On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 16:18 -0700, Bob Blick wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:37 -0400, "V G" wrote:
> > I didn't really look into this before, but it seems interesting:
>=20
> Dangerous work. One could say that code protection only keeps honest
> people honest.

I like that this sort of stuff is done.

Trying to break protections I believe actually serves the public
interest. We often blindly trust that whatever protection there is
actually works. When someone figures out a way to circumvent the
protection I can actually make an informed decision as to how secure the
protection is.

Consider a case where code protection is important: If one chip's
protection can be broken by a glitchy reset, while anothers can only be
broken by removing the top with acid and shining a UV light in sideways,
guess which chip I'm likely to choose?

I find this is also true with these massively publicized breaches of
companies like Sony. Until now big companies have only had to SAY they
protect their info, there was no third party confirmation that the
protections were worth anything.

Now companies are SLOWLY starting to realize that if they don't properly
secure their systems, they will be breached, and will suffer the
consequences. I like that.

Sony stored millions of user passwords in plain text. No-one knew that
until they were breached. That little tidbit of insanity has permanently
made my choice with regards to Sony products.

Just my 2 cents.

TTYL

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.