update tech report
This commit is contained in:
parent
db20782ff9
commit
1530b958c3
1 changed files with 120 additions and 125 deletions
|
|
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
|
|||
\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
|
||||
\documentclass[10pt,journal,a4paper]{IEEEtran}
|
||||
\usepackage[english]{babel}
|
||||
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
||||
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
||||
|
|
@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
|
|||
|
||||
\usepackage[binary-units]{siunitx}
|
||||
\DeclareSIUnit{\baud}{Bd}
|
||||
\DeclareSIUnit{\year}{a}
|
||||
\usepackage{hyperref}
|
||||
\usepackage{tabularx}
|
||||
\usepackage{commath}
|
||||
|
|
@ -77,135 +78,110 @@
|
|||
\date{2020-09-15}
|
||||
\maketitle
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Abstract}
|
||||
\section*{Abstract}
|
||||
|
||||
In this paper, we introduce a novel, highly effective countermeasure against physical attacks: Inertial hardware
|
||||
security modules. Whereas conventional technology can be categorized into systems monitoring a thin boundary (such as
|
||||
security meshes) and systems monitoring the interior volume (such as the "enclosure PUF" of Tobisch et al.). What all of
|
||||
these systems have in common is that they try to detect attacks by crafting sensors responding to increasingly minute
|
||||
manipulations of the monitored medium. Our approach is novel in that we alleviate the sensitivity requirement of a
|
||||
security mesh by increasing the complexity of any manipulation at all by orders of magnitude by fastly rotating the
|
||||
security mesh--presenting a moving target to an attacker. Attempts to modify the rotation itself are easily monitored
|
||||
with commercial MEMS accelerometers and gyroscopes.
|
||||
security meshes) and systems monitoring the interior volume (such as the ``enclosure PUF'' of Tobisch et
|
||||
al.\cite{tobisch2020}). All of these systems have in common that they try to detect attacks by crafting sensors
|
||||
responding to increasingly minute manipulations of the monitored medium. Our approach is novel in that we reduce the
|
||||
sensitivity requirement of security meshes and other sensors and increase the complexity of any manipulations by fastly
|
||||
rotating the security mesh or sensor--presenting a moving target to an attacker. Attempts to tamper with the rotation
|
||||
itself are easily monitored with commercial MEMS accelerometers and gyroscopes.
|
||||
|
||||
Our approach leads to a HSM that can easily be built from off-the-shelf parts by any university electronics lab, yet is
|
||||
as secure or more secure than even the best commercial offerings.
|
||||
Our approach leads to a HSM that can easily be built from off-the-shelf parts by any university electronics lab, yet
|
||||
offers a level of security that is comparable to even the best commercial offerings.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Introduction}
|
||||
Since the early days of computers, physical security has often been a core component of any computer system's security
|
||||
architecture. Physical security in fact predates our modern concept of computer security by decades. Long before
|
||||
passwords, access control lists, role-based authentication and other modern concepts of information security were
|
||||
developed, information was secured by physically locking away the computers that held it.
|
||||
|
||||
Nowadays, concerns of physical security are mostly limited to certain applications. Credit card processing and medical
|
||||
data processing are two instances where a combination of smartcards and hardware security modules is used to provide a
|
||||
higher level of security than what ordinary computers can provide. Meanwhile, in most commercial data processing
|
||||
applications, the physical security provided by an average datacenter is considered to be appropriate.
|
||||
Long before passwords, access control lists, role-based authentication and other modern concepts of information security
|
||||
were developed, information was secured by physically locking away the computers that held it. Nowadays, physical
|
||||
security concerns have are mostly receded into specialty applications such as credit card processing and medical data
|
||||
processing. In most other commercial data processing applications, the physical security provided by the average
|
||||
datacenter is considered to be appropriate.
|
||||
|
||||
In modern systems, phyiscal security always is tightly interwoven with the system's overall security architecture.
|
||||
Beyond the level provided by locks and guards, it is generally considered infeasible to physically secure all parts of a
|
||||
computer. High-level physical security is usually limited to either a single chip or part of a chip such as a secure
|
||||
element, enclave or smartcards--or it is limited to a small module acting within a very limited scope, as is the case in
|
||||
commercial HSMs that largely act as cryptographic co-processors with built-in key management functions.
|
||||
In modern systems, it is generally considered infeasible to physically secure a whole computer beyond putting a lock on
|
||||
it. High-level physical security is usually limited to a small physical sizes. Secure enclaves and smartcards provide
|
||||
security on the scale of a single-chip. Commercial HSMs provide the functions of a cryptographic co-processor from a
|
||||
physically secure small circuit board\cite{anderson2020,immler2019}.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Technical approaches to physical security}
|
||||
The use of chips as secure elements has recently become popular beyond the smartcards of yesteryear. Apple has carried
|
||||
over a secure enclave IC from their line of phones into their line of laptops in 2016. Likewise, Google has developed
|
||||
its own security IC for use in phones and laptops. An issue to consider with all such IC-based security solutions is
|
||||
that they do not provide any cryptographic security. The real-world security of these solutions solely rests on the
|
||||
assumption that due to their fine structure, ICs are hard to reverse engineer and manipulate. As of now, this property
|
||||
holds and in the authors' opinion it will likely be a reasonable assumptions for some years to come. However, in its
|
||||
essence this is a type of security by obscurity: Obscurity here mostly applying to the rarity of tools that are
|
||||
necessary for practical attacks such as focused ion beam workstations and accompanying sample preparation equipment. An
|
||||
important observation in this regard is that already, several people are slowly chipping away at this obscurity: A group
|
||||
at Ruhr University Bochum is working on advanced tooling for netlist reverse engineering, and there are several
|
||||
companies offering commercial IC reverse engineering services.
|
||||
|
||||
Shrinking things to the nanoscopic level to secure them against tampering is increasing in popularity. Apple today uses
|
||||
a secure enclave IC in their line of laptops. Likewise, Google has developed its own security IC with a similar
|
||||
application\cite{frazelle2019}. Any such security IC provides physical security but does not provide any cryptographic
|
||||
security. The real-world security of such chips solely rests on the assumption that due to their fine structure, they
|
||||
are hard to reverse engineer or modify. As of now, this property holds and in the authors' opinion it will likely be a
|
||||
reasonable assumptions for some years to come. However, in its essence this is a type of security by obscurity:
|
||||
Obscurity here meaning the rarity of the equipment necessary to attack these chips\cite{albartus2020,anderson2020}.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Hardware Security Modules}
|
||||
At larger physical dimensions, hardware security modules (HSMs) provide an effective solution to the problem: In
|
||||
conformity with Kerckhoff's principle, their creators do not try to hide the structure of the system within. Instead,
|
||||
the HSM monitors it for any manipulation and wipes all key material when one is detected. The most common commercial
|
||||
realization of this is what we call a "boundary-monitoring" HSM. This is a device uses a microcontroller monitoring the
|
||||
conductivity of usually two electrical traces that are folded many times to cover the entire area of a plastic enclosure
|
||||
part or a plastic foil wrapped around the module. The security problem thus gets transformed into a manufacturing
|
||||
challenge: How fine can these traces be made--so they are disturbed by even the tiniest of holes for say, a fine needle;
|
||||
and how sensitive can they be made to perturbations--so they break from even gentle attempts at mechanical, chemical or
|
||||
other physical manipulation.
|
||||
|
||||
The other type of HSM that so far has garnered mostly academic interest are what we call "volumetric" HSMs. Where a
|
||||
boundary-monitoring HSM senses disturbations to a thin boundary between its inside and the outside world, a volumetric
|
||||
HSM monitors its entire interior volume. Approaches that have been proposed so far include monitoring using
|
||||
electromagnetic radiation % FIXME: citation (paper1 (this chip thing w/ distributed PAs/LNAs), paper2 (RUB)
|
||||
and ultrasonic sensing. % FIXME: citation
|
||||
Common to both approaches is that for technical reasons the wavelength of the employed radiation is in the range of
|
||||
millimeters or larger. This implies that practical attacks acting on a smaller scale of physical size require sensitive
|
||||
monitoring circuity to be reliably caught. % FIXME maybe talk to a physicist here.
|
||||
Since they require advanced transceivers and signal processing, these HSMs incur a high implementation cost compared to
|
||||
one based on a traditional security mesh, while they in turn promise to be easier and less expensive to scale in
|
||||
physical size. A severe problem with any previous volumetric designs is that their security analysis is very hard. While
|
||||
multiple designs have been proposed academically, none of these proposals include an analysis of their physical security
|
||||
properties that goes beyond guesswork. %FIXME verify this.
|
||||
The obvious reason for this is that to evaluate the volume inside the HSM that is covered by a given transceiver
|
||||
combination and a given test signal pattern necessarily requires numerically solving the volumetric electromagnetic
|
||||
field equations inside the HSM, applying a model of transmitter and receiver to the results that takes into account
|
||||
receiver sensitivity and ADC resolution, transmitter power and receiver saturation effects and then validating that
|
||||
every point in space (or at least inside a boundary region) is covered. While the guess that attacks are impractical
|
||||
might still be true this would be based on the fact that the same problem presents itself to an attacker trying to
|
||||
circumvent these measures--degrading their security to simple obscurity again.
|
||||
Hardware security modules (HSMs) approach the problem in a different angle: In conformity with Kerckhoff's principle,
|
||||
instead of hiding the system's structure, the HSM has monitors that wipes all secrets when the slightest manipulation is
|
||||
detected. Commercial HSMs commonly employ what we call \emph{boundary monitoring}. They have a physical security barrier
|
||||
that they continuously monitor for holes. Usually, this is a thin foil patterned with two electrical traces that are
|
||||
folded many times to cover the entire area of the foil--and that are monitored for shorts or breaks. The security
|
||||
problem thus gets transformed into a manufacturing challenge: How fine can these traces be made so that they break from
|
||||
even the most gentle attempts at e.g.\ mechanical or chemical manipulation.
|
||||
|
||||
In our classification the other type of HSMs are \emph{volumetric} HSMs. Here, the entire interior volume is monitored
|
||||
for changes using e.g.\ electromagnetic radiation\cite{tobisch2020,kreft2012} or ultrasound. Their security is limited
|
||||
by the analog sensitivity of their transceivers. Their practicality is limited by their complex transceiver and signal
|
||||
processing circuitry. They promise to secure larger volumes than boundary monitoring at higher parts cost.
|
||||
|
||||
A problem with volumetric designs is their security analysis, which is hard to do without significant guesswork. To
|
||||
ensure full volumetric coverage one has to numerically solve the electromagnetic field equations inside the HSM
|
||||
according to a model of its sensing transceivers.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Inertial HSMs: A new approach to physical security}
|
||||
We are certain that there is still much work to be done and many insights to be gained from further explorations
|
||||
of the two concepts described above. Trivially, consider a box with mirrored walls that, suspended on thin wires,
|
||||
contains a smaller box that has cameras looking outward in all directions at the mirrored walls. Given that the defender
|
||||
can control lighting conditions inside this kaleidoscopic box in this application modern cameras can be considered
|
||||
equivalent to or better than the human eye. Thus, a successful physical attack on this system would likely an
|
||||
"invisibility cloaks"--and the system would remain secure as long as no such thing exists. This example is a useful
|
||||
point of reference. To be viable, a HSM technology must be either smaller or more sensitive than such a setup.
|
||||
We are certain that there is still much work to be done and many insights to be gained from further explorations of the
|
||||
two concepts described above. For example, consider a box with mirrored walls that contains a smaller box suspended on
|
||||
thin wires that has cameras looking outward in all directions at the mirrored walls. Given that the defender can control
|
||||
lighting conditions inside this kaleidoscopic box in this application modern cameras can be considered equivalent to or
|
||||
better than the human eye. Thus, a successful physical attack on this system would likely an ``invisibility cloak''--and
|
||||
the system would remain secure as long as no such thing exists. This example is a useful point of reference. To be
|
||||
viable, an HSM technology must be either cheaper, smaller or more sensitive than this strawman setup.
|
||||
|
||||
The candidate we wish to introduce in this paper uses a novel approach to side-step the issues of both the concepts
|
||||
introduced in the previous section and provides radically better security against physical attacks--both in theory and
|
||||
in practice.
|
||||
The candidate we wish to introduce in this paper uses a novel approach to sidestep the issues of conventional HSM
|
||||
concepts and provides radically better security against physical attacks both in theory and in practice.
|
||||
|
||||
Our core observation is that given any less expensive but more coarse HSM technology, we can make it radically more
|
||||
difficult to attack by introducing fast mechanical motion. As a trivial example, consider a HSM as it is used in
|
||||
ecommerce applications for credit card payments. Focusing on its main defense for simplicity, its physical security is
|
||||
limited by the structure size of the mesh that is likely used in its shell. If an attacker can tap the mesh's electrical
|
||||
traces and bridge across the mesh in a way the HSM cannot detect (e.g. by making sure the bridge has the same electrical
|
||||
impedance as the mesh traces have e.g. by comparing against another device of the same type), they have circumvented the
|
||||
device's protections. Any such attack would likely involve some fine drill bits, needles, wires, glue, perhaps solder or
|
||||
even lasers.
|
||||
Our core observation is that any cheap but coarse HSM technology can be made radically more difficult to attack by
|
||||
introducing fast mechanical motion. As a trivial example, consider an HSM as it is used in ecommerce applications for
|
||||
credit card payments. Its physical security level is set by the structure size of its security mesh. If an attacker can
|
||||
tap the mesh's electrical traces in a way the HSM cannot detect, they have circumvented the device's protections. Such
|
||||
attacks might involve fine drill bits, needles, wires, glue, solder and lasers.
|
||||
|
||||
Now consider the same HSM, but this time mounted on a large flywheel. In this scenario the HSM uses the same
|
||||
protections as before, but is now additionally equipped with an accelerometer that it uses to verify that it is in fact
|
||||
rotating at a very high speed. How would an attacker approach this HSM? They would have to either slow down the rotation
|
||||
(which would quickly be sensed by the accelerometer) or they would have to attack the moving HSM--the HSM literally
|
||||
becomes a moving target. While rotating the entire attack workbench might be possible for slow speeds, rotating frames
|
||||
of reference quickly become inhospitable to human life and at some point the technical means to rotate a CNC attack
|
||||
robot probably weighing several kilograms become inconvenient as well. Contact-less EM or optical attacks are more
|
||||
limited in the first place, and can effectively be shielded.
|
||||
Now consider the same HSM mounted on a large flywheel. In addition to its usual defenses the HSM is now equipped with an
|
||||
accelerometer that it uses to verify that it is rotating at high speed. How would an attacker approach this HSM? They
|
||||
would have to either slow down the rotation, which would quickly be sensed by the accelerometer, or they would have to
|
||||
attack the HSM in motion. The HSM literally becomes a moving target. At slow speeds, rotating the entire attack
|
||||
workbench might be possible but rotating frames of reference quickly become inhospitable to human life and at some point
|
||||
the technical means to rotate a CNC attack robot will become inconvenient as well. Electromagnetic or optical attacks
|
||||
that do not require mechanical contact are more limited in the first place and can be shielded effectively.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Contributions}
|
||||
This work contains the following contributions:
|
||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||
\item Presentation of the \emph{Inertial HSM} concept, allowing cost-effective prototype and small-scale production
|
||||
of highly secure HSMs.
|
||||
\item Discussion of possible boundary sensing modes in the intertial HSM model.
|
||||
\item Exploration of the design space of inertial HSMs.
|
||||
\item We present the \emph{Inertial HSM} concept. Inertial HSMs enable cost-effective small-scale production of
|
||||
highly secure HSMs.
|
||||
\item We discuss possible boundary sensing modes for intertial HSMs.
|
||||
\item We explore the design space our inertial HSM concept.
|
||||
% FIXME \item Presentation of a prototype inertial HSM.
|
||||
% FIXME \item Measurement of the prototype HSM's susceptibility to various types of attack.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Related work}
|
||||
% summaries of research papers on HSMs.
|
||||
% I have not found any actual prior art on anything involving mechanical motion beyond ultrasound.
|
||||
In chapter 18 of the forthcoming 3rd edition of his seminal book on "Security Engineering"\cite{anderson2020}, Ross
|
||||
Anderson gives a background on physical security in general and on HSMs in particular. As an example he cites the IBM
|
||||
% summaries of research papers on HSMs. I have not found any actual prior art on anything involving mechanical motion
|
||||
% beyond ultrasound.
|
||||
In \cite{anderson2020}, Anderson gives a comprehensive overview on physical security. An example they cite is the IBM
|
||||
4758 HSM whose details are laid out in depth in \cite{smith1998}. This HSM is an example of an industry-standard
|
||||
construction. Though it is now a bit dated, the construction techniques of the physical security mechanisms have not
|
||||
changed much in the last two decades. Apart from some auxiliary temperature and radiation sensors to guard against
|
||||
attacks on the built-in SRAM memory the module's main security barrier uses the traditional construction of a flexible
|
||||
mesh wrapped around the module's core. In \cite{smith1998}, the authors claim the module monitors this mesh for
|
||||
short circuits, open circuits and conductivity. The fundamental approach to tamper detection and construction is similar
|
||||
to other commercial offerings\cite{obermaier2018}.
|
||||
evolved much in the last two decades. Apart from some auxiliary temperature and radiation sensors to guard against
|
||||
attacks on the built-in SRAM memory, the module's main security barrier uses the traditional construction of a flexible
|
||||
mesh wrapped around the module's core. In \cite{smith1998}, the authors claim the module monitors this mesh for short
|
||||
circuits, open circuits and conductivity. The fundamental approach to tamper detection and construction is similar to
|
||||
other commercial offerings\cite{obermaier2018}.
|
||||
|
||||
In \cite{immler2019}, Immler et al. describe a HSM based on precise capacitance measurements of a mesh. In contrast to
|
||||
traditional meshes, the mesh they use consists of a large number of individual traces (more than 32 in their example).
|
||||
|
|
@ -225,21 +201,19 @@ cheaper and capable of protecting a much larger security envelope than e.g. the
|
|||
cost of worse and less predictable security guarantees.
|
||||
|
||||
While \cite{tobisch2020} approach the sensing frontend cost as their only optimization target, the prior work of Kreft
|
||||
and Adi\cite{kreft2012} considers sensing quality. Their target is an HSM that envelopes a volume barely larger than a
|
||||
and Adi \cite{kreft2012} considers sensing quality. Their target is an HSM that envelopes a volume barely larger than a
|
||||
single chip. They theorize how an array of distributed RF transceivers can measure the physical properties of a potting
|
||||
compound that has been loaded with RF-reflective grains. In their concept, the RF response characterized by these
|
||||
transceivers is shaped by the precise three-dimensional distribution of RF-reflective grains within the potting
|
||||
compound.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Comparison to prior research}
|
||||
|
||||
Our concept is truly novel in that neither academic literature, nor patent databases contain any mention of mechanical
|
||||
motion being used as part of a hardware security module. Most academic research concentrates on the issue of creating
|
||||
new, more sensitive security barriers for HSMs while commercial vendors concentrate on means to cheaply manufacture
|
||||
these security barriers. Our concept instead focuses on the issue of taking any existing, cheap low-performance security
|
||||
barrier and transforming it into a marginally more expensive but very high-performance one. The closes to a mechanical
|
||||
HSM that we were able to find during our research is an 1988 patent\cite{rahman1988} that describes an mechanism to
|
||||
detect tampering along a communication cable by enclosing the cable inside a conduit filled with pressurized gas.
|
||||
Our concept is novel in that mechanical motion has not been proposed before as part of a hardware security module. Most
|
||||
academic research concentrates on the issue of creating new, more sensitive security barriers for HSMs while commercial
|
||||
vendors concentrate on means to cheaply manufacture these security barriers. Our concept instead focuses on the issue of
|
||||
taking any existing, cheap low-performance security barrier and transforming it into a marginally more expensive but
|
||||
very high-performance one. The closes to a mechanical HSM that we were able to find during our research is an 1988
|
||||
patent \cite{rahman1988} that describes an mechanism to detect tampering along a communication cable by enclosing the
|
||||
cable inside a conduit filled with pressurized gas.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Intertial HSM construction and operation}
|
||||
\subsection{Using motion for tamper detection}
|
||||
|
|
@ -250,17 +224,17 @@ a primitive tamper detection sensor.
|
|||
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||
\item We need the sensor's motion to be fairly fast. If any point of the sensor moves slow enough for a human to
|
||||
follow, it becomes a weak spot.
|
||||
\item We need the sensor's motion to be periodic to keep it within a reasonable space. Otherwise we could just load
|
||||
our HSM on an airplane and assume that airplanes are hard to stop non-destructively mid-flight.
|
||||
\item We need to keep the sensor's motion inside a reasonable space. Otherwise we could just load our HSM on an
|
||||
airplane and assume that mid-flight, airplanes are hard to stop non-destructively.
|
||||
\item We need the sensor's motion to be very predictable so that we can detect an attacker trying to stop it.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
|
||||
From this, we can make a few observations.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||
\item Linear motion is likely to be a poor choice since it requires a large amount of space, and it is comparatively
|
||||
easy to follow something moving linearly.
|
||||
\item Oscillatory motion such as linear vibration or a pendulum motion might be a good candidate, but for the
|
||||
\item Non-periodic linear motion is likely to be a poor choice since it requires a large amount of space, and it is
|
||||
comparatively easy to follow something moving linearly.
|
||||
\item Oscillatory motion such as linear vibration or a pendulum motion might be a good candidate but for the
|
||||
instant at its apex when the vibration reverses direction the object is stationary, which is a weak spot.
|
||||
\item Rotation is a very good choice. Not only does it not require much space to execute, but also if the axis of
|
||||
rotation is within the HSM itself, an attacker trying to follow the motion would have to rotate around the same
|
||||
|
|
@ -270,12 +244,11 @@ From this, we can make a few observations.
|
|||
rotates too fast for a human to be able to follow it. The axis of rotation is a weak spot, but this can be
|
||||
alleviated by placing additional internal sensors around it and locating all sensitive parts of the sensing
|
||||
circuit radially away from it.
|
||||
\item We do not have to move the entire contents of the HSM. It suffices if we move the tamper detection barrier
|
||||
around a stationary payload. This reduces the inertial mass of the moving part and eases data communication and
|
||||
power supply of the payload.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
|
||||
Another important observation is that we do not have to move the entire contents of the HSM. It suffices if we can
|
||||
somehow move the tamper detection barrier around these contents while keeping the contents stationary. This reduces the
|
||||
inertial mass of the moving part and eases data communication and power supply of the payload.
|
||||
|
||||
In a rotating reference frame, at any point the centrifugal force is proportional to the square of the angular frequency
|
||||
and linearly proportional to the distance from the axis of rotation. We can exploit this fact to create a sensor that
|
||||
detects any disturbance of the rotation by simply placing a linear accelerometer at some distance to the axis of
|
||||
|
|
@ -334,10 +307,10 @@ monitoring circuitry.
|
|||
\subsection{Payload cooling}
|
||||
An issue with existing HSM concepts is that the mesh has to fully envelope the payload, and thus traditional air cooling
|
||||
or heat pipes cannot be used. Existing systems rely on heat conduction through the mesh alone for cooling, severly
|
||||
limiting the maximum power dissipation of the payload. In our rotating HSM concept, the rotating mesh can have radial
|
||||
gaps in the mesh without impeding its function. This allows air to pass through the mesh during rotation, and a future
|
||||
evolution of the concept could even integrate a fan into the rotating component. This greatly increases the maximum
|
||||
possible power dissipation of the payload, allowing for much more powerful processing.
|
||||
limiting the maximum power dissipation of the payload. In our rotating HSM concept, the rotating mesh can have
|
||||
longitudindal gaps in the mesh without impeding its function. This allows air to pass through the mesh during rotation,
|
||||
and a future evolution of the concept could even integrate a fan into the rotating component. This greatly increases the
|
||||
maximum possible power dissipation of the payload, allowing for much more powerful processing.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Other sensing modes}
|
||||
Since the security requirement the primary tamper-detection barrier needs to measure up to are much more lenient in the
|
||||
|
|
@ -429,6 +402,28 @@ laid out some ideas for future research on the concept, and we will continue our
|
|||
|
||||
\printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]
|
||||
\appendix
|
||||
\section{Rotating mesh energy calculations}
|
||||
Assume that the rotating mesh sensor should send its tamper status to the static monitoring circuit at least once every
|
||||
$T_\text{tx} = \SI{10}{\milli\second}$. At $\SI{100}{\kilo\baud}$ a transmission of a single byte in standard UART
|
||||
framing would take $\SI{100}{\micro\second}$ and yield an $\SI{1}{\percent}$ duty cycle. If we assume an optical or RF
|
||||
transmitter that requires $\SI{10}{\milli\ampere}$ of active current, this yields an average operating current of
|
||||
$\SI{100}{\micro\ampere}$. Reserving another $\SI{100}{\micro\ampere}$ for the monitoring circuit itself we arrive at an
|
||||
energy consumption of $\SI{1.7}{\ampere\hour\per\year}$.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Battery power}
|
||||
The annual energy consumption we calculated above is about equivalent to the capacity of a single CR123A
|
||||
lithium primary cell. Using several such cells or optimizing power consumption would thus easily yield several years of
|
||||
battery life.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{LED and solar cell}
|
||||
Let us assume an LED with a light output of $\SI{1}{W}$ illuminating a small solar cell. Let us pessimistically assume a
|
||||
$\SI{5}{\percent}$ conversion efficiency in the solar cell. Let us assume that when the rotor is at its optimal
|
||||
rotational angle, $\SI{20}{\percent}$ of the LED's light output couple into the solar cell. Let us assume that we loose
|
||||
another $\SI{90}{\percent}$ of light output on average during one rotation when the rotor is in motion. This results in
|
||||
an energy output from the solar cell of $\SI{1}{\milli\watt}$. Assuming a $\SI{3.3}{\volt}$ supply this yields
|
||||
$\SI{300}{\micro\ampere}$ for our monitoring circuit. This is enough even with some conversion losses in the step-up
|
||||
converter boosing the solar cell's $\SI{0.6}{\volt}$ working voltage to the monitoring circuit's supply voltage.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Patents and licensing}
|
||||
During devlopment, we performed several hours of research on prior art for the inertial HSM concept. Yet, we could not
|
||||
find any mentions of similar concepts either in academic literature or in patents. Thus, we deem ourselves to be the
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue