Lpc2000

Hi,

I just know I'm going to regret adding to this - this thread should 
have been killed off long ago - but I feel I have to add my voice to 
the call "enough".

Out of interest, Jaya, have you even considered ths remotest 
possibility that the reason Philips aren't replying to your 
outstanding question is not becuase they have something to hide, but 
they have absolutely no reason to? In fact, quite the contrary, 
normal commercial practice would more or less dictate that they 
don't. 

Think a bit harder: they've already explained with very reasonable 
sounding logic why the boot loader is the way it is. It's totally 
unreasonable to expect any company to open up details of internal 
implementation details that are hidden for a very good reason. By 
documenting the interface you can make changes without changing the 
documentated interface. If you want to play with undocumented 
features and interfaces, good luck to you. But expecting Philips to 
tell you internal details of what you're reverse engineering is 
bizarre to my way of thinking. Why would they? (The reason why they 
wouldn't by the way, is that they'd have to put resources - as in 
people and cash - into supporting whatever they document).

I can't imagine anyone in Philips wasting a nano-second of their 
time in responding to why the coded the first few instructions of 
the boot loader one way rather than another.

As an analogy:

Joe Engineer approaches Ford and says: you know what, some of those 
cars you make and sell have the potential to spontaneously 
explode. "Really?" says everyone listening: "that's kind of 
interesting! Tell us more". Says Joe: "Well, they're powered by an 
explosive fuel - there's gallons of it. There's plenty of ignition 
sources all over the place. Now I'm sure if you play around enough 
with the juxtonian gaskit, by getting it into the smudgy mode, the 
whole thing might just blow!". "Er, sounds interesting", says the 
others: "any evidence this might happen, Joe". Joe: "Not as such, 
but Ford just won't respond when I ask them why the gaskit is red, 
when I reacon it should be blue". And so it goes.....

Now answer me this: does any sane, non-paranoid, person out there 
think Ford would respond in that cicumstance?

How about it Philips: are you going to answer the man's questions??? 

We wait with baited breath....

Brendan

-- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "lpc2100_fan" <lpc2100_fan@...> wrote:
>
> Your suspicious G and T commands got an answer in messages
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/message/12267 and
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/message/12234,
> 
> you complain Philips doesn't answer, once they answer you ignore 
it or
> doubt it.
> 
> I give them the benefit of a doubt, you obviously think you are the
> only one here in the forum the REALLY understands what's going on. 
Not
> so! Far from it. I have been working with the LPCs for more than 2
> years and there were ups and downs and we were satisfied with the 
CRP
> and still are. The only thing you are achieving that others who
> believe in an academic approach not sustained with results that 
prove
> it, get a little paranoid too. 
> 
> Commands that are outdated but not removed from programs might not 
be
> the nicest programming style but they are no trojans. A trojans is 
a
> part of a program that enables a backdoor to information. Show us 
with
> all the time you obviously have to spend on this subject that you 
can
> diassemble a one instruction program that is secured and then come
> back and talk about it.
> 
> Well, as some other were speaking up against your longterm siege of
> the forum, I had to let them know there are more that think as 
they do. 
> 
> The posts are a little emotional because we have been quiet and
> watching and quiet and watching for almost 8 weeks.
> 
> RIP
> 
> 
> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Jayasooriah <jayasooriah@> wrote:
> >
> > While lpc2100_fan spoke like any fan would, I must correct a 
flaw in
> the 
> > core premise based on which lpc2000_fan objects to CRP thread:
> > 
> > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "lpc2100_fan" <lpc2100_fan@> 
wrote:
> >  > ... so far we got
> >  > a memory dump of a LPC2104 bootloader, which be no means has 
any
> >  > security options according to Philips.
> >  > This is about as irrelevant as it can be within the LPC2000 
family
> >  > because ALL other members do have a security option.
> > 
> > Check the favourite LPC device with CRP security for Trojans at 
the ISP 
> > level itself and experience it for yourself.
> > 
> > If there is any particular part that does not have these Trojans 
in
> them, 
> > please post part number and code versions so that those relying 
on
> CRP can 
> > be properly advised as to which part/versions they should be 
weary of 
> > rather than the entire family.
> > 
> > In my LPC2292 (which has CRP feature) revision 1.64:
> > 
> > 1/  "G tEsT A" crashes the boot loader.
> > 
> > 2/  "T" command does interesting things (Philips does not want 
you
> to know 
> > about).
> > 
> > Is this not sufficient proof that what I found in 2105 applies 
to other 
> > part(s) with CRP as well.
> > 
> > Either someone is feeding my clients fake (or rigged) parts, or
> lpc2000_fan 
> > got facts wrong.
> > 
> > Jaya
> > 
> > Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
>