Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
physical_protection [2012/12/20 07:39] – [Technician deterrents] azonenberg | physical_protection [2014/01/15 14:23] (current) – [LOPPER] azonenberg |
---|
| |
====== Die ID ====== | ====== 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. | |
| 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 ====== | ====== Physical self-destructs ====== |
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]. | 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 ==== | ==== Guesses ==== |
| |