Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper presents a systematization of knowledge (SoK) of hardware reverse engineering (HRE) research over the past two decades, analyzing 187 peer-reviewed publications related to IC, FPGA, and netlist reverse engineering. The study identifies technical methods across the HRE workflow and highlights challenges that hinder research progress, including a concerningly low reproducibility rate of 4% across evaluated artifacts. Based on these findings, the authors propose stakeholder-centric recommendations for academia, industry, and government to foster more coordinated, reproducible, and legally sound HRE research.
Reproducibility in hardware reverse engineering is shockingly low, with only 4% of evaluated artifacts from 187 papers yielding reproducible results.
As hardware serves as the root of trust in modern computing systems, Hardware Reverse Engineering (HRE) is foundational for security assurance. In practice, HRE enables critical security applications, including design verification, supply-chain assurance, and vulnerability discovery. Over the past two decades, academic research on Integrated Circuit (IC), Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), and netlist reverse engineering has steadily grown. However, knowledge remains fragmented across domains and communities, which complicates assessing the state of the art and hampers identifying shared research challenges. In this paper, we present a systematization of knowledge based on an in-depth analysis of 187 peer-reviewed publications. Using this corpus, we characterize technical methods across the HRE workflow and identify technical and organizational challenges that impede research progress. We analyze all 30 artifacts from our corpus using established artifact evaluation practices. Key results could be reproduced for only seven publications (4%). Based on our findings, we derive stakeholder-centric recommendations for academia, industry, and government to enable more coordinated and reproducible HRE research. These recommendations target three cross-cutting opportunities: (i) improving reproducibility and reuse via artifact-centric practices, (ii) enabling rigorous comparability through standardized benchmarks and evaluation metrics, and (iii) improving legal clarity for public HRE research.
