I searched for the wrong terms then. A new search for the domain shows that it was mentioned four other times since September of last year - never as a topic by itself, but generally in relation to other posts surrounding the general subject of code protection. Of course anyone who knew how the config bits were protected (which has been well known for some time) could also understand how to deal with it. What was new to me was that 1) The metal protection cap could be bypassed simply by reflecting light under it, rather than trying to remove it or shining light through it 2) The the config bits were _still_ well away from the flash they were protecting. I thought I had read earlier that Microchip had also put the config bits in such a place as to prevent easy masking of the flash. -Adam On 11/15/06, Alan B. Pearce wrote: > I know that link has been posted to this list several times over the past > two-three years or so. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/ Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist