisticated attacks

X-Ray and Ion Beam Systems

High-energy radiation can induce faults in electronic circuits through direct interaction with semiconductor materials. While primarily associated with space radiation effects and reliability testing, X-ray and ion beam systems also serve as precision fault injection tools for security research. These techniques can target specific circuit regions with high spatial resolution and produce well-characterized fault types.

X-Ray Fault Injection

X-ray exposure can cause both transient and permanent faults in electronic circuits through ionization effects.

  • Ionization damage: X-rays generate electron-hole pairs in oxide layers that accumulate over time, causing threshold voltage shifts
  • Single event effects: Individual high-energy photons can deposit enough charge to upset memory cells or corrupt logic states
  • Total ionizing dose: Cumulative exposure causes gradual degradation that eventually leads to device failure
  • Focused sources: Micro-focus X-ray tubes and synchrotron beamlines enable localized exposure of specific circuit regions

Ion Beam Techniques

Focused ion beams provide even greater precision for fault injection research.

  • Heavy ion bombardment: Single heavy ions deposit significant energy along their paths through silicon, causing single-event upsets
  • Focused ion beam systems: FIB equipment designed for failure analysis and circuit edit can also inject controlled faults with sub-micrometer precision
  • Proton beams: Proton irradiation causes different damage mechanisms than heavy ions, useful for comprehensive vulnerability assessment
  • Beam control: Modern systems enable precise control over ion species, energy, dose, and targeting

Equipment and Facilities

Radiation-based fault injection requires specialized facilities and equipment typically found in research institutions.

  • X-ray sources: Range from laboratory X-ray tubes to synchrotron facilities with extremely high intensity and tunability
  • Ion accelerators: Particle accelerators deliver controlled ion beams with precise energy and flux
  • FIB systems: Dual-beam FIB-SEM systems combine ion beam capability with electron microscopy for precise targeting
  • Shielding requirements: Radiation sources require appropriate shielding and safety protocols for operator protection

Research Applications

Radiation-based fault injection serves several important research and evaluation functions.

  • Space electronics qualification: Testing hardware for space applications requires characterizing responses to cosmic radiation
  • Reliability assessment: Accelerated radiation testing predicts long-term reliability in radiation environments
  • Countermeasure validation: Verifying effectiveness of radiation hardening techniques against known fault mechanisms
  • Security research: Understanding fault injection possibilities helps develop comprehensive security countermeasures

Software Fault Injection

Software fault injection complements hardware techniques by using software mechanisms to simulate fault effects or trigger hardware vulnerabilities. While not injecting physical faults directly, software methods can exercise error handling paths, validate fault detection mechanisms, and in some cases trigger latent hardware vulnerabilities.

Software Simulation of Faults

Software can simulate the effects of hardware faults to test system responses and countermeasures.

  • Instruction modification: Debuggers or binary instrumentation can modify instructions to simulate instruction skip or corruption faults
  • Memory corruption: Deliberately corrupting memory values simulates the effects of data integrity faults
  • Return value modification: Changing function return values tests how systems respond to unexpected results from security-critical operations
  • Exception injection: Generating software exceptions tests error handling and recovery mechanisms

Rowhammer and Memory Attacks

Some software techniques can trigger actual hardware faults through normal memory operations.

  • Rowhammer effect: Repeated access to DRAM rows can cause bit flips in adjacent rows due to electrical interference
  • Security implications: Rowhammer-induced bit flips have been exploited for privilege escalation and sandbox escape
  • Attack variations: Single-sided, double-sided, and many-sided hammering techniques target different DRAM configurations
  • Test tools: Tools like rowhammer-test and TRRespass systematically test DRAM vulnerability to hammering attacks

Voltage and Frequency Scaling Attacks

On systems with software-controllable voltage or frequency, software can induce fault conditions.

  • DVFS exploitation: Dynamic voltage and frequency scaling interfaces may allow setting conditions that induce timing faults
  • Plundervolt: Demonstrated attacks using Intel SGX voltage control to induce faults in enclave computations
  • CLKscrew: Attacks exploiting ARM energy management interfaces to cause timing violations
  • Defense implications: These attacks have led to restrictions on software voltage and frequency control in security-sensitive contexts

Fault Injection Frameworks

Software frameworks facilitate systematic fault injection testing for security and reliability evaluation.

  • LLVM-based tools: Compiler instrumentation enables automatic injection of fault simulation code during compilation
  • Debugger automation: Scripts control debuggers to systematically modify program state and observe effects
  • Emulator instrumentation: Hardware emulators can be modified to inject faults during simulated execution
  • Fuzzing integration: Combining fault injection with fuzzing techniques expands testing coverage

Multi-Fault Platforms

Advanced fault injection platforms combine multiple injection techniques to enable sophisticated attacks that single techniques cannot achieve. Multi-fault attacks, where multiple coordinated faults defeat redundant protections, represent realistic attack scenarios against hardened targets. Platforms supporting these attacks require precise synchronization between multiple injection channels.

Combined Attack Rationale

Security countermeasures often assume single faults, creating opportunities for multi-fault attacks.

  • Redundancy defeat: Devices using redundant computations for fault detection can be attacked with simultaneous faults that corrupt all copies
  • Sensor bypass: One fault can disable security sensors while another performs the actual attack
  • Timing attacks: Combining side-channel analysis with fault injection enables attacks impossible with either technique alone
  • Complementary coverage: Different injection methods may be effective against different parts of a target system

Platform Integration Challenges

Building effective multi-fault systems requires overcoming several technical challenges.

  • Timing synchronization: Multiple fault sources must be triggered with precise relative timing, often requiring shared clock references
  • Physical integration: Fitting multiple injection mechanisms around a target device requires careful mechanical design
  • Parameter coordination: Multi-dimensional parameter spaces dramatically increase search complexity
  • Interference management: Different injection mechanisms may interfere with each other, requiring careful isolation

Commercial Multi-Fault Systems

Professional security evaluation requires platforms that support multiple simultaneous injection methods.

  • Riscure Inspector platform: Integrates voltage glitching, EM injection, and laser fault injection with unified control and analysis
  • ChipWhisperer Pro: Supports simultaneous power analysis and fault injection with expandable architecture
  • Custom integration: Research groups often integrate multiple commercial tools with custom synchronization systems
  • Modular architectures: Some platforms use modular designs enabling configuration of different injection combinations

Automated Fault Finding

The complexity of multi-fault parameter spaces drives development of automated exploration methods.

  • Genetic algorithms: Evolutionary search methods explore parameter spaces to find effective fault combinations
  • Machine learning: ML techniques can learn relationships between parameters and fault success to guide exploration
  • Grid search: Systematic exhaustive search remains viable for lower-dimensional parameter spaces
  • Guided search: Side-channel information can guide fault injection toward promising parameter regions

Countermeasure Testing

Fault injection equipment serves not only to demonstrate attacks but also to validate the effectiveness of countermeasures. Comprehensive security evaluation requires systematic testing of defensive measures against the range of fault injection techniques attackers might employ.

Countermeasure Categories

Hardware security devices employ various countermeasures that require different testing approaches.

  • Detection countermeasures: Sensors that detect fault injection attempts and trigger responses such as zeroization or lockout
  • Algorithmic countermeasures: Redundant computations and integrity checks that detect fault-induced errors
  • Physical countermeasures: Shielding, active meshes, and design techniques that make fault injection more difficult
  • Combined approaches: Production devices typically employ multiple countermeasure types for defense in depth

Testing Methodologies

Systematic countermeasure testing requires structured approaches to parameter exploration.

  • Boundary testing: Evaluate countermeasure response at the edges of detection thresholds
  • Stress testing: Apply repeated faults to assess countermeasure durability and recovery
  • Coverage analysis: Ensure testing covers the full range of possible attack parameters
  • Combination testing: Verify countermeasures remain effective against multi-fault attacks

Certification Requirements

Security certifications specify fault injection testing requirements for evaluated products.

  • Common Criteria: Higher assurance levels require fault injection resistance evaluation
  • EMVCo: Payment card security evaluations include extensive fault injection testing
  • FIPS 140-3: Cryptographic module validation addresses physical security including fault resistance
  • Automotive security: Emerging standards for automotive cybersecurity address fault injection threats

Building Fault Injection Capability

Organizations developing secure hardware benefit from in-house fault injection capability for design validation and pre-certification testing. Building this capability requires investment in equipment, expertise, and ongoing methodology development.

Entry-Level Configuration

Initial fault injection capability can be established with moderate investment.

  • ChipWhisperer-Lite: Affordable platform providing voltage glitching and power analysis capabilities
  • Basic oscilloscope: Visualization of glitch waveforms and target responses
  • Power supply equipment: Adjustable supplies and basic target interfacing
  • Software tools: Open-source frameworks for test automation and analysis

Intermediate Configuration

Enhanced capability supports more sophisticated testing scenarios.

  • EMFI system: Electromagnetic fault injection capability such as ChipSHOUTER
  • Positioning stage: XYZ positioning for systematic EMFI scanning
  • High-bandwidth oscilloscope: Detailed waveform analysis and trigger capability
  • Temperature control: Environmental chamber or temperature forcing equipment

Advanced Configuration

Comprehensive capability approaching certified evaluation laboratory standards.

  • Laser fault injection: Professional laser station for high-precision attacks
  • Multi-fault platform: Integrated system supporting simultaneous injection methods
  • Automation software: Professional tools for systematic testing and documentation
  • Sample preparation: Decapsulation and thinning equipment for chip-level access

Expertise Development

Equipment alone is insufficient without trained personnel to use it effectively.

  • Training courses: Vendor training and academic courses on fault injection techniques
  • Literature study: Academic papers and conference proceedings document current attack methods
  • Practice targets: Development boards and vulnerable sample devices for technique development
  • Community engagement: Conferences and workshops provide opportunities to learn from experienced practitioners

Summary

Fault injection equipment enables comprehensive evaluation of hardware security against physical attacks. From accessible voltage glitching platforms to sophisticated laser fault injection systems, these tools reveal vulnerabilities that threaten secure boot processes, cryptographic implementations, and access control mechanisms. Understanding fault injection techniques is essential for developing hardware that resists real-world attacks.

The diversity of fault injection methods reflects the many ways attackers can disturb electronic circuit operation. Voltage and clock glitching exploit timing margins, electromagnetic injection delivers faults without electrical contact, laser systems provide single-transistor precision, and temperature manipulation affects fundamental semiconductor properties. Multi-fault platforms combine these techniques to defeat redundant protections.

As electronic devices increasingly protect sensitive data and critical functions, fault injection testing has become a standard requirement for security certification. Organizations developing secure hardware benefit from establishing in-house fault injection capability for early vulnerability identification and countermeasure validation. The investment in equipment and expertise pays dividends through reduced certification risk and improved product security against the growing threat of physical attacks.