Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2004-09-13 by funes_armando
Hi all, Can somebody tell me how the lpc2104 protection against flash memory reading is?. If my competitor is doing reverse engineering on my products, can he read the lpc2104 flash memory entering it into ISP mode? Thank you very much Armando
2004-09-14 by George Powell
Interesting point. The only reasonably sure way I know is to download programs into ram and run them. Unfortunately I only know a few Motorola chips that do this and the Philips chips don't do this. You need a battery too. We live in an age of terrorism and part of the problem may be the government making certain requirements of chip manufacturers that can be exploited by groups with sophisticated equipment. There may even be a back door key to steal the ram too. My designs have been quadruply ripped of in China so if you find a way to provide adequate protection, I for one would like to know. I am not a security expert, just a victim. George Powell funes_armando <funes_armando@...> wrote: Hi all, Can somebody tell me how the lpc2104 protection against flash memory reading is?. If my competitor is doing reverse engineering on my products, can he read the lpc2104 flash memory entering it into ISP mode? Thank you very much Armando Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-14 by Gus
The LPC210x can't be protected but LPC211x have protection feature where it disables IAP and JTAG so no one can read the contents of flash memory. I have used it and it seems to work fine. Read more in LPC2114 data sheet --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, George Powell <georgelpowell@y...> wrote: > Interesting point. The only reasonably sure way I know is to download programs into ram and run them. Unfortunately I only know a few Motorola chips that do this and the Philips chips don't do this. You need a battery too. > > We live in an age of terrorism and part of the problem may be the government making certain requirements of chip manufacturers that can be exploited by groups with sophisticated equipment. There may even be a back door key to steal the ram too. > > My designs have been quadruply ripped of in China so if you find a way to provide adequate protection, I for one would like to know. I am not a security expert, just a victim. > > George Powell > > > > > > funes_armando <funes_armando@y...> wrote: > Hi all, > > Can somebody tell me how the lpc2104 protection against flash memory > reading is?. > > If my competitor is doing reverse engineering on my products, can he > read the lpc2104 flash memory entering it into ISP mode? > > Thank you very much > > Armando > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-15 by Pete
Hi ya, Well im not an expert (yet) using the philips chips but there certainly is a way to protect the onboard flash from being ripped off using jtag or similar. I have you need to have the LATER silicon version (with the latest boot loader code in it 1.61) then there is a feature whereby once u program the device you can set a flag which this locks the onboard flash and prevents the code being read out of the JTAG or similar headers. The only way to unlock this mode (apparaently) is to do a full chip erase and write which would obviously loose your original program and thus protect it. This code read protection feature requires Bootloader revision 1.61 and by writing 0x87654321 to location 0x000001fc code read rotection is enabled. once this is enabled, the following jtag external memory boot and ISP commands are dispabled: read memory, write to ram, go, copy ram to flash. In application programming is not affected. therefore the idea is to develop your system, then when you are happy with the code write the special value to the regsiater and it is locked,.... but is there a way around it???? - perhaps! but not looked into it in that much detail yet... hope this helps, kind regards pete --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, George Powell <georgelpowell@y...> wrote: > Interesting point. The only reasonably sure way I know is to download programs into ram and run them. Unfortunately I only know a few Motorola chips that do this and the Philips chips don't do this. You need a battery too. > > We live in an age of terrorism and part of the problem may be the government making certain requirements of chip manufacturers that can be exploited by groups with sophisticated equipment. There may even be a back door key to steal the ram too. > > My designs have been quadruply ripped of in China so if you find a way to provide adequate protection, I for one would like to know. I am not a security expert, just a victim. > > George Powell > > > > > > funes_armando <funes_armando@y...> wrote: > Hi all, > > Can somebody tell me how the lpc2104 protection against flash memory > reading is?. > > If my competitor is doing reverse engineering on my products, can he > read the lpc2104 flash memory entering it into ISP mode? > > Thank you very much > > Armando > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-15 by George Powell
Well, you may lock the ISP and the Jtag, but you will not lock out the back door put in by Philips and other manufacturers at the government request. The problem is a global one because I suspect the back door algoryths can be read by analysing the chip in a laboratory using electron microscopes and such. If the key is not secure enough then companies can specialise in cracking them and we all lose. Pete <peterbrown_abroad@...> wrote: Hi ya, Well im not an expert (yet) using the philips chips but there certainly is a way to protect the onboard flash from being ripped off using jtag or similar. I have you need to have the LATER silicon version (with the latest boot loader code in it 1.61) then there is a feature whereby once u program the device you can set a flag which this locks the onboard flash and prevents the code being read out of the JTAG or similar headers. The only way to unlock this mode (apparaently) is to do a full chip erase and write which would obviously loose your original program and thus protect it. This code read protection feature requires Bootloader revision 1.61 and by writing 0x87654321 to location 0x000001fc code read rotection is enabled. once this is enabled, the following jtag external memory boot and ISP commands are dispabled: read memory, write to ram, go, copy ram to flash. In application programming is not affected. therefore the idea is to develop your system, then when you are happy with the code write the special value to the regsiater and it is locked,.... but is there a way around it???? - perhaps! but not looked into it in that much detail yet... hope this helps, kind regards pete --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, George Powell <georgelpowell@y...> wrote: > Interesting point. The only reasonably sure way I know is to download programs into ram and run them. Unfortunately I only know a few Motorola chips that do this and the Philips chips don't do this. You need a battery too. > > We live in an age of terrorism and part of the problem may be the government making certain requirements of chip manufacturers that can be exploited by groups with sophisticated equipment. There may even be a back door key to steal the ram too. > > My designs have been quadruply ripped of in China so if you find a way to provide adequate protection, I for one would like to know. I am not a security expert, just a victim. > > George Powell > > > > > > funes_armando <funes_armando@y...> wrote: > Hi all, > > Can somebody tell me how the lpc2104 protection against flash memory > reading is?. > > If my competitor is doing reverse engineering on my products, can he > read the lpc2104 flash memory entering it into ISP mode? > > Thank you very much > > Armando > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor Get unlimited calls to U.S./Canada --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-15 by Robert Adsett
At 06:55 PM 9/14/04 -0700, you wrote:
>Well, you may lock the ISP and the Jtag, but you will not lock out the
>back door put in by Philips and other manufacturers at the government request.
I think you are confusing code protecting with the late (failed) US
encryption initiative (called Skipjack if I remember correctly) which
included mandatory key escrow provisions. Strangely very few governments
(or others) wanted to hand their encryption keys over to a third party no
matter how many safeguards would supposedly be in place ;)
>The problem is a global one because I suspect the back door algoryths can
>be read by analysing the chip in a laboratory using electron microscopes
>and such. If the key is not secure enough then companies can specialise in
>cracking them and we all lose.
Actually all you need to do is find a way to corrupt a single bit in the
protection word. These protections are not about absolutely preventing
copying but simply making the cost too high to make it worthwhile. That's
true even of the high security processors with the automatic tamper circuits.
Robert
" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself. There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical. If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "
Kelvin Throop, III2004-09-15 by funes_armando
Hi all, Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, etc. We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development expense. If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to use the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read protection?. Thanks all Armando
2004-09-16 by George Powell
Hi all, I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it off. This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You only have to do it once then set up in business. Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy company you can probably bargain the price down too. This is a real problem and one that will not go away through wishful thinking. George Powell Hi all, Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, etc. We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development expense. If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to use the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read protection?. Thanks all Armando Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-16 by Earl Bollinger
Well, you know, it's a lot easier to bribe or pay someone at the factory to give you the code. No fuss no mess. Getting code that way is the most common easiest way too. In some countries, they seem to do that as a matter of fact anyway. Why bother trying to extract the binary code out of the chip.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Powell [mailto:georgelpowell@...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 7:51 PM
To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Re: Flash Security
Hi all,
I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor is not
going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to send it to a
slimy company that have already worked out how to see into your type of chip
and they will charge a pittance for ripping it off.
This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand dollars for a
few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that Chip manufacturers
need to seriously adress.
Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You only have to
do it once then set up in business.
Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your competitor. Being
as it is only a few minutes work to the copy company you can probably
bargain the price down too.
This is a real problem and one that will not go away through wishful
thinking.
George Powell
Hi all,
Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors,
etc.
We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices,
but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development
expense.
If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all
circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to use
the LPC2104 because of it's price and features.
According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read
protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61
But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe
that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature.
Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read
protection?.
Thanks all
Armando
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129avu5se/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1706554205:HM/EXP=1095382258/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http:/compa
nion.yahoo.com> click here
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2128215/rand=224650649>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2004-09-16 by funes_armando
The only point of my post is that I want to know if the LPC2104 has code read protection. Could someone answer this simple question? Thanks all Armando. > Hi all, > > I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it off. > > This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. > > Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You only have to do it once then set up in business. > > Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy company you can probably bargain the price down too. > > This is a real problem and one that will not go away through wishful thinking. > > George Powell > > > > > Hi all, > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > etc. > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > expense. > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to use > the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > protection?. > > Thanks all > > Armando > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-16 by Richard
Armando, The 210x series of devices do NOT support code read protection. Richard --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "funes_armando" <funes_armando@y...> wrote: > The only point of my post is that I want to know if the LPC2104 has > code read protection. > > Could someone answer this simple question? > > Thanks all > > Armando. > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor > is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to > send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see > into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it > off. > > > > This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand > dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that > Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. > > > > Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You > only have to do it once then set up in business. > > > > Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your > competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy > company you can probably bargain the price down too. > > > > This is a real problem and one that will not go away through > wishful thinking. > > > > George Powell > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > > etc. > > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > > expense. > > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to > use > > the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe
> > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > > protection?. > > > > Thanks all > > > > Armando > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-16 by philips_apps
Hello Armando, Richard is right, The LPC2104 / 2105 and 2106 do not support code read protection. Somebody with a JTAG debugger can go in an read your code. All other devices of the LPC2000-family do support code read protection. Application Support Philips --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "funes_armando" <funes_armando@y...> wrote:
> The only point of my post is that I want to know if the LPC2104 has > code read protection. > > Could someone answer this simple question? > > Thanks all > > Armando. > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor > is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to > send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see > into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it > off. > > > > This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand > dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that > Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. > > > > Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You > only have to do it once then set up in business. > > > > Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your > competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy > company you can probably bargain the price down too. > > > > This is a real problem and one that will not go away through > wishful thinking. > > > > George Powell > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > > etc. > > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > > expense. > > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to > use > > the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe > > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > > protection?. > > > > Thanks all > > > > Armando > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-16 by funes_armando
Thanks for your answer. Do you know if Philips is planning to add this feature to the LPC210x?. Is it possible to disable JTAG debugger by firmware? Regards Armando --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "philips_apps" <philips_apps@y...> wrote: > Hello Armando, > > Richard is right, The LPC2104 / 2105 and 2106 do not support code read > protection. Somebody with a JTAG debugger can go in an read your code. > All other devices of the LPC2000-family do support code read protection. > > Application Support Philips > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "funes_armando" <funes_armando@y...> > wrote: > > The only point of my post is that I want to know if the LPC2104 has > > code read protection. > > > > Could someone answer this simple question? > > > > Thanks all > > > > Armando. > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor > > is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to > > send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see > > into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it > > off. > > > > > > This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand > > dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that > > Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. > > > > > > Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You > > only have to do it once then set up in business. > > > > > > Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your > > competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy > > company you can probably bargain the price down too. > > > > > > This is a real problem and one that will not go away through > > wishful thinking. > > > > > > George Powell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > > > etc. > > > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > > > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > > > expense. > > > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > > > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to > > use > > > the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > > > > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > > > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > > > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe
> > > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > > > > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > > > protection?. > > > > > > Thanks all > > > > > > Armando > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-17 by George Powell
Hi All I would like to hear what Philips apps have to say on the question of a deliberate back door to read protected code. So far the silence is deafenning. Can you say in all integrity that you do not know that Philips (and other manufacturers) leave a back door of some sorrt in their chips for 'security' reasons. By its very nature flash is highly resistant to copy techniques unlike eprom but this has brought us no extra security benefit. best regards George Powell philips_apps <philips_apps@...> wrote: Hello Armando, Richard is right, The LPC2104 / 2105 and 2106 do not support code read protection. Somebody with a JTAG debugger can go in an read your code. All other devices of the LPC2000-family do support code read protection. Application Support Philips --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "funes_armando" <funes_armando@y...> wrote: > The only point of my post is that I want to know if the LPC2104 has > code read protection. > > Could someone answer this simple question? > > Thanks all > > Armando. > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor > is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to > send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see > into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it > off. > > > > This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand > dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that > Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. > > > > Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You > only have to do it once then set up in business. > > > > Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your > competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy > company you can probably bargain the price down too. > > > > This is a real problem and one that will not go away through > wishful thinking. > > > > George Powell > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > > etc. > > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > > expense. > > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to > use > > the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe > > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > > protection?. > > > > Thanks all > > > > Armando > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-17 by philips_apps
George and Armando, the missing security option for our first ARM devices, the LPC210x was not deliberately as a backdoor, it was at time of definition not considered crucial to an ARM micro. While the architects of the LPC210x were right in many things (I guess that's why we can have this coversation on this user group), this has been a wrong decision. All devices hitting the market after the LPC210x have such a security feature implemented. We hope that most customers that need security can use one of the 64-pin devices. I know this does not help you right now but please grant us an honest mistake. Redesigning the LPC210x to include this feature is prohibitive expensive. We hope that most of you, the users of all the LPC2000 devices can use other family members that provide this feature. Best regards, Robert --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, George Powell <georgelpowell@y...> wrote: > Hi All > > I would like to hear what Philips apps have to say on the question of a deliberate back door to read protected code. So far the silence is deafenning. Can you say in all integrity that you do not know that Philips (and other manufacturers) leave a back door of some sorrt in their chips for 'security' reasons. > > By its very nature flash is highly resistant to copy techniques unlike eprom but this has brought us no extra security benefit. > > best regards > > George Powell > > philips_apps <philips_apps@y...> wrote: > Hello Armando, > > Richard is right, The LPC2104 / 2105 and 2106 do not support code read > protection. Somebody with a JTAG debugger can go in an read your code. > All other devices of the LPC2000-family do support code read protection.
> > Application Support Philips > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "funes_armando" <funes_armando@y...> > wrote: > > The only point of my post is that I want to know if the LPC2104 has > > code read protection. > > > > Could someone answer this simple question? > > > > Thanks all > > > > Armando. > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor > > is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to > > send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see > > into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it > > off. > > > > > > This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand > > dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that > > Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. > > > > > > Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You > > only have to do it once then set up in business. > > > > > > Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your > > competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy > > company you can probably bargain the price down too. > > > > > > This is a real problem and one that will not go away through > > wishful thinking. > > > > > > George Powell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > > > etc. > > > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > > > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > > > expense. > > > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > > > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to > > use > > > the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > > > > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > > > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > > > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe > > > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > > > > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > > > protection?. > > > > > > Thanks all > > > > > > Armando > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-17 by Lasse Madsen
Hi all I have some basic questions concerning the LPC2114: 1. If I want to be able to JTAG debug my code RTCK has to be used as a dedicated JTAG enable/disable during boot pin right? 2. Assuming the above is correct... I pull RTCK low during reset and all JTAG pins are forced into JTAG mode (TDI, TDO, RTCK, TRST, TMS, and TCK) is there a way to use these pins as either inputs or outputs while still having JTAG capability? Could I for instance connect LED's to some (all?) of these pins and then when I'm finished with JTAG debugging I can control LED's as "usual"? 3. I'm planning to use the TRACESYNC pin as an output driving a multiplexer select line and from what I'm reading in the datasheet (Internal pull-up) there's no need for me to connect a pull up on this pin to avoid the "mystical debug interface" to be triggered during reset. Is this correct? 4. I want to connect an SD card to SPI0 so the SPI0 interface has to operate in master mode is it correct that one has to connect SSEL0 to +3V in order to force MASTER mode and then use a regular output pin as the chip select on the SD card ? 5. I also would like to connect an Atmel data flash to SPI1 I assume I also have to connect SSEL1 to +3V to force master? 6. I would like to use the full modem port on UART1 but not wanting to use an additional multiplexer in my design I have connected P0.14 to a switch with a pull up resistor so I can take the pin low during reset. My DCD output from the modem is connected to P0.16 (EINT-0) so I should be able to have an interrupt when the DCD toggles but is the EINT pins active high or low (or even better can this be specified in software?) 7. As I understand it nearly all pins have 5V tolerance due to an internal diode to VCC... I have a resistor divider where I have an input range of 10 to 20V into a 120K resistor and a 22K to ground if how ever the input voltage should rise above 20V to for instance 30V my resistor divider would output 4.6V shouldn't the internal diode protect the ADC from burning up in flames :) ? As I see it the internal diode would consume ((4,6V-(VCC+Vdforward))/120K). Unfortunately I do not have the full datasheet so I don't know the Vdforward so I'm assuming a shottky with 200mV into the following formula: Ipin = ((4,6V-(3V+200mV))/120K) = approx 12uA which doesn't sound like enough to make flames if there is an internal diode in the chip!? 8. Does any one have the full datasheet the only thing I was able to find was a 33 page datasheet on the webpage? Thanks for reading and sharing your comments! Best regards Lasse Madsen
2004-09-17 by Kerem Or
The web page also have the user manual available. You would probably find most of the answers to your questions. Kerem ----- Original Message -----
From: "Lasse Madsen" <lasse.madsen@...> To: <lpc2000@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: [lpc2000] LPC2114 - basic questions > Hi all > > I have some basic questions concerning the LPC2114: > > 1. > If I want to be able to JTAG debug my code RTCK has to be used as a > dedicated JTAG enable/disable during boot pin right? > > 2. > Assuming the above is correct... I pull RTCK low during reset and all > JTAG pins are forced into JTAG mode (TDI, TDO, RTCK, TRST, TMS, and TCK) > is there a way to use these pins as either inputs or outputs while still > having JTAG capability? Could I for instance connect LED's to some > (all?) of these pins and then when I'm finished with JTAG debugging I > can control LED's as "usual"? > > 3. > I'm planning to use the TRACESYNC pin as an output driving a multiplexer > select line and from what I'm reading in the datasheet (Internal > pull-up) there's no need for me to connect a pull up on this pin to > avoid the "mystical debug interface" to be triggered during reset. Is > this correct? > > 4. > I want to connect an SD card to SPI0 so the SPI0 interface has to > operate in master mode is it correct that one has to connect SSEL0 to > +3V in order to force MASTER mode and then use a regular output pin as > the chip select on the SD card ? > > 5. > I also would like to connect an Atmel data flash to SPI1 I assume I also > have to connect SSEL1 to +3V to force master? > > 6. > I would like to use the full modem port on UART1 but not wanting to use > an additional multiplexer in my design I have connected P0.14 to a > switch with a pull up resistor so I can take the pin low during reset. > My DCD output from the modem is connected to P0.16 (EINT-0) so I should > be able to have an interrupt when the DCD toggles but is the EINT pins > active high or low (or even better can this be specified in software?) > > 7. As I understand it nearly all pins have 5V tolerance due to an > internal diode to VCC... I have a resistor divider where I have an input > range of 10 to 20V into a 120K resistor and a 22K to ground if how ever > the input voltage should rise above 20V to for instance 30V my resistor > divider would output 4.6V shouldn't the internal diode protect the ADC > from burning up in flames :) ? > > As I see it the internal diode would consume > ((4,6V-(VCC+Vdforward))/120K). > Unfortunately I do not have the full datasheet so I don't know the > Vdforward so I'm assuming a shottky with 200mV into the following > formula: > Ipin = ((4,6V-(3V+200mV))/120K) = approx 12uA which doesn't sound like > enough to make flames if there is an internal diode in the chip!? > > 8. > Does any one have the full datasheet the only thing I was able to find > was a 33 page datasheet on the webpage? > > Thanks for reading and sharing your comments! > > Best regards > Lasse Madsen > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >
2004-09-19 by George Powell
Robert You have evaded my question. Can you guarantee us on your honour that Philips have not engineered a way to read code from these chips that are protected in the normal way. Let us not get into semantics. regards George philips_apps <philips_apps@...> wrote: George and Armando, the missing security option for our first ARM devices, the LPC210x was not deliberately as a backdoor, it was at time of definition not considered crucial to an ARM micro. While the architects of the LPC210x were right in many things (I guess that's why we can have this coversation on this user group), this has been a wrong decision. All devices hitting the market after the LPC210x have such a security feature implemented. We hope that most customers that need security can use one of the 64-pin devices. I know this does not help you right now but please grant us an honest mistake. Redesigning the LPC210x to include this feature is prohibitive expensive. We hope that most of you, the users of all the LPC2000 devices can use other family members that provide this feature. Best regards, Robert --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, George Powell <georgelpowell@y...> wrote: > Hi All > > I would like to hear what Philips apps have to say on the question of a deliberate back door to read protected code. So far the silence is deafenning. Can you say in all integrity that you do not know that Philips (and other manufacturers) leave a back door of some sorrt in their chips for 'security' reasons. > > By its very nature flash is highly resistant to copy techniques unlike eprom but this has brought us no extra security benefit. > > best regards > > George Powell > > philips_apps <philips_apps@y...> wrote: > Hello Armando, > > Richard is right, The LPC2104 / 2105 and 2106 do not support code read > protection. Somebody with a JTAG debugger can go in an read your code. > All other devices of the LPC2000-family do support code read protection. > > Application Support Philips > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "funes_armando" <funes_armando@y...> > wrote: > > The only point of my post is that I want to know if the LPC2104 has > > code read protection. > > > > Could someone answer this simple question? > > > > Thanks all > > > > Armando. > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor > > is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to > > send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see > > into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it > > off. > > > > > > This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand > > dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that > > Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. > > > > > > Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You > > only have to do it once then set up in business. > > > > > > Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your > > competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy > > company you can probably bargain the price down too. > > > > > > This is a real problem and one that will not go away through > > wishful thinking. > > > > > > George Powell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > > > etc. > > > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > > > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > > > expense. > > > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > > > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to > > use > > > the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > > > > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > > > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > > > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe > > > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > > > > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > > > protection?. > > > > > > Thanks all > > > > > > Armando > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-19 by philips_apps
George, on my honor and best knowledge (I sit about 20 yards away from the design team and we are in meetings almost every day), we have not build in a back door to read code from protected devices. This is actually sometimes a real problem when customers ask for help in regards to protected devices and we really can not loot into the chip. Having said this, there are always options to read out code with enough sophisticated equipment, enough identical devices and lots of time invested. I am talking about physically looking into states of flash cells by destroying devices layer by layer. There are no secure devices out there but there are many out there that we cosider secure enough, which means, the investment in time and money to extract the code is higher than the possible gain. Hope this answers your question about Philips (and government) back doors. Robert --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, George Powell <georgelpowell@y...> wrote: > Robert > > You have evaded my question. Can you guarantee us on your honour that Philips have not engineered a way to read code from these chips that are protected in the normal way. > > Let us not get into semantics. > > regards > > George > > philips_apps <philips_apps@y...> wrote: > George and Armando, > > the missing security option for our first ARM devices, the LPC210x > was not deliberately as a backdoor, it was at time of definition not > considered crucial to an ARM micro. While the architects of the > LPC210x were right in many things (I guess that's why we can have this > coversation on this user group), this has been a wrong decision. All > devices hitting the market after the LPC210x have such a security > feature implemented. We hope that most customers that need security > can use one of the 64-pin devices. > I know this does not help you right now but please grant us an honest > mistake. Redesigning the LPC210x to include this feature is > prohibitive expensive. We hope that most of you, the users of all the > LPC2000 devices can use other family members that provide this feature. > > Best regards, Robert > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, George Powell <georgelpowell@y...> wrote: > > Hi All > > > > I would like to hear what Philips apps have to say on the question > of a deliberate back door to read protected code. So far the silence > is deafenning. Can you say in all integrity that you do not know that > Philips (and other manufacturers) leave a back door of some sorrt in > their chips for 'security' reasons. > > > > By its very nature flash is highly resistant to copy techniques > unlike eprom but this has brought us no extra security benefit. > > > > best regards > > > > George Powell > > > > philips_apps <philips_apps@y...> wrote: > > Hello Armando, > > > > Richard is right, The LPC2104 / 2105 and 2106 do not support code read > > protection. Somebody with a JTAG debugger can go in an read your code. > > All other devices of the LPC2000-family do support code read > protection. > > > > Application Support Philips > > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "funes_armando" <funes_armando@y...> > > wrote: > > > The only point of my post is that I want to know if the LPC2104 has > > > code read protection. > > > > > > Could someone answer this simple question? > > > > > > Thanks all > > > > > > Armando. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor > > > is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to > > > send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see > > > into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it > > > off. > > > > > > > > This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand > > > dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that > > > Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. > > > > > > > > Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You > > > only have to do it once then set up in business. > > > > > > > > Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your > > > competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy > > > company you can probably bargain the price down too. > > > > > > > > This is a real problem and one that will not go away through > > > wishful thinking. > > > > > > > > George Powell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > > > > etc. > > > > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > > > > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > > > > expense. > > > > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > > > > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to > > > use > > > > the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > > > > > > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > > > > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > > > > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe > > > > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > > > > > > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > > > > protection?. > > > > > > > > Thanks all > > > > > > > > Armando > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-20 by George Powell
Robert I guess we can put this one to bed. I do get security conscious when I see a device that is advertised as a copying machine for protected PICS, as simple as just having two sockets, one for the protected target and one for the blank and a switch. I shall certainly think twice before I use another PIC. I believe you, but I am glad I asked the question. I sincerely believe in letting the manufacturer know our legitimate concerns. Thank you again George philips_apps <philips_apps@...> wrote: George, on my honor and best knowledge (I sit about 20 yards away from the design team and we are in meetings almost every day), we have not build in a back door to read code from protected devices. This is actually sometimes a real problem when customers ask for help in regards to protected devices and we really can not loot into the chip. Having said this, there are always options to read out code with enough sophisticated equipment, enough identical devices and lots of time invested. I am talking about physically looking into states of flash cells by destroying devices layer by layer. There are no secure devices out there but there are many out there that we cosider secure enough, which means, the investment in time and money to extract the code is higher than the possible gain. Hope this answers your question about Philips (and government) back doors. Robert --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, George Powell <georgelpowell@y...> wrote: > Robert > > You have evaded my question. Can you guarantee us on your honour that Philips have not engineered a way to read code from these chips that are protected in the normal way. > > Let us not get into semantics. > > regards > > George > > philips_apps <philips_apps@y...> wrote: > George and Armando, > > the missing security option for our first ARM devices, the LPC210x > was not deliberately as a backdoor, it was at time of definition not > considered crucial to an ARM micro. While the architects of the > LPC210x were right in many things (I guess that's why we can have this > coversation on this user group), this has been a wrong decision. All > devices hitting the market after the LPC210x have such a security > feature implemented. We hope that most customers that need security > can use one of the 64-pin devices. > I know this does not help you right now but please grant us an honest > mistake. Redesigning the LPC210x to include this feature is > prohibitive expensive. We hope that most of you, the users of all the > LPC2000 devices can use other family members that provide this feature. > > Best regards, Robert > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, George Powell <georgelpowell@y...> wrote: > > Hi All > > > > I would like to hear what Philips apps have to say on the question > of a deliberate back door to read protected code. So far the silence > is deafenning. Can you say in all integrity that you do not know that > Philips (and other manufacturers) leave a back door of some sorrt in > their chips for 'security' reasons. > > > > By its very nature flash is highly resistant to copy techniques > unlike eprom but this has brought us no extra security benefit. > > > > best regards > > > > George Powell > > > > philips_apps <philips_apps@y...> wrote: > > Hello Armando, > > > > Richard is right, The LPC2104 / 2105 and 2106 do not support code read > > protection. Somebody with a JTAG debugger can go in an read your code. > > All other devices of the LPC2000-family do support code read > protection. > > > > Application Support Philips > > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "funes_armando" <funes_armando@y...> > > wrote: > > > The only point of my post is that I want to know if the LPC2104 has > > > code read protection. > > > > > > Could someone answer this simple question? > > > > > > Thanks all > > > > > > Armando. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I think some of us have totally missed the point. Your competitor > > > is not going to sit down and try to crack your chip. He is going to > > > send it to a slimy company that have already worked out how to see > > > into your type of chip and they will charge a pittance for ripping it > > > off. > > > > > > > > This is a business. They charge their clients a few thousand > > > dollars for a few minutes work. This IS a global problem and one that > > > Chip manufacturers need to seriously adress. > > > > > > > > Dont tell me how difficult it is to find a way into a chip. You > > > only have to do it once then set up in business. > > > > > > > > Your code is worth max 10K usd. What is it worth to your > > > competitor. Being as it is only a few minutes work to the copy > > > company you can probably bargain the price down too. > > > > > > > > This is a real problem and one that will not go away through > > > wishful thinking. > > > > > > > > George Powell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > > > > etc. > > > > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > > > > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > > > > expense. > > > > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > > > > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to > > > use > > > > the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > > > > > > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > > > > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > > > > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe > > > > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > > > > > > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > > > > protection?. > > > > > > > > Thanks all > > > > > > > > Armando > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-09-21 by samydan2003
hello, i see on this forum mess about the boot loader v1.61 is secure maibe is enough to rewrite your bootloader and you have cool protections . becouse if you read the pdf is into arhive whit boot loaders u see what philps say :) B.R --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "funes_armando" <funes_armando@y...> wrote: > Hi all, > > Dear people, I don't want to discuss about governments, back doors, > etc. > We all know that exists expensive procedures to unprotect devices, > but they are EXPENSIVES and in most cases exceeds the development > expense. > If I really want to protect my intellectual property in all > circumstances, I should use a tamper proof device. But I want to use
> the LPC2104 because of it's price and features. > > According to LPC2114 data sheet and like Pete wrote, code read > protection in LPC2114 is available since bootloader revision 1.61 > But this device is more expensive than the LPC2104. I can't believe > that the LPC2104 doesn't have the same feature. > > Please, could somebody tell me if the LPC2104 have code read > protection?. > > Thanks all > > Armando