In response to community recommendations on narrowing our requested hardware platforms, we are considering requesting that teams focus specifically on Cortex M-4 and Artix-7 for hardware implementations for Round 2. Are there any strenuous objections to these two platforms?
(Note that either way, we will still be considering implementations on other constrained devices (microprocessors,FPGAs, ASICs, etc.) both by teams and by third parties in our evaluations).
CortexM4 is a good platform that is widely used. However, there is also a very large body of low-cost IoT solutions on more limited platforms that currently use public-key cryptography. Thus, comparisons on these more limited platforms (and the mere ability to run on them) should also be taken into consideration when selecting the final portfolio. The risk of not doing this is selecting a set of solutions not capable to run on small devices.
Industry experience (and simple market research) shows that more resource-constrained platforms such as Cortex M0, AVR, etc are not going away soon. For example, Google IoT devices include those using AVR (although with a cryptographic coprocessor): https://blog.hackster.io/google-teams-with-microchip-for-avr-iot-cloud-connected-8-bit-microcontroller-6e2fbe5078bf
Popular AVR cryptography libraries are available that implement RSA and ECC. The Round5 team is keen to demonstrate that Round5 IoT variants offer superior or at least comparable performance to these, and therefore offers a viable transition path.
Cortex-M4 IS suited to low-cost IOT where 8 bit would mostly make no sense.Often IOT is seen as just bolting a pi or insecure arduino with off the shelfstuff these days, so that is refreshing, however. I expect/assume that the 8bitcontroller you mention isn't doing any of the cryptography. I assume it justshuffles data at the lowest cost possible. An actual IOT device that utilisestheir chip would be very unlikely to choose an 8 bit micro, IMO.
On 2/6/19 3:39 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:Yes, the M4 is suited for that, however that doesn't stop people from using theM0 or AVR solutions. You know what they say about people who assume, right?I do, however M0 is not 8-bit, a bigger assumption was that Googles designsupported your point around 8-bit, it didn't.
If you assure me that many use 8-bit/AVR then that is a different statemententirely. It wouldn't convince me??