To copy a PIC "professionally" takes about 2000 US dollars. If your equipment costs 40.000 US Dollars I think it might be a great investment, don=92t you? That=92s why they are saying that code protection is not that important. Mauricio Jancic Janso Desarrollos www.janso.com.ar info@janso.com.ar (54) 11-4542-3519 = > -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu = > [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Crist=F3v=E3o Dalla Costa > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:01 PM > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [PIC] Hobbyist method to break PIC code protection. > = > For me code theft is a very valid issue. It might not make = > sense when you think of $400 gadgets, but with $40.000 = > industrial equipment the picture is quite different. > = > As example, my own company manufactures testing equipment = > which measures power output. It's in our interest to develop = > a reputation of manufacturing accurate equipment however that = > often conflicts with the customer's interest of having better = > results to show and we don't want them tampering with the results. > = > We also don't like the thought of people copying our firmware = > which would also let them copy our PC software. Granted, it = > would be illegal do redistribute our PC software but that = > could happen in a limited scale such as inside a single = > company and we'd never know. > = > Therefore we took a number of measures: Code protection, = > obfuscating the serial link and obfuscating the data files = > saved by our computer software. Nothing that took significant = > time to implement, but certainly added a couple levels of = > difficulty to anyone interested in reverse engineering. > = > And yes, our product is both expensive enough and needed = > enough that people might be motivated to do just that, = > copying the mechanical design and hiring a technician to = > duplicate our capture/control board which is extremely = > simple. And that's a very real danger. > = > Code protection alone makes me sleep easier since nobody = > would want to risk losing their equipment by trying to pry = > the firmware from our PICs (of which they only have a sample of one). > = > = > On 11/15/06, David VanHorn wrote: > > On 11/15/06, Andre Abelian wrote: > > > > > > This is my second company I worked in last 2 years that = > they do not = > > > enable CP at all and once I asked them about it the answer was if = > > > some is smart enough to break the code protection then should be = > > > able to make entire project from the scratch. > > > Then I told them why do you lock your car doors? any way = > I have to = > > > go. > > > > > > I used to do car alarms for a living, and I was constantly asked to = > > install them in convertibles. > > Nice way to loose a top. > > > > In principle I agree though, I think the threat of code = > getting stolen = > > is overrated. > > That would mean that they would have to clone your hardware = > too, and = > > if they don't have the design resources to roll their own, then how = > > will they maintain a design they don't really know anything about? > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your = > > membership options at = > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change = > your membership options at = > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > = -- = http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist