Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- physical_protection [2012/12/20 07:39] – [Chemical protection] azonenberg
+++ physical_protection [2025/08/04 21:23] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ====== Die ID ======
-National claims they have some sort of anti-reverse engineering protection with their die ID scheme. Who knows if it does anything useful.
-====== Technician deterrents ======
+National, Xilinx, and many other vendors have unique per-chip serial numbers stored in some sort of OTP memory on the chip. The user's firmware presumably uses this in a licensing scheme. Might make for a halfway decent anti-cloning system (until the check is found and nopped out) but is useless for preventing RE.
+====== Physical self-destructs ======
 ===== Chemical protection =====
@@ Line 43: / Line 44: @@
 They conclude by saying they are currently in pursuit of "burying a resistor in the chip substrates which will incinerate micro-circuitry with the application of external voltage" [A history of US COMSEC, page 149].
+[[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?hp&_r=2|A recent NYT article]] cites a large rock in Iran exploding and throwing fragments of destroyed PCBs around. LOPPER, or a successor, is apparently alive and well as of 2012.
 ==== Guesses ====