Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “security trust verification”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

11 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1990

Information Security and Integrity Systems

Viewgraphs from the Information Security and Integrity Systems seminar held at the University of Houston-Clear Lake on May 15-16, 1990 are presented. A tutorial on computer security is presented. The goals of this tutorial are the following: to review security requirements imposed by government and by common sense; to examine risk analysis methods to help keep sight of forest while in trees; to discuss the current hot topic of viruses (which will stay hot); to examine network security, now and in the next year to 30 years; to give a brief overview of encryption; to review protection methods in operating systems; to review database security problems; to review the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (Orange Book); to comment on formal verification methods; to consider new approaches (like intrusion detection and biometrics); to review the old, low tech, and still good solutions; and to give pointers to the literature and to where to get help. Other topics covered include security in software applications and development; risk management; trust: formal methods and associated techniques; secure distributed operating system and verification; trusted Ada; a conceptual model for supporting a B3+ dynamic multilevel security and integrity in the Ada runtime environment; and information intelligence sciences.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2016

Reliable Design Versus Trust

This presentation focuses on reliability and trust for the users portion of the FPGA design flow. It is assumed that the manufacturer prior to hand-off to the user tests FPGA internal components. The objective is to present the challenges of creating reliable and trusted designs. The following will be addressed: What makes a design vulnerable to functional flaws (reliability) or attackers (trust)? What are the challenges for verifying a reliable design versus a trusted design?

Field Programmable Gate Aray (FPGA)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) Zero Trust Framework: CWMD Zero Trust Principles Model

The research focuses on the critical need for enhanced cybersecurity within the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) Office, specifically targeting Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear devices. Traditional perimeter-based security models are insufficient against modern cyber threats, prompting a shift toward Zero Trust principles (ZTP) that emphasize continuous verification and stringent security for all devices. Federal directives mandate the adoption of Zero Trust (ZT) across agencies, supported by guidelines from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and National Security Agency (NSA). The research involved mapping ZT guidance from these agencies to develop tailored CWMD ZTP. The study identified gaps and areas for improvement, including clear transitional guidance from traditional to ZT architectures and the focus on explicit cross cutting capabilities. Design improvements are recommended to ensure increased comprehensive protection and resilience against sophisticated cyber threats for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) devices. Collaborative efforts among federal agencies are essential for the successful deployment of an optimized ZT guidance.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2026

Toward Trustworthy Autonomous Science: A Two-Year Community Roadmap

One year ago, the AISLE roadmap argued that autonomous laboratories operated as isolated islands and proposed a grassroots network organized around five critical dimensions. The field has since moved faster than that roadmap anticipated: multi-agent systems have produced experimentally validated hypotheses, self-driving laboratories have grown more interoperable and orchestrated, reasoning-trained and domain foundation models have raised the capability ceiling, and the Genesis Mission has placed autonomous experimentation at the center of U.S. federal science strategy, with industry emerging as a primary actor. Progress has met a sobering counter-current, including a corrected flagship discovery result, benchmarks showing that agents which rival experts on closed-ended questions still complete only a fraction of open-ended research, and fabricated citations surfacing at leading venues. We read this as the defining tension of the field: producing a candidate discovery is no longer the hard part, but verifying it is, and this asymmetry now limits autonomous science more than raw model capability. Accordingly, we update the roadmap around seven dimensions, revisiting the original five and elevating two former cross-cutting concerns, trust, verification, and reproducibility, and safety, security, and governance, to first-class status. We assess the original milestones (M1 through M14) as achieved, partially achieved, reframed, or open, add four new milestones (M15 through M18) for the elevated dimensions, and scope the path forward to a two-year horizon, with the first year concentrating on interfaces, protocol adoption, and the scaffolding of verification, and the second targeting federation, zero-trust coordination, and governance. Throughout, we position the grassroots network as the interoperability fabric that lets national programs, international initiatives, and commercial platforms connect rather than re-silo.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRS2016

Verification of Triple Modular Redundancy Insertion for Reliable and Trusted Systems

If a system is required to be protected using triple modular redundancy (TMR), improper insertion can jeopardize the reliability and security of the system. Due to the complexity of the verification process and the complexity of digital designs, there are currently no available techniques that can provide complete and reliable confirmation of TMR insertion. We propose a method for TMR insertion verification that satisfies the process for reliable and trusted systems.

Verification↗
NASA NTRS2016

Verification of Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR) Insertion for Reliable and Trusted Systems

We propose a method for TMR insertion verification that satisfies the process for reliable and trusted systems. If a system is expected to be protected using TMR, improper insertion can jeopardize the reliability and security of the system. Due to the complexity of the verification process, there are currently no available techniques that can provide complete and reliable confirmation of TMR insertion. This manuscript addresses the challenge of confirming that TMR has been inserted without corruption of functionality and with correct application of the expected TMR topology. The proposed verification method combines the usage of existing formal analysis tools with a novel search-detect-and-verify tool. Field programmable gate array (FPGA),Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR),Verification, Trust, Reliability,

Trust↗
DOE OSTI2024

Formally Verified ZTA Requirements for OT/ICS Environments with Isabelle/HOL

The clean energy transformation includes the integration of distributed energy resources with the power grid, which has led to a substantial increase in the complexity of power grids infrastructure and the underlying operational technology environment. Power grids infrastructure represents an operational technology environment that has become a system of systems, integrating heterogeneous devices which are both software-and hardware-intensive; as a result, there are increasing demands to exploit advances in the commodity of software-hardware infrastructures to improve energy systems requirements such as cybersecurity and resilience. In such a setting, system requirements at different levels mix, which leads to vulnerabilities and undesirable outcomes. The use of formal methods to characterize and prove system requirements removes ambiguity, increases automation, and provides high levels of assurance and reliability. In this paper, we contribute a methodology and a framework for the system-level verification of zero trust architecture requirements in operational technology environments. We define a formal specification for the core functionalities of operational technology environments, the corresponding invariants, and security proofs. Of particular note is our modular approach for the formal verification of asynchronous interactions in operational technology environments. The formal specification and the proofs have been mechanized using the interactive theorem proving environment Isabelle/HOL.

formal methods↗
NASA NTRS2018

Engineering Trade-off Considerations Regarding Design-for-Security, Design-for-Verification, and Design-for-Test

The United States government has identified that application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) and field programmable gate array (FPGA) hardware are at risk from a variety of adversary attacks. This finding affects system security and trust. Consequently, processes are being developed for system mitigation and countermeasure application. The scope of this tutorial pertains to potential vulnerabilities and countermeasures within the ASIC/FPGA design cycle. The presentation demonstrates how design practices can affect the risk for the adversary to: change circuitry, steal intellectual property, and listen to data operations. An important portion of the design cycle is assuring the design is working as specified or as expected. This is accomplished by exhaustive testing of the target design. Alternatively, it has been shown that well established schemes for test coverage enhancement (design-for-verification (DFV) and design-for-test (DFT)) can create conduits for adversary accessibility. As a result, it is essential to perform a trade between robust test coverage versus reliable design implementation. The goal of this tutorial is to explain the evolution of design practices; review adversary accessibility points due to DFV and DFT circuitry insertion (back door circuitry); and to describe common engineering trade-off considerations for test versus adversary threats.

Design for reliability (DFR)↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Design and Evaluation of Zero Trust Architecture for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: EVs @ Scale Series on EV Charging Station Cybersecurity

Implementing a zero trust architecture can significantly bolster the security of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. EV charging infrastructure includes numerous networked interfaces, each of which can present potential vulnerabilities. When these vulnerabilities are exploited, they can compromise the entire system, leading to severe operational and security risks. Zero trust is a security model that operates on the principle of "never trust, always verify," which helps manage the attack surface and limit the scope of any potential compromises. Fundamentally, this model ensures that no entity, whether inside or outside the network, is trusted by default. The design principles of zero trust include continuous verification, strict deny-by-default access controls, and micro-segmentation. Continuous verification ensures that every request is thoroughly checked, regardless of its origin. Strict access controls enforce the principle of least privilege, allowing users and devices only the minimum necessary access to perform their functions. Micro-segmentation involves dividing the network into smaller, isolated segments to prevent lateral movement in case of a breach. In the context of EV charging infrastructure, zero trust can be implemented through various strategies. For example, multi-factor authentication (MFA) can be required for engineers to access the management interfaces and control systems of charging stations. Real-time monitoring and analysis of network traffic can help detect and respond to anomalies. Systems that do not need to communicate with each other can be micro-segmented to enhance security. All communications should adhere to predefined policies to be permitted. Additionally, encrypting communications can protect sensitive information exchanged between chargers and management systems. This paper presents a zero trust architecture specifically designed for EV charging infrastructure. Implementing zero trust not only mitigates risks but also builds a resilient infrastructure capable of withstanding and quickly recovering from cyber threats. The architecture addresses six defined security objectives. A comprehensive test plan is developed to assess the architecture against these objectives, and the results of the evaluation are reported. This approach is essential for maintaining the reliability and integrity of EV charging services in an increasingly interconnected and vulnerable digital landscape. This is the first in a planned series of papers exploring the implementation of zero trust in EV charging infrastructure. Each paper will delve into different aspects and applications of zero trust, highlighting how various work processes and requirements can lead to distinct architectural designs. These architectures will be tailored to address specific security challenges and operational needs within the EV charging ecosystem, ensuring a robust and adaptable security framework.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hardware Fuzzing with An Emulator

Bugs in digital logic have led to some significant security vulnerabilities. Hardware bugs are particularly troublesome since they cannot be easily patched. Additionally, if the bug is in the root of trust, all trust built upon it can be vulnerable. Traditional testing either require a deep knowledge of the system, creative attack vectors and lots of human interaction. This is not scalable as there are very few engineers that can wear the hat of a designer, a verification engineer, and a cybersecurity expert. Hardware fuzzing is a relatively new research area in dynamic hardware testing. It has proven to be an effective method for discovering bugs, unexpected behaviors, and security vulnerabilities in software. While hardware fuzzing is new to the hardware domain, it has a strong track record in software testing. Fuzzing is a testing technique that randomly mutates the input data to uncover bugs or vulnerabilities in the design. It is especially good at finding corner cases that test engineers can not envision. Another advantage over other dynamic testing techniques is that, if done well, deep knowledge of the design is not required. Additionally, fuzzing scales well. If the system is set up correctly, it can run unsupervised for weeks if necessary. In this work, we propose using hardware fuzzing to improve the input vector generation for an information flow tracking tool. To get reasonable throughput of test vectors, an emulator is targeted as the execution platform. Efficient emulator execution has some specific requirements.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2009

Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Proof-Carrying Code and Software Certification

This NASA conference publication contains the proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Proof-Carrying Code and Software Certification, held as part of LICS in Los Angeles, CA, USA, on August 15, 2009. Software certification demonstrates the reliability, safety, or security of software systems in such a way that it can be checked by an independent authority with minimal trust in the techniques and tools used in the certification process itself. It can build on existing validation and verification (V&V) techniques but introduces the notion of explicit software certificates, Vvilich contain all the information necessary for an independent assessment of the demonstrated properties. One such example is proof-carrying code (PCC) which is an important and distinctive approach to enhancing trust in programs. It provides a practical framework for independent assurance of program behavior; especially where source code is not available, or the code author and user are unknown to each other. The workshop wiII address theoretical foundations of logic-based software certification as well as practical examples and work on alternative application domains. Here "certificate" is construed broadly, to include not just mathematical derivations and proofs but also safety and assurance cases, or any fonnal evidence that supports the semantic analysis of programs: that is, evidence about an intrinsic property of code and its behaviour that can be independently checked by any user, intermediary, or third party. These guarantees mean that software certificates raise trust in the code itself, distinct from and complementary to any existing trust in the creator of the code, the process used to produce it, or its distributor. In addition to the contributed talks, the workshop featured two invited talks, by Kelly Hayhurst and Andrew Appel. The PCC 2009 website can be found at http://ti.arc.nasa.gov /event/pcc 091.

Ewen, Denney, W.↗