Introduction

Throughout this course you have been introduced to a number of aspects of hardware security, including current state of the art research areas. In the final report for this course you will identify a research gap/opportunity within the hardware security field, and form a one-page research proposal containing 3 research questions and proposed directions for answering those questions. Such proposals are frequently used in both academic and industry research labs when applying for project funds.

Instructions

1. Identify a research area, and within it, propose three research questions which would advance the state of the art.
2. Create a one-page proposal:
   • IEEE two-column format with the following options
     • A4 paper size
     • 9pt font
     • 1cm margins
   • In LaTeX, this can be done with the following:
     • \documentclass[9pt,conference,a4paper]{IEEEtran}
     • \usepackage[top=1cm, bottom=1cm, left=1cm, right=1cm]{geometry}
3. The proposal should have the following headings:
   • Background:
     • Set the scene for your research, describe the current area and introduce the research problem.
   • Research gap:
     • Elaborate on the specific research problem. Why is it a problem, and why is this problem significant?
   • Goals and Objectives:
     • Describe the aims of the research such that it addresses your research gap (i.e. identify and justify your three research questions). Describe what some key outcomes of your research might be, and how you might quantify or qualify those outcomes (e.g. metrics? measurables?). What data is needed? And so on.
   • Research plan:
     • Describe how you intend to approach the research. Whereas the previous section describes specific outcomes, this section will propose methodologies, how you might collect the data, and how you plan to organize your research into tasks.
   • References:
     • Your text should use in-text references. Aim for around 4-5 references.

Do not use an LLM for this work, including for generating references, proof-reading, or editing. I will be reviewing for tone and authenticity alongside technical accuracy and content.

Deliverables

Deliverables:

1. One page report, saved as PDF, as described in Instructions (4%)
   • Covers a single hardware security proposal.

Resources

Students may find the following sources helpful when looking for hardware research topics.

• Google Scholar (search hardware security)
• Papers published in IEEE S&P, USENIX SEC, IEEE TIFS, IEEE TDSC, and others
• Reporting by Wired, New Scientist, and other tech magazines
• Technical blogs by Krebs on Security and others
• presentations at DEFCON, BlackHat, and CCC
• etc.

Grading Rubric

Research Proposal (7%)

• Criterion:
  • (2%) Contextual Framing (Background + Research Gap):
    • Poor (0.5%): Background is minimal or generic; the research gap is unclear or undeveloped.
    • Fair (1%): Background is somewhat vague or lacks synthesis; research gap is only partially clear or lacks importance.
    • Good (1.5%): Background is generally strong; the research gap is present and relevant, though justification may be somewhat limited.
    • Excellent (2%): Background is rich and clearly establishes the field; the research gap is insightful, significant, and well justified.
  • (2%) Research Aims and Design (Goals and Objectives):
    • Poor (0.5%):Goals are unclear or too general; questions lack structure or relevance; minimal mention of outcomes.
    • Fair (1%): Objectives are present but loosely linked to the gap; research questions are basic or poorly justified; outcomes / measures are vague.
    • Good (1.5%): Objectives are appropriate; questions are clear but not deeply justified; outcomes / measures are mentioned but could be clearer.
    • Excellent (2%): Objectives are clearly derived from the gap; questions are well-formed, justified, and outcomes/measures are specific and thoughtful.
  • (1%) Research Methodology and Planning:
    • Poor (0.25%): Methodology is unclear or unsuitable; planning and data collection strategy missing or confused.
    • Fair (0.5%): Method is partially suitable or lacks depth; weak task planning or vague on data needs.
    • Good (0.75%): Methodology is mostly appropriate; some data sources or tasks are not fully explained.
    • Excellent (1%): Methodology is coherent and appropriate; clear data needs and collection strategies; plan is logical and task breakdown is detailed.
  • (2%) Engagement with Literature:
    • Poor (0.5%): Very few or irrelevant sources; poor citation practice.
    • Fair (1%): Limited references; may lack relevance or proper formatting; weak use in justifying points.
    • Good (1.5%): Some strong sources; citations are mostly accurate and relevant but integration is less consistent.
    • Excellent (2%): References are relevant and well-integrated; at least 4–5 well-chosen sources used meaningfully with correct citation.
  • (up to -4%) Writing style and formatting:
    • Poor (-3/-4%): Numerous grammatical errors, poor structure, and formatting issues; difficult to read; poor command of English; poor formatting (e.g. not in IEEE format); or strange tone (e.g. too informal, or too formal, or inauthentic).
    • Fair (-2%): Includes necessary sections but lacks polish or has significant issues with formatting/spelling/grammar etc.; may be difficult to read in places; tone may be inconsistent or somewhat inappropriate.
    • Good (-1%): Well-formatted but still lacks polish and/or has grammar/spelling issues.Report exceeds one page.
    • Excellent (0%): Professionally formatted, visually engaging, aligned with IEEE standards, and meets specified format. Report does not exceed one page. Tone is authentic.