I don't quite understand why you would want to 'CRACK' the
 memory protection if you are the rightful owner of the code.
 In the first place, you should already have a copy of the
 code available. Second, if you don't have a copy, then you'll
 remember the next time.
 On the other hand, if you're not the rightful owner of the
 code, then you shouldn't be trying to 'CRACK' it in the first
 place.  And shame on you if you do.
 I don't think firmware , or any software for that matter,
 should be appropriated for personal use or any other use
 without the owners permission.  I'm not implying that any
 wrongdoing is going on here, but just be careful.

                                        Regards,

                                          Jim


On Wed, 24 November 1999, Craig Lee wrote:

>
> So what you are saying is that the OTP devices are the most in-vulnerable?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> > [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Wagner Lipnharski
> > Sent: November 24, 1999 11:03 AM
> > To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > Subject: Re: REPHRASED--In which PICs is the copy protection most
> > easilybreached?
> >
> >
> > If you consider the fact that any "field programmable unit" (eprom,
> > eeprom and flash) has a kind of "volatile" protection bits, while the
> > ROM type has fuses (that are not reversible), then all e2prom, eprom and
> > flash devices can be considered "more vulnerable" to piracy.
> > Wagner

jim@jpes.com