What are the best practices for RTL verification of hardware security features?

1 Use a systematic approach

One of the best practices for RTL verification of hardware security features is to use a systematic approach that covers all the aspects of the design, from specification to implementation. This means defining clear requirements, objectives, and metrics for the security features, as well as identifying the potential threats and vulnerabilities. Moreover, it means developing a comprehensive test plan that includes functional, structural, and behavioral tests, as well as formal methods and simulation tools. A systematic approach can help you avoid errors, gaps, and inconsistencies in the verification process.

2 Apply design-for-verification techniques

Another best practice for RTL verification of hardware security features is to apply design-for-verification techniques that can facilitate and accelerate the verification process. These techniques include using modular and hierarchical design, following coding standards and conventions, adding assertions and checkers, and using self-checking testbenches. Design-for-verification techniques can help you improve the readability, maintainability, and reusability of the code, as well as detect and debug errors early and efficiently.

3 Leverage existing standards and libraries

A third best practice for RTL verification of hardware security features is to leverage existing standards and libraries that can provide proven and reliable solutions for common security functions and protocols. For example, you can use the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA), or the Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) for encryption and authentication purposes. You can also use the IEEE P1735 standard for encrypting and protecting intellectual property (IP) cores. By using existing standards and libraries, you can save time and effort, as well as ensure compatibility and interoperability with other systems.

4 Incorporate randomization and coverage

A fourth best practice for RTL verification of hardware security features is to incorporate randomization and coverage techniques that can increase the robustness and completeness of the verification process. Randomization can help you generate diverse and unpredictable test scenarios that can expose hidden bugs and corner cases. Coverage can help you measure and track the progress and quality of the verification process, as well as identify gaps and redundancies. You can use various types of coverage, such as code coverage, functional coverage, or security coverage, depending on your verification goals and metrics.

5 Perform security analysis and evaluation

A fifth best practice for RTL verification of hardware security features is to perform security analysis and evaluation that can assess the effectiveness and performance of the security features against various attacks and metrics. Security analysis and evaluation can include techniques such as fault injection, side-channel analysis, or formal methods that can simulate or model different types of attacks, such as power analysis, differential fault analysis, or logic locking. Security analysis and evaluation can help you verify the security properties and assumptions of the design, as well as identify and mitigate potential weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

6 Follow a continuous improvement cycle

A sixth and final best practice for RTL verification of hardware security features is to follow a continuous improvement cycle that can enable you to learn from the verification results and feedback, and to update and refine the design and verification process accordingly. This means reviewing and documenting the verification outcomes, analyzing and resolving the issues and errors, implementing and verifying the changes and enhancements, and repeating the cycle until the desired level of security and quality is achieved. A continuous improvement cycle can help you improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the verification process, as well as ensure the alignment and consistency of the design and verification objectives and requirements.

7 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?