The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Nico Coesel)
Subject: Re: Protection of a design?
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 09:18:43 GMT
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 09:20:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
email@example.com (Wouter van Ooijen (www.voti.nl)) wrote:
>>Some PIC's seem to be fairly easy to read even with the protection
>>fuse blown. Do a search for 'pic buster' with Google.
>>You could look for an alternative processor which is harder to read
>>out. Hitachi H8 controllers for instance.
>But note that this will not protect you form reverse engineering. The
>only thing that will is making sure that the profit a competitor might
>make does not compensatie his engineering expenses...
Software protection features in microcontrollers are available there
for a long time, but it seems very few manufacturors are taking
protection really serious. Or has it something to do with Uncle Sam
restricting manufacturors to make a good protection?
Reverse engineering of hardware is quite easy, but reverse engineering
software comes down to rewriting it entirely from scratch -making all
the mistakes the creator of the original made-.
I work for a company that makes products in a small but highly
competitive market. The hardware isn't that hard to copy (even though
most of the work is done by a huge FPGA), but the software is a
closely guarded secret.
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup