--===============2096537070==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart10047430.RdVlYUfe5b";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--nextPart10047430.RdVlYUfe5b
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday 26 June 2008 13:50:59 Tom=E1s =D3 h=C9ilidhe wrote:
> Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> > Oh, and I forgot to mention that several times crackers can eliminate
> > dongles by writing a device driver that acts as the dongle, so the
> > software things that the dongle is attached.
>
> I might be naive, but I think it would be very easy to make a 100 %
> secure solution:

If it was easy, it would be very easily broken too. d:

Trying to steal code by reading the actual bits or cracking the case open i=
s=20
very *last century*. Attacking the algorithm does not even require access t=
o=20
the actual software bits. You should realise that there are so many=20
side-channel attacks (current, thermal, em, chip-in-the-middle, etc)=20
possible. It is often easier to attack a chip from the side channels than t=
o=20
read the actual bits.

I am am IC designer. The only way to 100% secure an algorithm in a chip is =
to=20
make it worth =A30.00. That way, nobody would bother to crack it. If it's w=
orth=20
a lot of money like you say, somebody will definitely make the effort to=20
crack it.


=2D-=20
with metta,
Shawn Tan

Aeste Works (M) Sdn Bhd - Engineering Elegance
http://www.aeste.net

--nextPart10047430.RdVlYUfe5b--

--===============2096537070==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--===============2096537070==--