The bibliographic entry was discovered and compiled by a machine, and published without a person checking it against the publication. The publication itself is the authors' own work — this badge says nothing about it.
From OpenAlex, which stores abstracts as an
index of words and their positions: what is shown is rebuilt from that,
and reads fluently whether or not it is what the author wrote.
Abstract
Recent security vulnerabilities that target speculative execution (e.g., Spectre) present a significant challenge for processor design. These highly publicized vulnerabilities use speculative execution to learn victim secrets by changing the cache state. As a result, recent computer architecture research has focused on invisible speculation mechanisms that attempt to block changes in cache state due to speculative execution. Prior work has shown significant success in preventing Spectre and other attacks at modest performance costs. In this paper, we introduce speculative interference attacks, which show that prior invisible speculation mechanisms do not fully block speculation-based attacks that use cache state. We make two key observations. First, mis-speculated younger instructions can change the timing of older, bound-to-retire instructions, including memory operations. Second, changing the timing of a memory operation can change the order of that memory operation relative to other memory operations, resulting in persistent changes to the cache state. Using both of these observations, we demonstrate (among other attack variants) that secret information accessed by mis-speculated instructions can change the order of bound-to-retire loads. Load timing changes can therefore leave secret-dependent changes in the cache, even in the presence of invisible speculation mechanisms. We show that this problem is not easy to fix. Speculative interference converts timing changes to persistent cache-state changes, and timing is typically ignored by many cache-based defenses. We develop a framework to understand the attack and demonstrate concrete proof-of-concept attacks against invisible speculation mechanisms. We conclude with a discussion of security definitions that are sufficient to block the attacks, along with preliminary defense ideas based on those definitions.
How it got here
How it got here
agent via openalex
Added
2026-10-24 01:34 UTC
Not denied by
a person 2026-10-29 17:12 UTC
Cite it as
@misc{behnia2021speculative,
title = {Speculative interference attacks: breaking invisible speculation schemes},
author = {Mohammad Behnia and Prateek Sahu and Riccardo Paccagnella and Jiyong Yu and Zirui Neil Zhao and Xiang Jun Zou and Thomas Unterluggauer and Josep Torrellas and Carlos V. Rozas and Adam Morrison and Frank Mckeen and Fangfei Liu and Ron Gabor and Christopher W. Fletcher and Abhishek Basak and Alaa R. Alameldeen},
year = {2021},
pages = {1046--1060},
doi = {10.1145/3445814.3446708},
}