Panels can introduce topics, raise questions, answer questions, and anyone from the audience that would like to ask questions, we highly encourage that. Just come right up to the podium. You can stand here and interject, and we hope it goes from there. So we'll start. Dave, why don't you introduce yourself and we'll go down the line. Hi, I'm Dave Owen. I'm a technical service specialist with BASF, Industrial Petrochemicals, Plasticizer Group. I'm also the task group chair for ASTM D207002, the low-level phthalate determination and vinyl task group. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Marcy Kinter. I'm the vice president of government and business information for the Specialty Graphic Imaging Association, or SGIA. I'm here representing those that pay for the tests. I'm that customer base that has to send you the samples and get the test results and to talk a little bit about some of the problems that we're seeing from the test labs as we are getting the phthalate test results back. I'm Bob Altcorn. I'm a senior technical advisor with InterTech. My background is in physical and analytical chemistry, and I brought some data regarding our phthalate testing results. If anyone's interested, I originally thought we were going to be giving presentations. Hi, my name is Sanjeev Gandhi. I'm technical director for SGS, Consumer Testing Services, based in New Jersey. I'm a technical team lead for a group of about eight people who are product sectors experts in different areas that we are involved in. What does that mean? I spend all day in meetings. All right, I'll give you guys some seed questions and try and get the ball rolling. We're very curious. Our method allows for a number of different methods. As we've seen today, there's constantly new technologies and methods coming out. We're curious as far as method comparisons. Why do you like one method over another?  Anything along those lines, I can give people more perspective of what advantages and disadvantages we have to look for in different methods. Yeah, I think somebody mentioned earlier today, GCMS, which is the existing method widely used, is the benchmark against which we are going forward. Both in terms of the level of speciation we need to really segregate those band, phthalates, and whether they are within the regulatory, below the regulatory limits. That's what needs to be confirmed or validated through the testing. A lot of the technologies that we heard about today, certainly very exciting. We haven't really heard about those technologies in a forum like this before. I don't happen to go to Pitcon every year, so maybe that's my limitation. But it looks very exciting. I think one thing that surprised me during the sessions earlier today was nobody asked after those exciting technologies. And as they were being described, nobody asked, are we there yet? So I think that's the question we need to answer. Certainly that's the question that I'm hearing because I just came from Orlando at the Expo conference that was taking place. I met a lot of customers that work with test labs. And the cost is a concern to them, and they are looking for a solution. I think once you will talk more about that, and perhaps more forcefully than I would. But basically that's where the plastic meets the road. So hopefully we'll get to hear about that through the rest of the discussion today. We're primarily, again, using GCMS back. We also certainly are sensitive to the cost of this. We have a number of concerns about some of the methods that are proposed. Certainly, for example, FTIR has been used in plastics additives analysis for quite a long time. One of the most sensitive analysis is through transmission, typically through thinner thick films. We tried to see in preparation for this meeting, where are we seeing failures? And hopefully this provides some guidance on ways to move forward. So we did a kind of a long, large sample survey of failures and then a more recent, smaller scale survey of extent of, I shouldn't say failure, non-compliances. So over several years we're seeing a non-compliance rate on the order of 4%. And in many cases, I would say in most cases these involve plastics that are not identified to us by the customer. So in some cases you can tell what the plastic is easily, certainly if it's PVC. In some cases it's more difficult, but one of our, I'd say one of our goals would be to make sure that screening techniques or improved quantification techniques are compatible with the types of materials that are actually showing up as non-compliances. And based on a shorter survey of non-compliances, we found about half in recent months were in the 0.1 to 1% range. So if you look at earlier data, including published data, it indicates a much higher level of phthalates. But based on our recent data, getting to low levels is more important. DEHP was the phthalate that was present the most and DINP second. I guess some general concerns we had about screening methods in particular. One that was already addressed, the general lack of certified reference materials or standard reference materials, like how do you know your analytical technique is performing as it should be. Dr. Dreyfus pointed out that there is I guess a vinyl, sorry, polyethylene SRM in preparation. Other concerns are certainly with the spectroscopic methods. In practice pretty much all polymers contain additives. So in addition to plasticizers, they might be fillers, colorants, flame retardants, stabilizers, lubricants. So can you identify those? Do they cause interference problems with the phthalates? Some of our customers have raised issues of how do you test small area? Samples or say a design on a product that's very small. Can you get the spatial resolution? Right now you can do compositing to at least in some cases reduce cost. Is that a possibility with the screening methods? Is it needed as a possibility? I think a lot of the potential solutions presented here today are very specific to individual pieces of equipment. We certainly don't have any problem with that, but based on what we read in preparation for this meeting, when you have something like FTIR, there are a lot of different sampling techniques, there are a lot of different qualities of FTIR instruments. It's been commercially available since, say, 1979, 1978. Is everyone, you know, is my old FTIR going to be as good as your new FTIR? To what extent does the technique depend on operator experience? And I think that was also addressed by some of the presenters today. Anyway, those were our potential, at least, questions. So, yeah, I mean, those are the issues that we're most concerned about going forward. And I would say that, you know, if anybody here is interested in working with us, then, you know, please let me know because we're looking for a solution and we would like to work with you on these and other issues. Well, to qualify, I'm not a chemist and do not have a chemical background. But I will say, based on the feedback, and I'm talking primarily about ink manufacturers that have to get their products tested because they contain phthalates. And obviously, the goal is to get the banned phthalates out of the products and you have to replace them with something. There has to be some functionality that's still in that product in order for it to perform as everyone expects it to. And we've really seen that's been one of the bigger issues. We've also seen that there's a little stability between testing labs in the results. We have one company that indicates that they just don't even have a confidence rate in their lab. They don't see that the test results are coming back verifiable. And that, to us, is very troubling. We see that false positives are an ongoing problem. We also see that some of our alternatives that we're using are coming back and failing. Because, and I will be honest with you, that whole portable technology that just goes red and green scares me to death because we're not looking to ban anything more than those six phthalates. And that's my policy issue right now, is that we're really looking to only take out those six. And I believe, quite honestly, when I was listening to the chap that went on a week ago, was it a week ago? They were also discussing whether or not they could issue or recommend interim bans on other phthalates that were not of the six and they were told that, no, that was really not an option. So I want to be very clear that when you start talking about portable technology that just does a red or a green based on total phthalate concentration, you're really talking about a disruption in the market chain. And that truly, truly is an issue. We have one company that estimates that on an annual basis they may pay up to $5.5 million in testing a year. $5.5 million and they took the phthalates out of their products. So they are now testing products that have none of the six banned phthalates in them. So that's just a whole other issue. So when you start looking at some of the resolutions, I agree with my colleague here on the panel, rather than rushing forward and looking at alternative testing techniques such as the portable handheld, I'd really like to see some of the issues that we're seeing with the test method resolved before moving forward. Specifically looking at and making sure that some of the, I guess, replaced phthalates are not seen as those that are banned. So that when we start looking at reformulation, we're actually doing what the legislation asked us to do, which is to take the six banned phthalates out and to reformulate. We've also found within the testing labs that there does seem to be a requirement that when you are looking at the introduction of an alternative phthalate that there has to be some sort of manual integration done. And there has to be extra steps taken that not all labs, testing labs, are willing or able to do. So there has to be that extra step so that rather than just going past fail, they're actually taking a look at the product and making sure that with the knowledge and understanding of what's in that actual sample, they're able to differentiate and hopefully to pass a product that does not contain any of the six banned phthalates above the limit. We also find that the tests differ based on the labs. We will send one sample to one lab and it will pass and we will send the identical sample to another lab and it will fail. So that also is very, very concerning to us as a customer base because we're looking at $375 a test and when you go up to your final customer and then they require you to continue to test and one lab fails and one lab passes, it gets to be a very expensive proposition. And again, this is one of the elements that we really haven't touched upon here today is the whole element of the cost of the testing and the fact that if you do not have a test method that adequately looks at the product and adequately delineates whether or not you have a good, as I say a good or a bad phthalate, then you continue to have to test and it does get extremely costly. And we are not talking about multi-million dollar companies that have that kind of money to continue to use. So those are just some of the issues that we're seeing when we've sent out samples to the testing community. We did see obviously January 1, the testing cost just about doubled as we expected they would for both lead and phthalate. So we are concerned because we would like to see that before we move forward with other sorts of testing opportunities like handheld that we would actually take a look at the current testing methodology and make sure that it is accurate and that we are not penalized for doing what quite honestly Congress asked us to do which is to remove the ban phthalates from our products. Well, I'm going to talk from the ASTM perspective. I agree with you. Some labs had very different results and that's why I volunteered to start to develop a method within ASTM. We're not focused solely on GC mass spec type methods, but that's the one that comes out with the best results. We basically have, we've done two round robins with basically four different techniques and when we looked at variability, we found the thermal desorption method came out with the least amount of variability, so that's the one we decided to write a method on. We will probably also write a method based on solvent extraction and then, you know, again, we're not limited to just GC mass spec. I would like to also mention we do have a meeting, a task group meeting, April 16th which everyone is invited to participate in. You can go to astm.org and look up D20 meetings and see where that is and the timing. Just following up on some of those ideas, first of all I did want to clarify to Bob what in terms of the SRMs that are available, there is a polyethylene certified reference material that's available currently and what we're working with NIST for is to develop the PVC SRM, so that's in development. But one of the questions that I have is in dealing with impurities or contamination within the manufacturing process. I think in one of our first talks this morning somebody brought this up. Certainly it can be an issue in the laboratory and in the labs we're fairly familiar with how to deal with contamination issues. In the manufacturer, and I think maybe Dave and Marcy may have some insight into this as well as maybe some of the attendees. It seems to me that using perhaps some of these screening methods that we've been talking about could be a valuable tool in your shops whether the master batch and concentrate beads that are used to add color or add other additives to a product might have phthalates in them. If you're adding a 1% drop rate of a master batch that's got 30% phthalates in it, you're going to get the sort of low levels that Bob was talking about. Or similarly in an ink vehicle like Marcy was talking about, if there's an additive to that ink that contains a phthalate or something, what experience do you have in either the existence of that problem or in quality assurance methods within your shops to deal with that? We're seeing that the ink manufacturers are taking steps to develop their own reasonable testing programs. So that similar to what you're asking the children's product manufacturers to do, which is to develop a reasonable testing program with periodic testing, they are looking to develop their own reasonable testing programs based on the supplies coming in. So we start to see that they are now testing the raw materials and taking a look at what's coming in so that they can adequately determine whether or not there's any contaminants in that product. We're also starting to see that some of the ink manufacturers are totally, totally segregating the manufacturing of their phthalate versus non-phthalate ink systems. And oftentimes if they decide to go non-phthalate, which is, and that's a whole big controversial issue is what is phthalate free and how do you advertise it. When we look at those that have opted to take the six phthalates out, and we're only talking about the six phthalates right now, they oftentimes will take it out of all their products eventually so that they don't have any of that material in their facility whatsoever. We see that they are doing extensive QA, QC programs. We see that they are establishing their own reasonable testing programs to ensure the integrity of their raw materials. And this gets into a whole big issue when we start talking policy-side-wise, which I know we're not here to do today, when we start looking at how far can we extend the term batch manufacturing. Because when they start to look at the QC, QA of their raw materials, they really want to make sure that they don't have to keep testing every time they make a batch of ink. So we are looking at what we can do to ensure that the ink does have that integrity from the testing point of view, but it's not overly burdensome for the ink manufacturer because it does have that ripple effect within the marketplace. Does that answer a little bit about what you were looking at? I'm just talking from the ink manufacturer's point of view. From the end user, now the ink I'm talking about is that ink that goes on your t-shirts. We are talking about the Plastisol-based ink that goes on your t-shirts. So you are talking about textile or garment decorators. What we are finding in some of the garment decorators that I've been dealing with only print children's products. And even though it doesn't apply, it only applies in the textile world to child care articles, under three, facilitate eating and sleeping. A lot of them are opting to take it up to that next level and go all the way up to 12 and that is purely their own personal desire because it's easier for them to have one ink system within their operation rather than running two. I have talked to some textile manufacturers, some textile houses that will purchase and test ink and will put it on the shelf and say this is only for children's products. So they clearly label it that this is done and tested for children's products. And then they obviously clean everything that they have a dedicated print line just for that sort of technology. So we are starting to see that the manufacturers are also taking steps to put some QAQC into their operation based on not only their customer base but also based on their incoming materials. Well, depending on how you're making your diesters, there's a couple of techniques that we would use. If it's a non-thalate and we're sensitive about it, we would use UV-Viz because the benzene ring is very absorbent and you pick it up rather quickly and a lot of the other non-thalates don't have a benzene ring. Then we would use GC and then GC mass spec. I think for finished articles the FTIR is a screening tool is very good because thalates are very distinctive with FTIR. It's just that it's a general test and it's not overly as quantitative as GC mass spec. I just wanted to follow up one more thing from Dave. In your alternative thalates that are out there, and I know you've worked in the manufacturer, to what extent might there be an issue of contamination, and I'm saying with BASF in particular but with the industry, of having some of one of the banned thalates in one of the other thalates due to the manufacturer. Thank you. It depends on what you're making in your plant. If you're making thalates along with the non-thalates, you're going to run the risk of some cross-contamination. I think you can get cross-contamination from tank trucks as well, customers piping. So there's a whole chain of events or shipping events that can cause you to get contamination from just the plasticizer. Just to add to that in manufacturing process, other than the raw material quality check, material handling equipment, even just the liner in a drum that is used for your pallets and stuff like that resin, so that plastic liner in that drum can also introduce contamination. I'm Seth Hansen. I'm a consultant in the consumer products industry doing quality systems and so on. Everything I'm hearing here is about contained systems. Take it into the manufacturing area. I'm involved in a project right now with 400,000 units of wallets, inserts in wallets, BVC insert. They mixed when it came in and we were able to figure this out with some testing that when the product came in, came in from two different sources, one had phthalates at about 20%. The other was clean. They're put on the shelf together in the heat of Asia. All of a sudden now and to your point, what is happening now is you have products in the system that have 20% and you have some products in the system that have 1,000 ppm, 1,200 ppm. You set it together for a day. You set it together for a week. You have a problem. Part of this whole thing on phthalates, because of the migration issue, you need to look at the whole manufacturing process and set up that's what my clients are asking me to do. Give me a process from beginning to end of isolation. And it goes as far as I have a situation, screen prints. Lead was found. Same thing as phthalates, but lead was found in it. I traced it back. The screen print was done in Vietnam. They cleaned the screens with gas. There was lead in the gas. We have the same situation with phthalates. There is mixing of chemicals. You have BASF, good chemicals. Chinese, and they mix them. Dollars and cents. So I think we need to look at the whole process and to the point of using the portable, and that's what I'm involved in because I'm using that, by using the portable I'm able to save a $4 million project that was going to have to be burned, literally burned. Through the analysis of, instead of doing one, I've done over 300 analysis in three days and able to sort and sort things out. So we have to work together, the labs and the quality systems out in the field. And I would agree, but what I don't want to see is that the portable system becomes the be-all and end-all. Because if you have a portable system at a retail operation and it comes back that there's phthalates in there, however they've taken all the phthalates out and they can show through their component part testing and they can show through their General Conformity Certificate that they meet all the requirements, then you're sending that manufacturer through hoops that don't necessarily need to be sent through. So I agree it is a melding of all aspects that have to come together, but first and foremost, we need to take a look at the testing methodologies to determine why some of the phthalates that are not banned are showing up within the tests and what can be done. And is there something else, some other policies, some other steps that need to be put out there so that these phthalates that they are using because we need some plasticizers in these inks. I'm sorry, but we need them in the inks to make them work. We somehow have to have a testing methodology that does reward those manufacturers who have taken the step to get the six-band phthalates out and are using alternative phthalates. And that's really the crux of the issue because when it comes back as a failed test we have low limits and because we're not, we have not adopted a risk-based standard and they continually have to test even if they no longer have those materials in their products. So it's an underlying problem that needs to be addressed and if it can be addressed through an ASTM test method that looks at alternative methodologies to get to the result, that's great. But the underlying concern is the manufacturers that have taken the step to really reformulate their products and they still have that stick over them where they continually need to confirm that they have met the standard, but they're being penalized because the testing methodology erroneously identifies the phthalate. What I would like to add to that point is that for the ink application industry, if you test the right description, you'll have the choice based on what they've described under the ASTM initiative, you'll have options of the methods and that one solution won't fit all. So you'll have the choice of applying the solution that works for the ink industry applications provided CPSC blesses that method and approves it. Right, as long as it attacks the underlying problem that we're seeing, that's the crux of the issue. If the testing methodology, even as it's developed by ASTM, does not attack that underlying issue, then we haven't gained anything, regardless of the testing methodology that we choose. I would just like to point out that we had, I think, three or four different presentations today talking about the quality assurance within the existing testing mechanisms to properly identify those chemicals. We've seen it in our lab. It's very easy to do when it's done the way that Dr. Dreyfuss described that our friends from the other manufacturers described. But it's not being done consistently within the testing community and that's what we're seeing. It might be there's a lack of direction by CPSC or something, but we're seeing a lack of consistent failed results on products that should not be failing. And that is getting to be a very costly issue within the industry. Do you have any statistics about the... Yeah, just a question. Do you have any statistics about the numbers of failures that occur and all these all-foss positives or are they just misidentification? I don't think in the ones that are coming back failed and I'd have to go back and see, I would imagine that my members are keeping statistics only because it's a ROI issue and I can provide that for the record if people would like to see that. I don't think it's a misidentification because they've taken the banned ones out. So it's not like they say, oh, I don't have this in and then it's coming back saying it does. If it does, it might be, as we've mentioned here, an impurity. But I've had manufacturers that tell me they now will ship their products in tinfoil. They do not let any plastic touch their product. I mean, they really do take steps now to ensure that there's no migration between any sort of plastic and that sample before it gets to the lab. I mean, these are the steps that are being taken. However, they're not being taken by the garment decoration community. So now we're starting to develop some, I guess, recommendations for printers that want to send their products off because if the ink manufacturer's test comes back and it passes and then it fails on the part of the screen printer, then we have to look at the manufacturing process, obviously. And then we're also looking at the way that they ship the product off to be tested because we're seeing the migration. As we've mentioned here, even in the buckets that we know in the developing. But I'd be happy to pull together some statistics and let everyone know. So I was going to pose this. So now that we have you here and you have a forum directly to us, I guess the question I'd ask is, ideally, what does the testing community need for a lot of these issues that we brought up today? What would it take to either cut costs, get better results, make things more consistent? Whether it's practical or way down the road, what do you want from CPSC or from the manufacturers of different analytical technologies or instruments? What would you like to see in the future to make everyone's life easier? Well, from the standpoint of consistency, I mean, interlaboratory studies are the proven way to do this. It would certainly help to have reference materials with different additives or different matrices based on where the satellites are actually being detected and the quantities in which they're actually being detected. There are some voluntary interlaboratory studies that are being run in Europe, for example. But that, I think, is the most, you know, the standard way to address that issue. Yeah, we all came to an agreement that sample preparation is the area where there's an opportunity for making better economy of this method. So this is something we realized as well maybe two, three years ago when we started looking into these alternate methods. We have our own R&D team within SCS and we worked on thermal desorption technique. We have had some contact with Bob who presented his work in this area and how far it has progressed now under the ASTM D20 committee. So I think we recognize that as a positive move forward. I'm really glad to hear that that's one of the methods that you found to have least amount of variability.  Another advantage is, especially with coatings, you know, very small sample sizes needed. So some of the practical issues that come up when you have products with very small coverage area and you need, you heard the proverb, real example of 200 Barbie dolls. So in case of lead testing, but basically it's the same issue that when you have very small coverage in certain products, you know, that disadvantage goes away with the use of this method. You can use it for solid as well as liquid samples. And the recovery values were very high, you know, within the norms of the analytical world. So we are very excited about that and obviously ASTM approval of that method would also give further impetus to the use of that technology. There are a couple of other areas that we have looked into. IAMS is something that wasn't, I know it was on your list, but it wasn't discussed by any of the presenters today. We have looked at IAM, Iron Attachment Mass Spectroscopy. We have worked under the IEC group which has been looking at it from the raw side of the testing requirement in Europe. We have R&D team working in Germany closely with the IEC team. And we found some issues that really don't address the kind of problems, the practical problems in regulatory compliance needs for toys and children's products. The chromatic graphic separation of, you know, molecules with identical masses, definitely one problem. Sample homogeneity is a problem. We also looked at that and same sample homogeneity could be a problem, you know. So those are some of the issues that are still need to be resolved. And there's another much bigger practical problem that really does not solve the cost of the methodology. It's very expensive. We looked at systems from different vendors, you know, front-up capital cost of $450,000. So I'm really glad to hear some of the developments in handheld portable technology that was discussed today. This is something that needs to be validated in the real world. There was some limited data presented today. It may not be a solution for everybody, but it could be something to look at in different environments for screening purposes as intended. Yeah, sample homogeneity is always a big problem. I think the newer technologies have heightened the awareness of this when it comes to lead.  Certainly if you're looking, for example, at pellets, sometimes pellets have lubricants on them, so what's on the surface is not necessarily the same thing as what's in the interior. I mean, these are problems that can certainly be solved, but I think it's important to be aware of them. I have a question for Dave about the developing ASTM method. Bob spoke, of course, about the technology from the point of view of Frontier, but he alluded to the other instrument manufacturers out there, CDS, Gerstle, et cetera, and that they're being slight differences in temperatures and things like that for that. Is your method addressing that to make it universal across thermal desorption equipment? Well, the method hasn't been approved, but yes, we will address that. We're nearing three o'clock, so there's anyone else I'd like to ask a question, now's the time. So I guess my first question would be to Bob. In your preparation for the GCMS spec analysis, what is your biggest consuming problem? I mean, do you ever encounter problems where you would like to screen before you do that to avoid a costly problem? Yeah, I mean, I think certainly a technique that could identify, if you have a really quick technique, that could identify those materials that are failing by a large margin that would potentially eliminate some necessity to do testing. All of the GCMS spec methods are much more time-consuming than the FTIR or ambient mass spec techniques that were here. So, yes, that would be helpful potentially by eliminating testing on materials that failed by a large margin. But I mean, we would potentially have to look at the actual numbers of products by material class to see to what extent that would save testing time and cost. Right, right. So from our FTIR perspective, the way I see it is we have two different routes. We can go for the screening, but we also have the potential to do a liquid-solid extraction using a solvent. And there's ASTM methods already out there for doing that in other materials. Is that a potential route, or is it going to be a barrier for that? Can I? Well, I mean, people discuss the extraction processes here, and they can be time-consuming. They rain typically. The sonication processes are running in the half-hour range, but depending on the specified extraction procedure from identified in the test method, the extraction might be the time-consuming step or the time-eliminating step, and it might not be. And it probably depends on what you're looking at. If you're looking at raw material that's a plastisol, that's already a liquid. Potentially, that's a lot easier than something that is difficult to extract. Okay. That is for my question. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, I'd like to just follow up on that with Marcy. Do you see where perhaps some in your industry might use a technique like one of these screening devices to look at the incoming, you know, they've specified a phthalate alternative in their plastisol and to check that, you know, are the scope and size of these companies big enough to do that sort of thing? I guess it would depend on the cost of the handheld. I mean, I'm not sure what the cost of the handheld is for the lead, and they're not using one of those. Primarily in the industry sector, a typical size is 25 employees, so you're not looking at huge companies. So quite honestly, what they're looking at and what they want is they want the ink manufacturers to certify through component part testing that their inks are compliant. And that is really not occurring right now because of the costs associated with the tests from the ink manufacturer's point of view. The definition or lack of clarity of definition as to what is batch manufacturing and also with the fact that we're seeing so many false positives come back on the alternatives. So it's a mixed bag. I really don't see that they would, unless it was a really large garment decoration house, that they would invest in handheld. They really are just going to look to their suppliers to certify, or they're going to send out to a lab themselves because quite honestly, eventually, because they're providing a children's product, they're going to have to test anyway or at least provide some sort of testing documentation through component part testing that their product complies with all the lead and phthalate content limits. So I don't really see handheld as being... I see that happening more at the retail level, to be honest with you. My name's Pat Sells. I've got 30 years experience selling X-ray to include portable X-ray. And I'm no longer in the X-ray business. I'm in the ramen business now, the portable. But one of my clients down in North Carolina, they were spending $100,000 a month on testing, sending samples out just for lead. And they did buy portable X-ray from me at the time when I worked for another outfit. They spent $40,000 for that piece of equipment. But they reduced their monthly output of samples they were sending out as a result of screening down to about $10,000 a month. If they found any indication of lead at all in screening, they did not attempt to put a number on it. That went out to be tested by the holy grail methods of ICP and AA and everything else, which we don't compete with. We readily admit that those techniques are superior. But in an attempt to limit the volume of samples that you're sending out, there is a role for the screening. And while we're not here today to talk about lead, I think the screening for the phthalates will play a similar type of role. And it is a way for manufacturers to reduce cost. This was a particular site where the lead was showing up in inks. It was showing up in zippers. There were a lot of cases where there was conflicts in analysis where the commercial lab was coming back saying there wasn't any lead. We were saying there was lead. It wasn't a fact that the commercial lab did anything wrong. We analyzed two different pieces of metal. They were taking the zipper pull and dissolving it in acid. We were looking at the zipper pull, but we were looking at the base of the zipper, which is leaded brass, and we were seeing the lead. We were not seeing the lead in the zipper in the pull. So it's really not a question that we're wrong and they're right, they're right, and we're wrong. It's a question of the sampling. Are you looking at the same piece of material? And so on. I know I would agree that there is a role. It depends on how large the operation is and their volume. Because if you're looking at a traditional garment decorator, especially in the area of phthalates, and again, the unwritten definition is under three, facilitating eating and sleeping, there's not a lot of that actually being printed, believe it or not. A lot of it's embroidered, which is exempt, because it's not a plasticized component. But when you start looking at zippers and things of that nature, then yes, it does make sense to have some sort of a handheld technology. But it does depend on the size of the facility. But if you're looking at your average facility that you're going to go to to buy t-shirts for your local soccer team, no, they're not going to have any sort of handheld. But potentially you're spending as much in one month as what one of these analyzers cost. But they're not going to send out every product. They're going to look at their ink systems and they'll send out their ink systems. And as long as they don't change their ink systems, then they're fine. They don't have to get it retested. So you're not, you know, it is a fine line. But quite honestly, the size of the facility does dictate what they're going to do. And we also don't, SGIA does not say you have to send every product out to get tested. You have to make sure that product complies. If you can use component part testing and send out a sample of your ink, then that test stands until you use up that ink. So it really is, it's very much a cost issue. But again, the industry is looking to their ink manufacturers to provide them with that assurance. And I would still argue that screening techniques are one of the best methods to reduce your cost. I wouldn't disagree, it depends on the size of the facility and the amount of volume that they do. If you're doing a million dollars, I'm not sure. One more thing. All of this, this is CPSC meeting. I have not heard anything about Prop 65. And Prop 65 is the big gorilla in the room. And Prop 65 does not dispensiate between children and others. And if you look at what is going on right now with the number of 16 notices that have been filed and it's only an indicator of what's going on. So phalates, we have to come up with some ways in the whole process of taking care of the phalates and making sure they're not in there. We've been dealing with Prop 65 for years. That's a California regulation by the way. Do we have any last questions? I just have a question about the work done now. Are there any plans for doing some kind of interlaboratory study to try and possibly develop a correction factor that would be applied? A correction factor for what? Well, if you look in the ASTM F963, which is the toy standard, there is testing that's specified for heavy metals in the coatings. And I guess they must have done an interlaboratory study to determine what kind of variability there is between labs. And for each of the heavy elements, there's a certain correction factor that's to be applied. I think it's anywhere between 5 and 30%. Well, I'm going to talk in a slightly different terminology. Once a method is developed and approved, you do have to do a statistical analysis. And we've basically done two interlab studies already with vinyl that was compounded, but it was not, I'll say, made to all the ASTM requirements. It was just to see how the different techniques would work. So the next iteration, once a method is approved, is to do an interlaboratory study with a sample and then provide the statistical analysis. Okay. And one other question. Asenji, you just wanted to bring in on that. I want to speak to that correction factor question you just asked. I think you're referring to the correction factor that is applied for the weighing error that could occur when you're compositing different materials. I think you might have 963 heavy metals as a subtraction. Right. I mean, there is a... I'm sorry. Let me just point out. ASTM F963 is the toy standard. And in its section 4.3, I think it is, on six heavy metals and paints, and now in the new 2011 version in substrates as well. It applies a correction factor that essentially subtracts off a percentage from the result. This was a consensus standard that is, you know, giving a discount, if you will, to the measured values as part of the standard. The standard, in this case, of 0.1% of the six, the three permanently banned phthalates and the three temporarily banned phthalates was set by Congress. And it's not... It only gets ASTM's purview to set that standard. Right. Thank you. And one other question. We've heard a lot of talk about, because of the phthalate regulation, essentially phthalates as a plasticizer will, within a few years, are going to be totally absent from the marketplace. Is there any truth to that, or is that just mythology? I think what I would say is most of the vinyl is not compounded in the United States. And, you know, about 50% is in Asia. And in Asia, the predominant plasticizers are phthalates. In the U.S., the predominant plasticizers are phthalates. And in Europe, I think the predominant plasticizers are phthalates. There are new plasticizers coming out. It's pretty much been an explosion. But I would not say it's years. It might be decades, if it happens at all. Thank you. I'd like to just clarify a few of the things about the ASTM method. There is a section in there that requires the user to use evolved gas analysis. Evolved gas analysis basically will define the temperature range over which that particular piece of equipment works best. So if the frontier system is 100 to 320, it may be with manufacturer B, they may be going from 120 to 340. So there's a section in there that discusses using evolved gas analysis and extracted ions to identify the temperature range over which that piece of equipment operates to extract the phthalates. And I should mention that one of the round robins that Dave mentioned was done by a series of laboratories that had nothing to do at all with our committee. So I just went out in the free world and found five people, five laboratories, willing to take these samples and see what they could get. And the percent difference for all the laboratories, for all the numbers. We looked at six phthalates, three different injections, a large number of data. The percent difference or percent error, I'm sorry, for all the numbers, from all the laboratories, for all the repercussions, was about 12%. So we are proceeding down the path that Dave mentioned. We've got one more round to do. What we have to do is train that analyst a little bit more before she gets the samples. But it brings up a good point that one guy out of six failed the test. See, I don't know if she failed. She's 30% higher than every number. There's something in there that I can't find. I was curious, the other gentleman started this question. Earlier I heard the mention of non-phthalate plasticizers and I was curious, is there a list of non-phthalate plasticizers on the market right now that are like available and affordable? Or is that not really the case? Just out of curiosity on my part. I don't know too much about the plasticizer. I'll refer that question back to the EPA Design for the Environment Committee that I mentioned in my first talk. That's one of their target goals is to bring up the different phthalates where their possible repercussions could be. Short cost is going to be a factor that comes into that. There was a study done by Institute, I don't remember the full name, STURI in Massachusetts. It was done almost 10, 15 years ago, which looked at non-phthalate plasticizers and also looked at the cost implications going back 15 years ago. I can forward you that research paper if you want. One part of the ASTM task group is to compile all the plasticizers that are used in vinyl and also provide mass spectra on that. I'm also going to mention something as an aside because the Society of Plastics Engineers has a vinyl division and they're going to have a regional technical conference in October and there will be a bunch of presentations on non-phthalate plasticizers there. That's in the middle of October. You can go to SPE. I think it's SPE4U.org or something like that. Thank you. I think this has been a really good seminar. This was our first chemistry symposium that we've had here at our new lab. I understand some of you are interested in seeing our chemistry lab and so those who have time to stay for a brief tour, we can meet out in the hallway here. Actually, we've got safety glasses right over there and if you could grab a pair of safety glasses and come on out, we can do that. I'd like to have a round of applause for all of our presenters today and thanks to Matt for hosting us. Thank you.


Live from New York, it's theCUBE, covering Big Data NYC 2015. Brought to you by Hortonworks, IBM, EMC, and Pivotal. Now your host, Dave Vellante, and George Gilbert. Welcome back to New York City, everybody. This is theCUBE. We're right down the street from the Javits Center where Strata Hadoop World is going on. This is our event within the event, Big Data NYC. theCUBE goes out to the events. We extract the signal from the noise. Peter Goldmacher is here as the CMO of Aerospike, friend of theCUBE, friend of SiliconANGLE Wikibon. It's great to see you again. Last year, just about a year ago, we were up, we had that great panel that you participated in with Amy O'Connor and Abhimeta, and Sparks were flying. And now you're back in the technology world with Aerospike, a company that we know pretty well we've been tracking for a while. So how's that going? It's going great. As you can imagine, startup life is dynamic. Last time we talked, I was running marketing, now I'm not. So I joined eight months ago as head of strategy. We had a new CEO. I came in with him. We changed the organization around a little bit and now we've brought in a proper head of marketing. So I'm back to just the strategy role, which better for me. But it's great. You know, I was on research, I was on Wall Street as a research analyst for a long time, like George. And it's a great opportunity to see the world and taking that knowledge and coming back into industry. I cut my teeth at Oracle in the 90s. Coming back into industry, especially the company like Aerospike that's so unique and so differentiated in what we do.  Certainly is a challenge, but it's an enjoyable challenge. So let's talk a little bit about the uniqueness. I'd like to do a couple of things. Aerospike, the uniqueness of Aerospike, where you guys are winning, some of the use cases that you're taking down, how you're different from the other guys. And if we have time, then I want to get your perspectives on the rest of the industry. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on. But let's start with Aerospike. Yeah, so one of the things we didn't have when John Dillon got there and when I got there two weeks after John was we didn't really have an identity. We were just another NoSQL database and we were going to market like all the other NoSQL databases. And pretty quickly we looked at our customer base, which at that time was about 85 customers and said, what is it all these guys have in common? And what they had in common is they needed to take an extremely large data set and run pretty complicated rules engines on top of that data set to get very high quality answers based on a large set of data. So you know our first success was in ad tech. So when you get a banner ad that's strangely relevant, what happens is every morning a Hadoop profile is loaded into Aerospike and then as you're online, all your activity on the internet goes into Aerospike and they look for a match between, well we know Dave and this is what Dave is doing today. What kind of ad could we serve him that has a higher probability of a click through? So the ad tech guys write the algorithms but the database is the critical component in getting all that data live and actionable so they can make it an immediate decision. So analytics are great if you want to know what's happened but what we do is we make sure you can look at everything that's happened and say, okay I can write an algorithm that says make this decision when I see this thing and so Aerospike as a database underneath that enables all that. Yeah and we were talking about it. Obviously ad tech is one use case, the other is fraud detection. There's a big difference between the good and the not so good. You see that in ad tech, we talked about fraud detection, we'll talk about that in a minute. But so I'm presuming you guys are behind the good because that's what you're- Only good. That's what you're about. We only do good.  That's not your gig, right? That's not the gig we go to market with but that factually, if you understand the internal workings of how we do what we do, there is an enormous cost saving component but that's sort of the secondary message because the primary message is so powerful and the primary message is we enable you to do things you could never do before because our database is fast enough to support decision engines and rules algorithms that you could never process enough data in enough time to make a decision. So let me just maybe an example helps make the point. Why is it that when you get on a plane in Boston and you land in Paris and you swipe your credit card for a cup of coffee at Charles de Gaulle Airport, it gets denied? Well, all that data exists. I know who you are. I know you bought a plane ticket to Paris because I've got the credit card transaction. I know you're staying at the Georgetown because you booked the hotel. I know you had a bowl of chowder at Legal Seafood eight hours ago at Logan. So when you land, all the data exists. I know it's you. It is knowable that it's you. Why can't I approve that transaction? You can't approve the transaction because in the old world, you can only write a rules algorithm that's sophisticated enough to handle the amount of data that you can process in a very tight time window. For credit cards, it's usually about half a second to three quarters of a second because the database is slow. The reason writes to the database to populate the rules engine is slow. So if I can guarantee you that same SLA of a half a second or three quarters of a second and the opportunity to look at much more data and write a much more complicated rules engine, instead of just saying, okay, this is Dave's credit card, is he current on his payment? Is he over his credit limit? Is he in Bulgaria? Very simple questions. I can now ask all of those things and I can also look at all the other data. I know, what charges has he charged that might correlate this transaction? Is he using a device that's familiar to me? Is he using a vendor that's familiar to me and a known risk? Is he using an IP address? So all of a sudden, the opportunity to look at all that data, you get much better scores. And for credit card risk and fraud, this is 100% margin stuff because the biggest problem in the credit card business is not fraud, it's false negatives. Because if you're doing a transaction and it's valid and I deny it, that's money off the bottom line. And so one other very common trait of all our use cases is it's all mission critical. All of this stuff directly impacts revenue. It's not content management system or a product catalog. It is revenue impacting stuff. Yeah, so I love the story and you're right. I mean, the database business is so crowded. If you want to go to market with yet another no SQL database, you just get lost in the crowd. That's great going over there and yapping about it. But everything you just said is about changing business outcomes and driving value. Speed of scale. So how's it resonating with customers, particularly in the financial services industry?  Because fraud detection is so much better now than it was 10 years ago where you had to wait six months and maybe you'd find out because you were sampling data. Okay, that's great. Now that we're in that semi real time zone, I'm really not satisfied. Can you make a dent in that? Yeah, so one of the things that's happened over the last eight months since I've joined is we've completely changed the sales and marketing team and the go to market strategy. And we now realize there is an enormous opportunity in a couple of verticals. Ad tech, which we dominate. Financial services and telecom. So we are going after primarily those three verticals. And what's interesting is if you look at the Mongos of the world and the data stacks and the couch of the world, these guys have a completely different game. They're an Oracle alternative. They're saying, hey, look, the product, the database is no longer a product, it's a category. And if you are doing something that's not ideal for Oracle, is there a better, cheaper way to do it? If you're building a product catalog, content management, you know, Mongo is a great solution for that. If you have a large amount of data, you're trying to get written really, really quickly, Cassandra's fine. But if you want to take in a ton of data and you want to have access to that data really, really quickly, we're really the only solution on the market. And that's what we specialize in. High performance, no sequel. Great. Well, so tell us like, you give us a great example for financial services in ad tech. So let's assume there's that same budget of X, you know, a couple hundred milliseconds. What can you do better that, you know, when you can reduce, well, if the database has the same budget in terms of within that, say 700 milliseconds, how much better can you do the targeting, you know, the pro, what's the profile that you know better? I'm glad you asked that question. So the SLA in the fraud world is half a second to three quarters of a second. The SLA and ad tech is 10 milliseconds to 100 milliseconds. So it's- For just the database part. For the whole thing. The whole thing. I mean, you got to get that out of, because you got to bid for the ad, you got to serve the ad, and there's a lot of things that happen. So you're asking, how do we add value in that process? We don't write the algorithms. So we've got customers like XLA and Atmexus and Tapad and, you know, big, big concentration of customers and right here in Manhattan. And their secret sauce is the algorithms they write. So that's a great question for them. But when they come to us, they know that whatever they write, whatever correlations they write, whatever rules they write, we can get them enough data to populate that engine and get a response in that extremely tight SLA. So remember, we're only a database, but we enable this next generation of applications that embeds analytics, but correlates it against what's happening right now. So Dave, you and I have talked about this whole Gartner discussion of hybrid transaction analytical processing. To us, that's crazy talk, right? Because if you have one database that does both things, that's fine if your SLA is like four days. Our SLA is again, sometimes microseconds, frequently milliseconds. Yeah, that's an estimate to you guys. So it just, that's just not the world we plan. That's just not... The TapPad guys, I think we're telling them, I don't remember the exact data, but he was telling me that they essentially apply that algorithm and reprice their ad by, like literally thousands of times a day. It's a market. Versus, you know, some of the competitors which is once or twice a day, maybe if they can do that, because this human's doing it, you know? And so that's pretty, pretty stark. And now what about telecom? Is that customer churned stuff or is it more? So I'll give you a telecom example. Telecom, I think we all, fraud and telecom we all relate to. So we have a customer, Alcatel Lucent. And Alcatel Lucent is actually a reseller billing systems to all the carriers, AT&T, Verizon. So all of us have had the experience where you get a text message that says, hey George, you're about to go over your data limit on your plan. Do you want to buy a gig for 15 bucks? We've all gotten those texts. That's because they can't be more specific because they have their usage in one application and they have their customer billing and customer profile in another application, right? So they say, if anyone's going over a limit, doesn't matter who he is or what the plan is, sell him a gig for 15 bucks. But if you pay 15 bucks for a gig and then your billing cycle ends a day later and you use 25 meg, your good and warm feelings that you usually have towards AT&T are tarnished a little bit, right? So they've written a new application on AeroSpike that says, look, let's correlate data usage on the billing plan. And if you remember, the old billing plans were on voice minutes. Now it's all about data and the amount of data that we're charting and the dataset has exploded, right? So you can't, the old way just doesn't work anymore. So this application that I think is live in a Vodafone Italy is basically if you are about to go over your limit, they know what your usage patterns are. They know what plan you're on. And they say, hey, George, you're about to go over. I know you've got two days left in your plan. I know you're gonna use about 50 gigs. Do you wanna buy 50 meg? Do you wanna buy 100 meg for two bucks? So you think, well, why would they sell less when they could sell more? The whole point is if they can reduce churn, if I can reduce George's churn on a $200 a month plan by one month, that trumps any $15 a gig that is gonna cause him to churn early. So what we love about that story is, this is a really different way to think about things, right? You have an opportunity to do something you've never done before, because you're thinking, boy, I could write a completely different kind of application if I could get all this data and process it really, really quickly. So we love that. So how about that? Telco's deciding it's good business not to screw the customer. You know, the examples you're giving us are very quantifiable business outcomes. And it's hard at infrastructure software to sort of sell on business outcomes, I should say to price. We also have this sort of thesis that we're going through this slow motion price collapse and infrastructure software. Because even if you're not open source, you're competing against open source. So how do you live in that world? And for those who, you know, say they make money by helping customers run the software, how does that work? So there are a lot of questions in there. So let me touch on a couple of topics. One is open source is a problem. Every single open source company will tell you their biggest competitor is themselves, the free version of the product they're selling. And if you look at kind of the way open source got spun up is you had total abuse at the hands of Oracle and EMC and pick your favorite large enterprise vendor. And they had just hammered their customers because there were no alternatives in the market. And then you had Linux, right? And Linux was unbelievable because it was this product put together by a bunch of hackers that became commercially successful. So people said, oh, open source, I like that. But open source as it exists today has almost nothing in common with Linux. Linux was a bunch of like-minded guys, probably a bunch of commies that got together and said we don't care about money, we just want to build great product. That is not the ethos of any open source company in the market today that's taking venture money, right? Guys think, hey look, if we build it and they come and I can get distribution, then I can figure out my monetization model later. So look at what we know about Mongo and Datastax. These are enormous distribution mechanisms. The bulk of the money invested is in distribution, not in product, right? So they're saying if I can get to the market and I can be big and I can be standard, then I'll figure out monetization later. They have told, I mean, like I think I've talked to, if I remember, that senior VP of sales like at Mongo and his attitude was, yeah, we're going to have to build a real sales force to call on the senior people just like Oracle does. Yeah. Yeah, but then you wonder, I guess it's not clear how do they monetize? Although they say they spend a good chunk of their R&D on manageability. So I guess our question is, how can everyone, every product help customers manage, but then who's managing all that manageability? It's just 27,000 different consoles. Yeah, but that's a problem that's as old as software from more than one vendor. Yes. So we're not treading any new ground there. I do want to make one point, and if I can just kind of revert to my Wall Street days, the thing I always worry about is what happens if funding dries up for open source companies? And these guys have invested all their money in distribution because that's what they've identified as their key differentiator. They don't get distribution. They don't get breakout velocity. The money dries up, and they've got this enormous sales force, and they've had a revenue model that's, the nose has been tilted up, but it's been losing altitude because each incremental dollar of revenue costs more, right? So what happens when the funding dries up and they're not self-sustaining entities, and they have to start letting sales people go, then the nose points down, right? So it is completely in my belief system that you will have a lot of open source companies fail, and that's a problem because one of two things happen. One is people that have deployed the software have no commercial entities supporting it, and there was never a hacker community like in the Linux world, so it either goes bust and people have software installed that there's no support for, and they kind of reap what they sow because they never paid for it. They thought it was going to go on forever, or what probably happens is the big enterprise players with distribution say, I knew this was going to happen, now I'm going to go buy the technology for scraps, and I will find a way to monetize it, and they can offer, I mean, there's a million ways to do it, right? Oh, if you want to, we have a database for content management, we have a database for a product catalog, and they don't have to sell one database per processor, they sell it much more appropriately, so the whole pricing mechanism changes, but on the pricing continuum with Oracle over here, screwing people, and the most open source, open source guys giving everything away, you can't exist on either end, the pendulum is over here, it's going to come back, so just to complete the circle, the way we're going after it at Aerospike is, we don't have a big sales force because we're not, our key advantage is not distribution. If you look at sales and marketing versus product spend at most open source companies, you know, versus ours, we're diametrically opposed, we spend way more, three quarters of our employees are either engineers or engineering focused, we have a very small sales force because we're doing a new, new thing, we're not this big deflationary pressure on the market, we actually are in a growth market, and it's harder to find and it's harder to build because it's new, but we are, we worry every day about our financials, we know what we're spending, we know what we have, we know what our runway is, and we're not going to, we're not going to hire another rep until we've made the prior rep a millionaire because he's had so much opportunity. Well, and I think investors understand, at least smart investors, understand the dynamic that you described, and they don't care because I got my investment in Cloudera, I'll get that back, or couch base or whatever it is, I just said, once an analyst, always an analyst, so I'm going to ask you sort of follow-up question on that. I was quoted yesterday in SiliconANGLE saying the space funded profitless with a lot of potential. What do you think about that? I mean, it feels like investors don't care, but the customers, I think your point is going to be left holding the bag. Well, I'm not overly sympathetic for the customers because there is no such thing as a free lunch, right? You know, it's wonderful that the venture community is finding out this opportunity, and there are going to be a couple of companies that come out of this that have unbelievable product, and it's going to be really, really good, but it's the very typical venture model where I'll fund 10, one works and pays for the other nine wipeouts, and I don't know why it would be any different this time. So are they going to be using software that's unsupported and kind of, yeah, probably, but if it's important enough, something will happen, right? I mean, if there's good technology and it's solving real problems, something good will happen. All right, Peter, we got to leave it there. Great to see you, thanks very much for stopping by. Oh, it was a pleasure. All right, keep right there, buddy. We'll be back with our next guest. Right after this is theCUBE, we're live from New York City. Right back. Live from New York. It's theCUBE covering big data NYC 2050.


AES LBBB、AES Mode for Lightweight and BBB Secure Authenticated EncryptionI am Takeshi Sugawara and this is a joint research work with Yusuke Naito and Yusasaki.In this paper, we propose a new authenticated encryption mode called LBBB for AES Accelerators. Our motivation is to provide higher security with lower memory overhead by using AES Accelerators,available and will be available in many computational platforms.We propose a new mode of operation LBBB and its instantiation AES LBBB.BBB represents beyond the birthday bound security and AES LBBB achieves almost 128-bit security using AES.L represents lightweight in terms of memory size.The diagram on the bottom shows the operational unit for processing a 128-bit block in AES LBBB.We use a 256-bit internal state flowing from left to right and the upper half is the AES 128-bit secret keyand the bottom half is the 128-bit AES internal state.To realize a large internal state to resist internal collision attack,we update the AES key as we process the message blocks,which is the key point for reducing the memory size.Lightweight cryptography has been a hot topic in cryptography for more than a decade.The motivation is to design crypto algorithms that achieve better performances in resource-constrained IoT devices.In particular, NIST is running a competition for choosing a new lightweight standard,making this research area very active in the last few years.Most candidates in the competition use new lightweight primitives such as Asconpe, Skinny and Gift instead of AESbecause they are better in various ways.There were only three AES based candidates in the previous roundand unfortunately none of them survived to the final round.The new lightweight primitives are the reasonable choices for rigorous optimization.However, AES based schemes are still valuable especially because AES acceleratorsare getting more and more common in many computational platforms.AES accelerators are everywhere in these days.Most modern processors including X86 ARM and RISC-5 have AES interactions.AES core processors are getting very popular in general purpose microcontrollersespecially for the recent ARM V8 architectures.We can expect that these AES accelerators will be available in the futurefor backward compatibility, interoperability and standardization.People are still using RC4 in WPA2 Wi-Fi securitywhich is a good example showing the resilience of one standardized algorithm.AES GCM is the most common AES based schemeand its security is limited by a birthday bandand is 60 bits only.People are moving toward 128 bit securityand designing a better AEAD for AES is our motivation.There are conventional AES based modes for BBB security.In particular,ALE appeared in 2013is an AES based AEAD claiming 128 bit security.It uses the AES run function as a basic building blockand processes 128 bit message blocksfor each 4 round AES operation,achieving very high data rate.We can use AES interactionsfor implementing these AES run functions.Meanwhile,AES co-processors usually finishesthe entire AES encryption at onceinstead of A round functionso they are not for ALE.Unfortunately,there is an attackand ALE does not provide the claimed security level.Another candidate is RIMAS N2a family of Rameraswhich is the NIST LWC finalist.It achieves BBB securityand since it uses a block cipher as a primitivewe can also use AES co-processorsfor accelerating RIMAS N2.The diagram on the bottom showsRIMAS N2's basic unit for processinga 128 bit message block.It uses a 384 bit internal state flowingfrom left to right.The upper and middle lanes representthe AES key and the AES internal state.RIMAS N2 uses additional 128 bitsfor the bottom laneand reducing this 128 bitsthat key challenge we're tackling this paper.Before coming into the main partI want to emphasize the importance of memory sizein lightweight cryptography.Memory or registerdominates the entire circuit areain compact hardware implementations.Here are quick examples.A 4-bit sbox typically uses20 to 40 gates.Just a 128 bit registerneeds 6 to 900 gatesand reducing this essential memoryis almost impossiblewith hardware design.Memory is much cheaper in softwarebut it's still crucial.The memory size determines the chip costand there is continuous pressurefor low memory software implementationeven today.Recent microcontrollers havea special memory for securitywhich is even smaller.For example some L11a microcontroller we use forour benchmarkinghas trustram which is limitedto 256 bytes only.Ok we are coming back to the motivationafter this work.We designed the scheme with these design goals.We want beyond about the band securityachieving almost 128 bit securityusing AES.Second we want to achieve 256 bit memorymeaning no extra memory outside AES.Third we don't want tocompromise the speed too muchand want to maintain the right one performance.This means that we want to process28 bit message block for each AES call.finallythe table on the bottom comparesALE,REMAS N2and hours and we can seethat hours satisfyall the three design goals.Here is the list of our contributions.We propose the new mode of operation LBBB.We specify AES LBBBand instantiation of LBBBusing AES 128.We benchmark the software and hardware performancesand compare them with the state of the earth.We implement the software on a microcontrollerwith an AES core processorand implement the hardware for ASIC.We also implementREMAS N2 for comparison.The tables on the right shows the softwareand hardware performancesin which AES LBBB shows better performances.finallywe discussed these design extensionsfor further performance.These figures comparethe basic processing units of LBBBand REMAS N2.In these diagrams, a box with a black barand the input toward the bar representsthe secret key for the block cipher.A256-bit internal stateis necessary for the resistanceagainst internal collisionneeded to achieve 128-bit security.A block cipher's internal stateis 128-bits in case of AESwhich is not enough.REMAS N2uses the additional 128-bit state.A challenge is to further reduce the state sizeand we achieve this by using the block cipher's keyin addition to the internal state.To achieve the randomnessin this 256-bit internal statewe feed the block cipher's output to the key.We mix them through thepi and lambda functionswhich are the linear functions with several requirements.In the instantiation with AESwe set both pi and lambdaas the constant field multiplicationso we can implement them very efficiently.This figure shows how we constructLBBB's hashing and encryption.It's basically a simple iterationof the basic operation unitbut there are some important points.First we can feed 256-bitassociated data block at onceso this scheme's rate becomes 2 in hashing.We use yet another functioneater for domain separationand the eater is a simple LFSRin the final instantiation.After feeding all the message blocks,the final key state in the block cipheris used as a tag.We prove the securityin the ideal cipher modelthat is a block cipher is idealunder the non-respecting settingin which there is no repeated noncebetween messages.We use thenaesecurity which claims the indistinguishabilityfrom the ideal system consists of a random bit oracleand a rejection oracle.The random bit oracle returns random cipher textsand the rejection oracle always returns rejectionin tag verification.As far as we interact with the ideal systemwe obviously learn nothing about the plain textand forging a tag never succeedsand we are going to provethat lbbb is as good as the ideal one.For the naesecurityof lbbbwe can provethat lbbb achieves n-log2nbit security.They are indistinguishable up to2 to the power of n data blocksin all queriesor2 to the power of n over n local complexity.As a resultthe final security becomes121 bits with AES.In the next few slideswe are going to explain the security proof.This is a proof sketch for the encryption.In this proof the goal is to showthe indistinguishability betweenthe lbbb encryptionand the random bit oracle.For the purposewe should analyze how the scheme maintains therandomized state.The first twoblock cipher codes randomize the entire stateand we get a 2nbitcompletely randomized internal state.Since weconsider the non-respecting scenariowe are going to be able topropagate it to the last blockand the internal state values are allindependent and random as long as no statecollision occurs.The collisioncomplexity determines the securityand by the birthday analysisthe collision complexity isorder2 to the power of n ciphertext blocksdbb achieves n bit securityregarding encryption.We are going toexplain the next one,the proof sketchfor decryption.A forgery attack isn'tmatterand we analyze two attack cases.The first case is to guessing a tagin decryption.The key point is thatwe can get a fresh tag for eachnew input block to the last block cipher.In this case,the tag is almost randomso the success probability is2 to the power of minus nfor each decryption query.As a result,the forgery attackwith this case requires2 to the power of n decryption queriessatisfying n bit security.The next forgery attack isin some internal statein decryption.LBBB uses a2n bit internal state,and half of itthe one shown in red in this figureis public because they are exposedthrough ciphertext.If the adversarycan obtain the remaining n bits,there is no secret anymore,unforging a tag is trivial.So the key point is the complexityof recovering the remaining n bits secretshowing blue in this figure.Using the multi-collision techniqueon the public part,we can ensurethatrevering one of the secret valuesrequires2 to the power of n overn data blocksin decryption queriesor2 to the power of n overn local complexity.SoLBBB achieves n-log nbit security regarding decryption.AESLBBB is an instanceof LBBB using AES1 to 8.For the linear functions,we usea constant multiplication by2 to the power of 8 for bothpi and lambda.Constant multiplicationis widely used as a lightweight linear functions in lightweight cryptography.We use 2 to the power of 8 becausewe preferred a bytewise operation.Another good thing is that we cancombine pi and lambda usingthe distributive property to furtherreduce the computational cost.We aremoving on to performance evaluation.We use microchip some L11procontroller as a target platform.It's an ARM Cortex M23MCUand has an AES core processorworks at 57.2 cyclesper byte.We implementthe entire AEAD operationswith the SuperCop API.We use memory-aware implementation.The depth of the nested functionsis a tricky part becausedeep nest increases stack memory.For a fair comparison,we limitthe depth to one level fromthe top level functions.We put sensitive values only inindependently acquired global memoryassuming a special memoryand never put them in the stack.We implement the current state of the artremas-N2 using the same designpolicies and compared itwith AES-LBBB.This table compares AES-LBBBand remas-N2 in RAM,stack,RAMand speed.AES-LBBBuses 16 byte or128 bit less memory becauseof its smaller state.Although it's relatively smallerthan the 88 byte stack,the secure memoryneeded for storing sensitive valuescan be more crucial,as I mentioned earlier.AES-LBBB alsooutperforms remas-N2 in RAMand speed.Since AES is very efficientin this platform,non-AES operationssuch as the linear functionsor elementary operationssuch as moving and exploringpollonecte performances.AES-LBBB uses simplerand less non-AES operationswhich contributed these better performances.We are moving on to hardwareimplementation.This diagram showsthe circuit architecture for AES-LBBB.AES obviously dominatesthe entire hardware costand for compact circuit areawe use popular byte serial architecture.Something special about it is column-orientedserialization and integratedinverse key schedule.We should care about byte orderingwith a model operation and we choosecolumn-oriented serializationwhich respect the AES-native ordering.On-the-fly key schedulingis very popular among compact hardware implementation.It updates the key in placewhich is the problem for various modesthat requires the original AES keyin the following operations.So we should recover the original onefrom the last run key.We efficiently achieve this by addingsmall amount of circuit componentsin the key array as shown in blue.We also integrated the constant multiplicationby 2 to the power of 8needed for LBBB in the key array.We also implementedREMAS-N2 using the same AES circuitfor fair comparison.We evaluated their circuit areasusing NANGATE 45nm standardcell library.This table compares the circuit area of AES-LBBBREMAS-N2and the baseline AES.AES-LBBB is smallerby more than 1000 gateswhich is a great improvement.This mostly comes from the reductionof 128-bitextra state which usesmore than 1000 gates in REMAS-N2.Finally, we discussed the extensionof LBBB regarding inversekey schedule.As I mentionedin the hardware implementation,we should recoverthe original AES key after theon-the-fly key schedule.We updated the key state key in placeusing a key schedule functionksf within the block cipher code.Before proceeding to the next step,we shouldapply ksf inverse to getk out of ksfk.Then we can move on to the nextprocessing with the py function.This is necessary for AES,but we can improve itfor non-AES primitives.The idea is to integrateksf into the py function instead ofconstant multiplication in AES-LBBB.By doing this,we can completelyskip ksf inverse.However,the py function should satisfycertain requirements,and AES key schedule doesn't satisfy them,unfortunately.ksf of some block ciphers satisfy the requirements,and Karan is oneexample.So Karan LBBBcan be very small,although theresulting scheme will have 64-bit security because of Karan's block sites.Another approach isksf.More recent block cipher designs use simpler key schedulewith which ksf inverse is very efficient.That is in contrast with AES-ksfthat incorporates sbox operations.Gift 128 is the case,andgift 128 LBBB achievesalmost 128-bit security.Another candidate,which is something inbetween,is using a modified AEShaving a better ksf,such as the one-by-coreat all.We can still acceleratesuch a scheme using fine-grainedaccelerators,such as AES-NI.I'm concluding my talk.LBBBprovides beyond about-the-bound securityat smallest memory costfor block ciphers.AES-LBBBenjoys the power of AES-acceleratorsand it outperforms the conventional state-of-the-art RIMAS-N2 in bothsoftware and hardware benchmarks.Wefinally discussed the design extensions.Thank you very much for watching.


Since that incident has happened in your life, you have not been guided into surrender of any kind. You're holding on to the ego, you're holding on to the idea that you've lost it. You know, you've lost that. You were told that death will happen if this doesn't happen and that doesn't happen. So now that's what you're attached to.  Can you let go? Or would you like to hold on to it?