Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "jayasooriah" <jayasooriah@y...> 
wrote:
>
> I dont know why are so eager to quench this discussion just because
> you have no (or very simplistic) requirements in relation to code
> security. It is perfectly alright for you to be not interested.
> 
> There are many people here, including myself, who are concerned (to
> say the least) as to how safe IP that is loaded onto on-chip flash 
is
> when the part is in thehands of the those who know what they are 
doing.
> 
> The ball is now in Philips' court.  Give them time to respond
> credibly, or not at all as they see fit.  We all know how to make
> inferences.
> 
> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "unity0724" <unity0724@y...> wrote:
> > Many thanks to the summary and conclusion, and clarifications
> > showing "no simple way of cracking the read protection."
> > ...
> > Somebody please provide some proven way of cracking the chip 
> > else this thread should be concluded.

But, they have answered.  Again, today.  They posted replies to each 
and every issue.  The only outstanding item, and it wasn't on the 
list, is the T command.

Each and every item, answered.  And, no, they're not going to post 
the source.  And they don't recommend replacing the boot code for a 
couple of pretty good reasons.

To continiue badgering over "it isn't good enough because it isn't 
hardware only" seems to me to be questioning the skills of the 
engineers and the integrity of the company.  I am not willing to do 
either.

The questions were answered.  Except for the T command.  And I am 
willing to believe that a) the engineers know it is there and b) it 
doesn't provide a way to get around what they have designed.

If I needed security and I wasn't convinced after the answers 
provided that the system was satisfactory, I would just buy another 
product.  No big deal, there are dozens of competing devices.

Richard

>