Gotcha! I Know What You are Doing on the FPGA Cloud: Fingerprinting Co-Located Cloud FPGA Accelerators via Measuring Communication Links

In recent decades, due to the emerging requirements of computation acceleration, cloud FPGAs have become popular in public clouds. Major cloud service providers, e.g. AWS and Microsoft Azure have provided FPGA computing resources in their infrastructure and have enabled users to design and deploy their own accelerators on these FPGAs. Multi-tenancy FPGAs, where multiple users can share the same FPGA fabric with certain types of isolation to improve resource efficiency, have already been proved feasible. However, this also raises security concerns. Various types of side-channel attacks targeting multi-tenancy FPGAs have been proposed and validated. The awareness of security vulnerabilities in the cloud has motivated cloud providers to take action to enhance the security of their cloud environments. In FPGA security research papers, researchers always perform attacks under the assumption that attackers successfully co-locate with victims and are aware of the existence of victims on the same FPGA board. However, the way to reach this point, i.e., how attackers secretly obtain information regarding accelerators on the same fabric, is constantly ignored despite the fact that it is non-trivial and important for attackers. In this paper, we present a novel fingerprinting attack to gain the types of co-located FPGA accelerators. We utilize a seemingly non-malicious benchmark accelerator to sniff the communication link and collect performance traces of the FPGA-host communication link. By analyzing these traces, we are able to achieve high classification accuracy for fingerprinting co-located accelerators, which proves that attackers can use our method to perform cloud FPGA accelerator fingerprinting with a high success rate. As far as we know, this is the first paper targeting multi-tenant FPGA accelerator fingerprinting with the communication side-channel.Comment: To be published in ACM CCS 202

Global collision-risk hotspots of marine traffic and the world’s largest fish, the whale shark

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Womersley, F. C., Humphries, N. E., Queiroz, N., Vedor, M., da Costa, I., Furtado, M., Tyminski, J. P., Abrantes, K., Araujo, G., Bach, S. S., Barnett, A., Berumen, M. L., Bessudo Lion, S., Braun, C. D., Clingham, E., Cochran, J. E. M., de la Parra, R., Diamant, S., Dove, A. D. M., Dudgeon, C. L., Erdmann, M. V., Espinoza, E., Fitzpatrick, R., González Cano, J., Green, J. R., Guzman, H. M., Hardenstine, R., Hasan, A., Hazin, F. H. V., Hearn, A. R., Hueter, R. E., Jaidah, M. Y., Labaja, J., Ladinol, F., Macena, B. C. L., Morris Jr., J. J., Norman, B. M., Peñaherrera-Palmav, C., Pierce, S. J., Quintero, L. M., Ramırez-Macías, D., Reynolds, S. D., Richardson, A. J., Robinson, D. P., Rohner, C. A., Rowat, D. R. L., Sheaves, M., Shivji, M. S., Sianipar, A. B., Skomal, G. B., Soler, G., Syakurachman, I., Thorrold, S. R., Webb, D. H., Wetherbee, B. M., White, T. D., Clavelle, T., Kroodsma, D. A., Thums, M., Ferreira, L. C., Meekan, M. G., Arrowsmith, L. M., Lester, E. K., Meyers, M. M., Peel, L. R., Sequeira, A. M. M., Eguıluz, V. M., Duarte, C. M., & Sims, D. W. Global collision-risk hotspots of marine traffic and the world’s largest fish, the whale shark. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(20), (2022): e2117440119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117440119.Marine traffic is increasing globally yet collisions with endangered megafauna such as whales, sea turtles, and planktivorous sharks go largely undetected or unreported. Collisions leading to mortality can have population-level consequences for endangered species. Hence, identifying simultaneous space use of megafauna and shipping throughout ranges may reveal as-yet-unknown spatial targets requiring conservation. However, global studies tracking megafauna and shipping occurrences are lacking. Here we combine satellite-tracked movements of the whale shark, Rhincodon typus, and vessel activity to show that 92% of sharks’ horizontal space use and nearly 50% of vertical space use overlap with persistent large vessel (>300 gross tons) traffic. Collision-risk estimates correlated with reported whale shark mortality from ship strikes, indicating higher mortality in areas with greatest overlap. Hotspots of potential collision risk were evident in all major oceans, predominantly from overlap with cargo and tanker vessels, and were concentrated in gulf regions, where dense traffic co-occurred with seasonal shark movements. Nearly a third of whale shark hotspots overlapped with the highest collision-risk areas, with the last known locations of tracked sharks coinciding with busier shipping routes more often than expected. Depth-recording tags provided evidence for sinking, likely dead, whale sharks, suggesting substantial “cryptic” lethal ship strikes are possible, which could explain why whale shark population declines continue despite international protection and low fishing-induced mortality. Mitigation measures to reduce ship-strike risk should be considered to conserve this species and other ocean giants that are likely experiencing similar impacts from growing global vessel traffic.Funding for data analysis was provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) through a University of Southampton INSPIRE DTP PhD Studentship to F.C.W. Additional funding for data analysis was provided by NERC Discovery Science (NE/R00997/X/1) and the European Research Council (ERC-AdG-2019 883583 OCEAN DEOXYFISH) to D.W.S., Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under PTDC/BIA/28855/2017 and COMPETE POCI-01–0145-FEDER-028855, and MARINFO–NORTE-01–0145-FEDER-000031 (funded by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Program [NORTE2020] under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund–ERDF) to N.Q. FCT also supported N.Q. (CEECIND/02857/2018) and M.V. (PTDC/BIA-COM/28855/2017). D.W.S. was supported by a Marine Biological Association Senior Research Fellowship. All tagging procedures were approved by institutional ethical review bodies and complied with all relevant ethical regulations in the jurisdictions in which they were performed. Details for individual research teams are given in SI Appendix, section 8. Full acknowledgments for tagging and field research are given in SI Appendix, section 7. This research is part of the Global Shark Movement Project (https://www.globalsharkmovement.org)

Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and solutions

The growing number of artificial structures in estuarine, coastal and marine environments is causing “ocean sprawl”. Artificial structures do not only modify marine and coastal ecosystems at the sites of their placement, but may also produce larger-scale impacts through their alteration of ecological connectivity - the movement of organisms, materials and energy between habitat units within seascapes. Despite the growing awareness of the capacity of ocean sprawl to influence ecological connectivity, we lack a comprehensive understanding of how artificial structures modify ecological connectivity in near- and off-shore environments, and when and where their effects on connectivity are greatest. We review the mechanisms by which ocean sprawl may modify ecological connectivity, including trophic connectivity associated with the flow of nutrients and resources. We also review demonstrated, inferred and likely ecological impacts of such changes to connectivity, at scales from genes to ecosystems, and potential strategies of management for mitigating these effects. Ocean sprawl may alter connectivity by: (1) creating barriers to the movement of some organisms and resources - by adding physical barriers or by modifying and fragmenting habitats; (2) introducing new structural material that acts as a conduit for the movement of other organisms or resources across the landscape; and (3) altering trophic connectivity. Changes to connectivity may, in turn, influence the genetic structure and size of populations, the distribution of species, and community structure and ecological functioning. Two main approaches to the assessment of ecological connectivity have been taken: (1) measurement of structural connectivity - the configuration of the landscape and habitat patches and their dynamics; and (2) measurement of functional connectivity - the response of organisms or particles to the landscape. Our review reveals the paucity of studies directly addressing the effects of artificial structures on ecological connectivity in the marine environment, particularly at large spatial and temporal scales. With the ongoing development of estuarine and marine environments, there is a pressing need for additional studies that quantify the effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity. Understanding the mechanisms by which structures modify connectivity is essential if marine spatial planning and eco-engineering are to be effectively utilised to minimise impacts