Interested in showing off your talent in developing deep learning algorithms on embedded hardware platforms for solving real-world problems? Join the second System Design Contest (SDC) at the 56[SUP]th[/SUP] Design Automation Conference in 2019!
Continue reading “DAC 2019 to Host the Second System Design Contest!”
Unique device identities are at the core of all computer security systems. Just as important is that each unique identity cannot be copied, because once copied they can be used illegitimately. Unique device IDs are used to ensure that communications are directed to the correct device. And they also provide the ability to encrypt communication – an essential component for security of data in motion. Any device with a programmable ID can be cloned. The only way to limit this is to perform the programming as soon after fabrication as possible. However, programmable IDs still leave open a window of opportunity for misuse and add extra steps to the manufacturing process.
The number of IoT devices is expected to proliferate to nearly 50 billion by 2020. Each one needs security, most likely provided by an on-chip identifier. What if each device could contain a unique ID automatically, right at the point of manufacture, that could be used as the basis of a security system? This is the premise behind a Physical Unclonable Function (PUF).
As we know, there are minute variations in silicon chips due to manufacturing processes. Intrinsic ID, a software and hardware IP provider, has examined the wide range of techniques available to capture a repeatable yet unique ID from ICs. Eschewing methods that required analog circuity, the addition of special layers or the use of special processes, they settled on SRAM bit cell initialization states. Practically every IoT chip has SRAM and an embedded processor. Every SRAM bit cell will initialize to a 1 or a 0 depending on the precise threshold voltages of its transistors. It’s worth noting that some bit cells will fall within a range where the initialization state is not predictable, but there are methods to avoid or correct for these specific cells.
When the chip is powered off there is no trace of the unique ID left by a range of SRAM cells (volatile memory); as well, the unique ID is generated on demand and never stored. To date, analysis by security labs and customers have not been able to reveal any weaknesses in their system. Through a process called enrollment a PUF key is generated. This is used to create a public and private key for data exchange with external systems.
Small blocks of SRAM can be used to create 128-bit or 256-bit keys. Intrinsic ID has performed reliability testing over a wide range of conditions and also has done aging analysis to guarantee a lifespan of 25 years. Intrinsic ID’s PUF has been qualified for automotive, industrial and military uses through their work with customers and partners. Just as importantly, this IP’s unique operational invariance across technology nodes and fabs makes designer’s jobs easier.
The SRAM-based PUF from Intrinsic ID can be implemented with a small uninitialized SRAM block on chip and either an RTL IP block or embedded code that runs on chip; both approaches would need to have a proper security perimeter implemented. Intrinsic ID’s solution has gained excellent traction through a number of their customers and partners. Invensense created their TrustedSensor concept using this PUF. NXP offers SRAM PUF in its LPC and i.MX platforms for secure microcontrollers. Synopsys Designware uses SRAM PUF in their ARC EM Architecture for ultralow power embedded processors. Intel, Microchip, Renesas and Samsung also offer products that utilize SRAM PUF.
Intrinsic ID has written a white paper that is available on their website that goes into greater detail on the technology of their SRAM PUF. Unique unclonable keys are an absolute necessity for the profitable proliferation of the IoT. With this technology, devices used for personal or commercial applications are secure from hacking and data interception. It is easy to implement SRAM PUF without the need for special processes or dependence on analog IP. In closing I’ll say it’s nice to finally write an article about how process variation can serve a beneficial purpose.
Growing up in a military family, mostly in California, I would consider my cultural diversity life experience to be more than most. I remember in the 1960s some older folks were chattering about a colored family moving into our neighborhood and they had a son my age. Imagine my excitement as a child in having a multicolored friend! As it turns out he was only one color but we were fast friends anyway.
The other diversity experience I had growing up was with my mother. She wanted to be a mechanical engineer but that was a challenge for women in the 1950s and even more so after having children. She ended up being a draftsperson for a NASA contractor. I remember visiting her at work and getting some very cool Apollo NASA stickers and gifts. The other thing I remember is that all of the drafts people were women which seemed kind of odd to a young mind. Clearly I was never going to be a draftsperson because you had to be a woman so I decided to be an astronaut because those were all men.
My mother’s theme song was “Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better” from Annie Get Your Gun and that was the way she lived. She bowled in the PWBA when it first started and was a full on pool hustler. Her final job was at LAM Research, testing semiconductor equipment in Fremont. She really was a Rosie the Riveter of her era.
For my undergraduate degree I attended a University in Northern California that had nursing and teaching programs so the female to male ratio was higher than most but still the engineering classes were male dominant. There were some women in computer programming classes but hardware classes were again all men.
When I joined the semiconductor industry in the 1980s it was not diverse at all up until the fabless semiconductor transformation in the 1990s. Yet another thing we can thank Morris Chang and TSMC for. Today I would say the semiconductor industry is diverse (as compared to other technology based industries) and that diversity really is the core strength of the semiconductor ecosystem, absolutely.
The semiconductor diversity exception is a few old school IDMs lagging behind which brings us to Intel.
In 2015 Intel announced a Diversity in Technology initiative, committing $300M to accelerate diversity inside Intel. I guess I wasn’t shocked when I saw the diversity slides based on my personal experience with Intel but spending $300M for a quick fix to a years long problem seemed puzzling at the time. You can see the 2015 slides HERE. Intel released a diversity update claiming “full representation” in its workforce two years ahead of schedule. You can see the 2018 slides HERE:
And here is the updated Intel diversity blurb:
A diverse workforce and inclusive culture are key to Intel’s evolution and they are the driving forces of our growth. In addition to being the right things to do, they are also business imperatives. If we want to shape the future of technology, we must be representative of that future. In January 2015, Intel announced the Diversity in Technology initiative, setting a bold hiring and retention goal to achieve full representation of women and underrepresented minorities in Intel’s U.S. workforce by 2020. The company also committed $300 million to support this goal and accelerate diversity and inclusion – not just at Intel, but across the technology industry. The scope of Intel’s efforts span the value chain, from spending with diverse suppliers and diversifying its venture portfolio to better serving its markets and communities through innovative programs. Intel achieved its goal of full representation in its U.S. workforce in 2018, two years ahead of schedule. This achievement was the result of a comprehensive strategy that took into account hiring, retention and progression. However, Intel’s work does not stop here. We continue to foster an inclusive culture where employees can bring their full experiences and authentic selves to work.
So, let’s congratulate Intel on their diversity achievement. Hopefully now they can hire and retain the most qualified people without bias as to race or sex. Hey, wait, what about age diversity?
Google says it wants to charge fees to handset makers in Europe for Android apps such as Googlemaps and Gmail, according to the New York Times. The move is clearly a reaction to the $5.1B fine imposed by the European Commission (and under appeal by Google) in reaction to Google’s perceived monopolist practices.
Is the scare of Google hegemony enough to convince auto makers they need to share data in the interest of preserving their independence?
A key motivation behind the $3.1B acquisition of map maker HERE from Nokia by Daimler, BMW and Audi was to ensure the independence of HERE and access to its maps for support of in-vehicle navigation systems, mobility services and autonomous driving development. In the ensuing three years, the venture has failed to attract any additional auto maker investors even as Audi, BMW and Daimler have proceeded to share vehicle sensor data and expand the HERE platform.
The abiding concern regarding Google, is the potential for the company to disrupt consumer relationships in the industry such that Google ultimately controls such key customer engagement points as service delivery, and content and application management and any related advertising or marketing opportunities. It all comes down to browsing and search which underpin Google’s $100B advertising portfolio.
The car is arguably the ultimate browser. Google wants to own that space.
Many auto makers have their own app platforms today, just as handset makers once did. In the handset space, most independent app stores were long ago eliminated by the dominant Google and Apple offerings. For auto makers the significance of the announcement is that it is a reminder of Google’s over-arching influence. It is enough to give pause to any auto maker considering the broader adoption of Google’s automotive services (i.e. Volvo, Renault) and to give impetus to those considering a tie-up with the HERE-Audi-BMW-Daimler venture.
The confrontation calls to mind the Microsoft Consent Decree arrived at in the U.S. nearly 20 years ago which forbid Microsoft from bundling its Internet Explorer browser with its operating system. By the time that agreement was reached the bundling of IE was a moot point and the importance of advertising was only just emerging.
Makers of Android-based smartphones had no initial comment for the New York Times to report, but the change will mean added cost for these devices that will have to either be absorbed or passed on to consumers.
Auto makers are watching developments closely, or should be, because the cost of implementing Android along with related Google provided services and applications is a key consideration behind adopting the operating system. And many auto makers are in the process of doing just that – sticking the Android operating system into their in-vehicle infotainment systems arriving in the market next year and beyond.
Implementing Android in cars is actually a relatively harmless process as no surrender of customer or vehicle data is necessary. Google has even intimated to auto makers that they will be able to add Google Voice to Android without surrendering customer control. But it may be time for auto makers to consider taking out some insurance in the form of a stake in the HERE joint venture. For its part, HERE will do well to give its best performance as a reliable alternative to Google.
When cities put on a press event to announce they are welcoming a company to town to test autonomous vehicles within the city limits the news is greeted with polite interest and some trepidation – as it was yesterday in Washington, D.C. There is an “oo-ah awesome” high-tech buzz immediately tempered by a “Why?” buzzkill.
In the case of Ford’s announcement in Washington, the spinmeisters got directly to the point. The introduction of autonomous Ford vehicles – 5-10 at first early next year in advance of a full on rideshare service fleet in 2021 – is intended to create jobs and re-training opportunities throughout the District’s eight Wards.
The press event included substantial representation and participation from the DC Infrastructure Academy which provides employment opportunities and job training for infrastructure-related jobs. DC Infrastructure Academy will help Ford’s effort by training vehicle operators and technicians. Additionally, Ford will open an autonomous vehicle terminal in Ward five and the company says it will work to train residents for auto technician careers that could involve self-driving vehicles in the future.
According to Ford, the training will be through courses developed by Excel Automotive in Ward 7 and Ford’s Automotive Career Exploration program with support from local dealers Chesapeake Ford Truck, DARCARS and Sheehy Ford of Marlow Heights. The involvement of dealers was an especially nice touch by Ford.
By emphasizing job creation, Ford and the DC leadership short-circuited the knee-jerk job-killing conversation associated with robo-cars. Better still for Ford, it diverted attention from the fact that the announcement will do nothing in the short-term to ease the traffic congestion in the city.
In essence, Ford is announcing that it is commencing its data gathering activities to prepare for autonomous operation in the city. The Ford vehicles will be nothing more than surveyors/mappers of the city – an operation already begun by Ford’s Argo team. It means that in the short-term Ford vehicles will be adding to the general glut of DC traffic.
Ford arrives in the wake of a report published by the National Capitol Region Transportation Planning Board – “Visualize 2045” – which anticipates a 46% increase in congestion in the Washington, DC area by 2045 and offers a $291B plan to mitigate the impact of that demand.
Quicker solutions are being sought by the DC Council, according to reporting by WAMU. The Council is considering:
Robo cars from Ford (with safety drivers) on DC streets will join a panoply of transportation options which includes scooter and bike share operators (Bird, Lime, Skip, Jump, Spin and, the latest entrant, Lyft), along with car share companies: Maven, Car2Go, ReachNow and ZipCar. (Enterprise RideShare departed DC earlier this year.) DC can already boast several transportation-related firsts, not all good.
DC is the second city to get autonomous Fords, following Miami. Ford’s autonomous vehicles are also operating in Detroit and Pittsburgh.
Ford and DC are taking advantage of the lack of autonomous vehicle regulations in the District or the country. Washington, D.C, essentially stole a march on neighboring states Maryland and Virginia, both of which are angling for autonomous testers, but DC is first in the area to put such vehicles on public roads.
One would have thought the lack of autonomous vehicle regulations might have stimulated some safety advocate outrage at the open-air press conference held on the Wharf in Southwest DC. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is based just across the river in Arlington, Va., and the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Transportation along with the offices of a host of lobbyists were within walking distance of the event. Resistance to driverless cars was not represented. Perhaps resistance is futile when city representatives are seeking any and all solutions to a monumental traffic congestion problem increasingly framed by increasing fatalities.
DC traffic is unique thanks to the architect of its streetscape, Pierre Charles L’Enfant, who gave the city 22 traffic circles creating some unusual traffic management challenges. Of late, traffic fatalities involving pedestrians, bicyclists and buses, in particular, have been on the rise.
In sum, kudos to the Ford team for dodging the job-killer robocar angle and avoiding the dangerous driverless cars protesters. Treating the onset of robocars as a job creation and retraining opportunity is a novel and admirable approach – and one likely to be replicated elsewhere. Echoes of Uber’s fatal crash in Phoenix, earlier this year, were faint on the Wharf in Washington.
There’s a familiar saying that you can’t improve what you can’t measure. Taking that one step further, the more improvement you want, the more accurately you have to measure. This become pretty important when you’re building huge designs in advanced technologies. Margins are a lot tighter all round and use-cases are massively more complex, potentially hiding all kind of dangerous corners. In such cases, you really need to do a very comprehensive analysis across multiple variables to find the right bounding conditions and to avoid massive overdesign by managing corrections as surgically as possible. Join this webinar to lean how NVIDIA does just that using ANSYS RedHawk-SC’s elastic compute scalability and big data analytics.
REGISTER HERE for this webinar on November 28[SUP]th[/SUP], 2018 at 9AM PST
Summary
The availability of ubiquitous data and compute power to solve seemingly unsolvable problems is driving the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution in high tech today. Semiconductor chips for next-generation automotive, mobile and high-performance computing applications — powered by AI and machine learning algorithms — require the use of advanced 16/7nm systems-on-chips (SoCs), which are bigger, faster and more complex. For these SoCs, the margins are smaller, schedules are tighter and costs are higher. Faster convergence with exhaustive coverage is therefore imperative for first-time silicon success. A big data-enabled simulation platform that offers elastic scalability is required for enabling rapid design iterations to create a robust power grid design. Multivariable analytics and machine learning technologies are key for gaining valuable insights from the vast amount of simulation data to accelerate design closure.
In this webinar, leading semiconductor company Nvidia will discuss the limitations of traditional voltage drop analysis methodologies and share how ANSYS RedHawk-SC’s elastic compute scalability and powerful data analytics can be leveraged to accelerate next-generation SoC power integrity and reliability signoff. A new workflow using multivariable analytics, which considers grid criticality, timing criticality and simultaneous switching noise, is used for predicting the worst, local dynamic voltage drop (DvD) hotspots without running any transient simulation. This enables early detection of hotspots and offers feedback to the physical design team, making it possible to address design issues without impacting the tapeout schedule. The issues identified by this new flow were found to correlate well with vector-based dynamic voltage drop analysis with much faster turnaround time.
Speakers:
Kritika Garg, Nvidia
Currently working on IR drop signoff flow/methodology at Nvidia Corporation in Santa Clara, Kritika is an alumna of the University of Southern California with an M.S. degree in electrical engineering focused on digital VLSI system design and CAD. She has five years in the semiconductor industry, and previously worked as a block implementation design engineer with RTL-GDSII responsibilities at NXP Semiconductors (formerly known as Freescale Semiconductors) in India, and was a former intern in CAD methodology with the Silicon Engineering Group at Apple in Cupertino, California.
Sooyong Kim, ANSYS
Sooyong is a senior area technical manager with responsibilities for the new big data platform ANSYS RedHawk-SC and worldwide customer engagement. After joining Ansys in 2008 as part of Apache Design, he has held various positions in field operations. Previously, he worked at Cadence Design Systems and received a B.S.E.E. and a M.S.E.E. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
About ANSYS
If you’ve ever seen a rocket launch, flown on an airplane, driven a car, used a computer, touched a mobile device, crossed a bridge, or put on wearable technology, chances are you’ve used a product where ANSYS software played a critical role in its creation. ANSYS is the global leader in engineering simulation. We help the world’s most innovative companies deliver radically better products to their customers. By offering the best and broadest portfolio of engineering simulation software, we help them solve the most complex design challenges and engineer products limited only by imagination.
China has always been an intriguing semiconductor puzzle that very few companies have solved and now it is much more puzzling with the current political meandering. The GlobalFoundries vision of having foundries all over the world was very appealing to me back in 2009 and even more so today. Remember, China consumes more than half of the semiconductors produced each year and mobile devices (wireless and battery powered) are a very big part of that.
When GlobalFoundries first announced the joint fab agreement in Chengdu China it was targeted at 180/130nm which was a head scratcher. I remember saying, “Why not FD-SOI?!?!” It is a perfect fit for China (low power / low cost). The answer was mostly political because China was set on a “traditional” fab that was “TSMC like”. Follow the leader, right? I think GF was happy to get a fab agreement in China but the long term goal was always FD-SOI.
The semiconductor industry is now a fast moving sport, not unlike hockey, you skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been. The China semiconductor market is going to be FD-SOI at one end and FinFET at the other, my opinion. Attached at the end of this blog is Gary Patton’s keynote “Changing the industry that’s Changing the World” from the recent GTC event. Gary does a nice job of differentiating FD-SOI and FinFETS so it is worth a look. You can see videos of the GTC keynotes including Gary’s HERE.
On another note, throughout my career I have been a part of more than a dozen EDA/IP acquisitions most always as the acquiree. The recent one that we just completed was the first one involving a non-US company and let me tell you it was quite the experience. There were multiple bidders, the usual EDA suspects, but the rules of engagement have changed significantly turning the traditional EDA M&A business upside down. Similar to what Siemens did with Mentor Graphics, deep pockets will continue to disrupt EDA that I can assure you.
The same can be said for the China semiconductor joint ventures. One thing I can tell you from my experience with China, they definitely learn from their mistakes and they do not give up so expect the China semiconductor disruption to continue on all fronts, absolutely.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES and Chengdu Realign Joint Venture Strategy
To re-focus JV on high-demand, differentiated technologies for the Chinese market in line with GF’s recently announced shift to its technology portfolio
Chengdu, People’s Republic of China, Oct 26, 2018 –GLOBALFOUNDRIES and the Chengdu municipality signed an amendment to their investment and cooperation agreement today. Based on market condition changes, GF’s recently announced renewed focus on differentiated offerings, and discussions with potential clients, the partners have decided to bypass the original phase one investment in mainstream process technology (180/130nm). It is also agreed that the project timeline will be adapted to better align capacity to meet China-based demand for differentiated offerings including GF’s industry leading 22FDX® technology.
With more than $2 billion of design wins and more than 50 client designs, GF’s 22FDX technology is demonstrating traction as the industry’s leading platform for power-optimized chips across a broad range of high-growth applications such as automotive, 5G connectivity and the Internet of Things (IoT). GF’s Chinese clients are beginning to adopt the technology at GF’s advanced manufacturing site in Dresden, Germany, including seven customers and more than nine products in various stages of manufacturing ramp.
“We have a long-term relationship with GF and the 22FDX with its low power is very suitable for our various products, including AI and security,” said Min Li, CEO of Rockchip. “Once we achieve the right level of readiness, we look forward to ramping our production closer to home in China.”
The partners plan to continue to build a world-class FD-SOI ecosystem, including creating local technology infrastructure and bringing in more IP vendors and EDA partners, making Chengdu a center of excellence for FDX technology and thereby enabling local market adoption and demand generation.
“As a strategic partner of the GF and Chengdu joint venture, we believe this realignment of the project plan is based on recognizing rapidly changing market conditions,” stated the Chengdu Shareholder. “The goal is to allow both parties sufficient time to better understand the demand picture in China so as to plan for optimal capacity and a production time.”
“China, as one of the largest and fastest growing semiconductor markets around the globe, is a high priority for GF,” said GF CEO Tom Caulfield. “FDX technology is particularly well-suited to the China market and we continue to see strong potential for its up-take in attractive segments such as 5G, IoT and edge computing. We’ll be working with Chengdu to deepen our collaboration to jointly accelerate the FDX ecosystem and customer base in China.”
Power device designers know that when they see a deceptively simple pair of PowerMOS device symbols in the output stage of a power converter circuit schematic, they are actually looking at a massively complex network of silicon and metal interconnect. The corresponding physical devices can have a total device W on the order of meters, making it impossible to treat as a single device. Instead PowerMOS devices have to be analyzed as hundreds or perhaps thousands of smaller devices, connected by a complex web of metallization. The first and most significant effect of this is non-uniform switching, with gate voltage varying across the device during device turn on. This in turn leads to Ids concentrating in some areas and not others.
Transient electrical analysis is capable of showing detailed gate voltages and current densities during the transitions, when typically devices experience their highest power draw. However, there is a second dimension to the problem that influences the electrical analysis – intrinsic device behavior is temperature dependent. As a result, device current values will rise as temperature rises, and the reciprocal is true, temperature will rise as more current flows. In the worst case, this vicious circle may lead to temperature related device failure when metal melts and shorts out the junction.
Thermal dynamics depend of the properties of the die, the surrounding package and even the board. Uncoupled electrical and thermal analysis will have difficulty converging on an accurate solution at each step during circuit operation. To help shed light on this phenomenon, Magwel has a write up of a test case that illustrates how concurrent electro-thermal analysis of PowerMOS devices can predict thermal runaway. The interesting point in their write up is how the package, specifically the shape of the CU-Clip, affects where the damaging thermal problems may occur.
Magwel’s PTM-ET (Power Transistor Modeler – Electro-Thermal) uses thermal properties, thermal boundary conditions, solver based metal extraction and foundry supplied intrinsic device models to drive its concurrent electro-thermal solver to report and visualize voltage, current density and temperature across a PowerMOS device given initial conditions and stimulus.
The Magwel article is informative because it shows a concrete example where temperature rise induces increased current. On a time scale of a few hundred milliseconds after gate voltage is applied the simulation shows temperatures reach past the melting point of aluminum. The PTM-ET Field View offers easy to interpret output for each simulated time step. The write up is available on the Magwel website.
About Magwell
Magwel® offers 3D field solver and simulation based analysis and design solutions for digital, analog/mixed-signal, power management, automotive, and RF semiconductors. Magwel® software products address power device design with Rdson extraction and electro-migration analysis, ESD protection network simulation/analysis, latch-up analysis and power distribution network integrity with EMIR and thermal analysis. Leading semiconductor vendors use Magwel’s tools to improve productivity, avoid redesign, respins and field failures. Magwel is privately held and is headquartered in Leuven, Belgium. Further information on Magwel can be found at www.magwel.com
At a superficial level, emulation in the hardware design world is just a way to run a simulation faster. The design to be tested runs on the emulator, connected to whatever test mechanisms you desire, and the whole setup can run many orders of magnitude faster than it could if the design was running inside a software simulator. And this is indeed how emulators are often used—to speed up big simulations—whether you are putting the whole design in the emulator or using the emulator to speed up some part of the design, while the rest continues to run in the software simulator (generally known as simulation acceleration). Continue reading “Emulation from In Circuit to In Virtual”
I read with interest the US Chamber of Commerce’s assessment of the Made in China (MIC) 2025 plan to transform the world’s most populous nation into an Advanced Manufacturing leader. MIC 2025 covers 10 strategic industries that China identifies as critical to economic growth in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, including next-gen information technology, aviation, rail, new energy vehicles and agricultural machinery.
The Chamber criticizes the MIC 2025 plan stating that it “leverages the power of the state to alter competitive dynamics in global markets in industries core to economic competitiveness.” The US Government report concludes that “China’s emerging legal and regulatory framework governing information technology pose serious challenges for global connectivity. Cloud computing and other digital technologies that require a seamless flow of data are already changing the nature of numerous industries, including manufacturing.” Relevant points all, but one has to wonder whether China’s motivation is solely about leveraging competitive advantage on what many consider an already unlevelled playing field, or is there something else going on here? Something far more important in the total scheme of things.
Is it possible that what’s really driving China – or at least its secondary goal – is to abandon products that leave their nation vulnerable to foreign digital surveillance due to reliance on technology and protocols (like PKI) that were “not invented here” and that have proven to be highly vulnerable to outside threats?
Because, let’s face it: everything digital is broken and every nation seems to be hacking and spying on its trade competitors, its enemies, and even its allies. From the Snowden revelations citing American digital misconduct, to Russians hacking John Podesta’s email and influencing the 2016 US election, to the US encouraging the world to ban Chinese manufacturer Huawei’s technology for fear of backdoors…it’s like we’re living inside a great big video game.
Something has to change, and maybe China is – deliberately or accidentally – leading the way.
Consider the following. As noted in the Chamber of Commerce document, China is pursuing standards that diverge from existing international ones, and is investing heavily in manufacturing its own semiconductor chips. Ask yourself, why? My bet is that the Government of China wants new standards because it can’t trust the ones that are pervasive today. Let’s be honest. PKI is an open book that isn’t protecting any government or business or person that relies on it for security. Chips are vulnerable to side channel attacks like Spectre and Meltdown, TLS isn’t secure any more – maybe it never was – and the prevailing view within the cryptographic community is that the prime numbers which are the very of foundation of RSA will soon be discovered.
To quote Scotland’s Napier University Professor of Cryptography, Bill Buchanan, “One day, and I think it might be soon, we will wake up and RSA will be cracked. Either it will be super computers cracking the prime numbers, or it will be quantum computers, but when it happens there will be no proper identity on the Web and all the tunnels will be broken.”
At the risk of being repetitive, something has to change and quickly.
In MIC 2025 the Chinese government states that it needs to deploy infrastructure that is;
[LIST=1]
China is betting on the adoption of the standardized SM9 cryptographic scheme to help achieve its goals. SM9 is certificate-less technology that is, for all intents and purposes, Identity-Based Encryption (IBE). And while IBE has long been used to successfully secure email (and not much else), something has changed in the IBE world, and that change is reflected in a patent granted by the US patent office in April 2014 and by the China patent office in September 2018. New, improved IBE (branded VIBE) now authenticates, meaning it verifies and validates the sender of every message, be it from a person or thing. And though this enhancement to the SM9 standard is not yet certified for use in China, interest in the technology is growing rapidly as Asia-based entities are gaining an understanding as to how VIBE can be deployed to deliver exactly what the People’s Republic of China is seeking – Controllable, Trustworthy, Reliable Security.
Widespread deployment of VIBE-inside Hardware Security Modules, VIBE-Inside TLS, VIBE-inside chips and VIBE-inside SIM’s would allow China to create networked Digital Trust Centres that would make it impossible for any other nation to digitally invade or spy on Chinese communication. Only people and devices registered within China Trust Centres could communicate with one another. Email phishing would be impossible, man-in-the-middle attacks would disappear, the nation would have a digital barrier in place that would be impenetrable to outside threats, including surveillance. Graphically, it might look something like this.
And if China can restore domestic Digital Trust, why can’t other countries do the same thing? I envision a world where each nation has its own “closed” digital infrastructure where the only communication possible is from authenticated sources – defined as entities (people or things) registered in each country’s Trust Centre(s). Be mindful that by merely authenticating email, we could eliminate over 90% of cyberattacks and so we have to wonder why we’re still waiting on this advancement.
Permission-based communication among nations could be granted, and in cases where the need for digital surveillance becomes a national security matter, nations could grant such access through legal or other arrangements common among allies and sometimes, even available from rival nations.
Deployments of VIBE SM9-enabled infrastructure and applications are now being tested (piloted) with most of the activity happening in China-friendly, Singapore. And if the VIBE pilots in the works deliver on their promise, it’s highly conceivable that a large Asia-based company will help China create a digital bubble that is impervious to outside threats, and will satisfy its requirements for Controllable, Trustworthy, Reliable security.
While apparently not by design, China appears to be on the verge of restoring national digital trust. Nations globally need to take note, and if they are smart, take steps to secure digital trust in their own countries.
