Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
physical_protection [2012/12/20 07:39] – [Technician deterrents] azonenbergphysical_protection [2014/01/15 14:23] (current) – [LOPPER] azonenberg
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 ====== 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 ====== 
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]. 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 ====
  
 
physical_protection.txt · Last modified: 2014/01/15 14:23 by azonenberg
 
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution 4.0 International
Recent changes RSS feed Donate Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki