Lpc2000

John,

If you are kind enough to point out what I said is incorrect, I am
happy to oblige you with evidence provided you can get Philips to
assure us here that they do not object in anyway to disclosure of my
findings in this forum.

As to the boot process flowchart, you seem to have missed an earlier
discussion where I pointed out with reference to boot loader code that
 the flowchart is incorrect or at best oversimplified.

The first three instructions executed by the boot loader serve to
"hastiliy" block JTAG debugging, and then later on, JTAG debugging is
renabled only if CRP is not in effect.  So the device wakes up with
JTAG enabled, and from memory, Philips admitted to this in this forum.

Back to you.

Jaya

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "John Heenan" <l10@...> wrote:
>
> Lots of innuendo, no detail, hysteria and bizarre statements. The 
> latest is the 'academic' line, not the sort of standards we expect 
> from someone aligning themselves on this front.
> 
> This guy has a bee in his bonnet about CRP (Code Read protection). 
> What is the agenda?
> 
> According to the boot process flowchart 'Debug' is not enabled after 
> reset until confirmation it can be enabled. So guess what, you cannot 
> fiddle with the JTAG lines on reset to grab control before the boot 
> loader. The boot loader is needed to enable JTAG and it won't enable 
> JTAG if the bootloader cannot run.
> 
> John Heenan
> 
> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "jayasooriah" <jayasooriah@> wrote:
> >
> > I do not expect Philips to comment to either ... if they just listen
> > and fix issues raised in their future releases, that is more than 
> what
> > one can expect under the circumstances.
> > 
> > As an academic, my personal intersts in reverse engineering is that
> > unlike computer forensics, I can make up case study tutorials out of
> > work I do for my clients.
> > 
> > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "brendanmurphy37" <brendan.murphy@>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I'd be vey surprised if Philips even comment on this: why would 
> or 
> > > should they comment on an undocumented feature that may or may 
> not 
> > > actually exist?
> >
>