I wrote:
> 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.

To which Jim Robertson <newfound@NE.COM.AU> replied:
> I don't see that Bob sense of security is misguided at all.
...

Your argument does not contradict my statement.

> It is true that any PIC can be "cell scanned" and the program contents
> reconstructed, but this proceedure is expensive and not 100% accurate.

I don't know about "cell scanning", but there are companies that use
microprobing.  Unless you physically damage the part in deencapsulating it,
there is no reason to expect this technique not to be 100% accurate.

The known lack of security of the 16C84 does not prove that other parts
from Microchip or from other vendors are more secure.  Many other parts are
in fact just as vulnerable as the 16C84.

> Still, all this is not enough to assume your code is safe in an 16F84.

There is no way to assume your code is safe in any part.  Sorry, but it's
a fact of life.

Eric