About the "GLUCKER".  I know of several programmers who can do
 the job in the normal course of their work.   And get paid to
 do it.   :-)

                                     Regards,

                                       Jim



On Wed, 24 November 1999, Craig Lee wrote:

>
> > It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that he wants to use the
> > 16F84, but the customer is concerned about the cracking, and he's
> > trying to
> > justify its use to the customer.  It's got nothing to do with actually
> > wanting to crack a 16F84.
>
> This is EXACTLY what I mean.  Seems the word CRACK presses the REACTOR
> button on some folks.
>
> Having flash capability offers obvious advantages, but when I suggested
> this to the customer, they were immediately concerned about protection
> of their intellectual property.  They have heard about the procedures
> used to extract information from copy protected PICs, and specifically
> the 16C84.
>
> I have found cracking procedure for the following chips:
>
> 16c54,16c55,16c56,16c57,16c58,16c61,16c62,16c64,16c65,16c71,16c73,
> 16c74,16c84
>
> The procedure supposedly gives you some bits of the instruction word
> and you are left to select one of two possible instructions by context.
> Also, the procedures seem to be generic and should work on all 12bit and
> 14bit chips.
>
> Thus the question boils down to:
>
> Which chips require the most effort to crack?
>
> Also, has anyone built a 'glucker' to take good, well-structured code,
> and gluck it up so it is un-maintainable to a would be hacker?
>
>
> Craig

jim@jpes.com