Robert Lunn <robert@HUEY.RDD.NECA.NEC.COM.AU> writes regarding the lack of
info on whether the PIC16F84 is more secure than the PIC16C84:
> Which is a pity, as the lack of response renders the
> device unusable.

Maybe you might be able to get Microchip to tell you whether the specific,
well-known, security problems of the 'C84 have been fixed, but it is almost a
certainty that they will not promise that it is "secure".

AFAIK, even the makers of high-security processors deliberately intended for
smart-cards don't actually guarantee that they are secure; there is no way
to prove that a part is secure against arbitrarily clever or well-funded
attacks.

The 'C84 was only intended to have modest security on par with other typical
inexpensive single-chip micros.  Many of them have security that can easily be
defeated; the 'C84 just has the misfortune of having a technique widely
publicized (mostly due to European satellite TV pirates).

If you pick some part other than an 'F84 solely on the basis of what you've
heard about the 'C84, any sense of security you may have is probably
misguided (IMNSHO).  There *are* people out there who can extract the code.

Cheers,
Eric