Searching \ for ' Who else uses the 16F877?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=16F
Search entire site for: 'Who else uses the 16F877?'.

No exact or substring matches. trying for part
PICList Thread
'[PICLIST] Who else uses the 16F877?'
2001\07\17@150837 by Ron Anthony

flavicon
face
Hello all, who else uses the 16F877?  Who else is totally disgusted that the
77A revision is delayed until next March at the earliest???  The 77 is a
flash chip that if you leave it flash upgradable, you must leave it
completely NAKED for copying.  Is this as ridiculous as I think it is?  If
you code protect the flash it becomes OTP memory that can never be updated
without wiping out the entire chip, which means your bootloader code is GONE
and can't be used to update the flash.

Your options are:

1.      leave the chip 100% naked and copyable, downloadable, and 100% reverse
engineer-able
2.      code protect 50% of the ram, making that half OTP style memory, you can't
use a bootloader on it, and the other half is still naked
3.      protect only 256 bytes, which prevents whole chip copying, but all that
is missing is 256 bytes from someone's downloaded code, leaving them only
256 bytes to recreate.

None of these options are good.  The 77A revision is much more secure.  You
can, supposedly, disable in circuit serial programming, and can also disable
interal flash reads.  The chip is secure, the only liability being someone
watching your comms when you update by way of the bootloader.  But, this can
be solved with encryption algorithms that decode the flash update after
getting blocks of data into the chip where it can't be watched.

Microchip has the last 2 years to get out the 77A revision.  What the heck
is taking this multi-billion dollar company from getting this chip out?  Do
they have no respect whatsoever for the very code that runs in their chip?
Most times that's the only non-commodity part of a device!!!!!

Who else is utterly disappointed about this?  Now I have the tortured
decision to make on a very large production run.  Should I leave the chip
naked and throw caution to the wind?  Should I code protect half the chip
with what code can be reasonably considered "stable" ???  Or should I leave
the whole chip naked but for the 256 bytes they allow?  Not hard to get
around that, having everything but 256 bytes.

Any thoughts?  Advise?  Words of wisdom????

Thanks All.
Ron Anthony, a very disappointed buyer

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\07\17@152718 by Ron Wilder

flavicon
face
Maybe you could put in a critical table in the 256 byte area...  A table that is
accessed at certain times and turns off the system at a four,  six, or twelve month
interval.  If someone copies your code they won't find it for six months... well into
their release to customers...  Could cause them many problems trying to debug that
one.  In the mean time, you could be doing enhancements that continue to work!  You
just have be more creative than Microchip!  Hope this helps.
Keep smiling,
Ron


Ron Anthony wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\07\17@153134 by Ron Anthony

flavicon
face
Hello all, who else uses the 16F877?  Who else is totally disgusted that the
77A revision is delayed until next March at the earliest???  The 77 is a
flash chip that if you leave it flash upgradable, you must leave it
completely NAKED for copying.  Is this as ridiculous as I think it is?  If
you code protect the flash it becomes OTP memory that can never be updated
without wiping out the entire chip, which means your bootloader code is GONE
and can't be used to update the flash.

Your options are:

1.      leave the chip 100% naked and copyable, downloadable, and 100%
reverse
engineer-able

2.      code protect 50% of the ram, making that half OTP style memory, you
can't
use a bootloader on it, and the other half is still naked

3.      protect only 256 bytes, which prevents whole chip copying, but all
that
is missing is 256 bytes from someone's downloaded code, leaving them only
256 bytes to recreate.

None of these options are good.  The 77A revision is much more secure.  You
can, supposedly, disable in circuit serial programming, and can also disable
interal flash reads.  The chip is secure, the only liability being someone
watching your comms when you update by way of the bootloader.  But, this can
be solved with encryption algorithms that decode the flash update after
getting blocks of data into the chip where it can't be watched.

Microchip had the last 2 years to get out the 77A revision.  What the heck
is keeping this multi-billion dollar company from getting this chip out?  Do
they have no respect whatsoever for the very code that runs in their chip?
Most times that's the only non-commodity part of a device!!!!!

Who else is utterly disappointed about this?  Now I have the tortured
decision to make on a very large production run.  Should I leave the chip
naked and throw caution to the wind?  Should I code protect half the chip
with what code can be reasonably considered "stable" ???  Or should I leave
the whole chip naked but for the 256 bytes they allow?  Not hard to get
around that, having everything but 256 bytes.

Any thoughts?  Advise?  Words of wisdom????

Thanks All.
Ron Anthony, a very disappointed buyer

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\07\17@153728 by Ron Anthony

flavicon
face
Hello Ron, I screwed up the last post, it did not have the [PIC]: tag in the
subject.  Maybe we shouldn't do the replies here?  I think no one would see
it?

{Original Message removed}

2001\07\17@153736 by David Dunn

flavicon
face
i think you are confused.

just code protect the whole chip. what's the problem with that ? when you need to update your code, just update the code on
the whole chip. code protecting the flash does not make it OTP. you can program it as many times as you like. you just can't
READ it with the code protect on.

you've written a lot of rant here basically to say that you can't use a bootloader and code protect at the same time, that's
the bottom line.

solution : don't use a bootloader on production parts, just use ICSP. easy.


dld


On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:10:30 -0400, Ron Anthony wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\07\17@163854 by Bob Barr

picon face
Ron Wilder wrote:
>
>Maybe you could put in a critical table in the 256 byte area...  A table
>that is
>accessed at certain times and turns off the system at a four,  six, or
>twelve month
>interval.  If someone copies your code they won't find it for six months...
>well into
>their release to customers...  Could cause them many problems trying to
>debug that
>one.  In the mean time, you could be doing enhancements that continue to
>work!  You
>just have be more creative than Microchip!  Hope this helps.
>Keep smiling,
>Ron

You are *really* devious. I like that. :=) A six month time bomb, that's
great.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\07\18@050128 by Wollenberg, Frank

flavicon
face
Ron Anthony [spam_OUTronantTakeThisOuTspamOPTONLINE.NET] wrote:

> Hello all, who else uses the 16F877?  Who else is totally
> disgusted that the
> 77A revision is delayed until next March at the earliest???
> The 77 is a
> flash chip that if you leave it flash upgradable, you must leave it
> completely NAKED for copying.  Is this as ridiculous as I
> think it is?  If
> you code protect the flash it becomes OTP memory that can
> never be updated
> without wiping out the entire chip, which means your
> bootloader code is GONE
> and can't be used to update the flash.

I've written a new app. Running in embedded environment and many identical
devices on one bus,
i wanted to include a bootloader. Same questions for me.
Using the bootloader approach, i must leave the chip unprotected (upper 256
words protected).
Happy reverse-engineering !!!!
I have read the data manual for the 16F77, hoping this chip handles the
protection better. But: no opinion for system upgrade, the program memory is
only readible for program verification. This gives a little bit more
security, but no more support in the field. So the only solution was and is
to use the 'F87X.
I'm very disappointed.

> The 77A revision is much more secure.  You
> can, supposedly, disable in circuit serial programming, and
> can also disable interal flash reads.

I have not read the data manual. What is the background for disabling
internal flash read. It makes no sense for me.

> The chip is secure, the only liability being someone
> watching your comms when you update by way of the bootloader.

Does this mean, that the chip can update his program memory while it is
protected against reading via ICSP ? If so, then there are no more problems.
I must read the manual...

Frank

-----------------------------------

GSP Sprachtechnologie GmbH
Frank Wollenberg
HW-Entwicklung
Tel.:   +49 (0)30 769929-78
Fax:    +49 (0)30 769929-12
eMail:  .....f.wollenbergKILLspamspam@spam@gsp-berlin.de


--
GSP Sprachtechnologie GmbH
Teltowkanalstr.1, D-12247 Berlin
Tel.:  +49 (0)30 769929-0
Fax:   +49 (0)30 769929-12
eMail: InfospamKILLspamgsp-berlin.de
Web:   http://www.gsp-berlin.de

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\07\18@232533 by Ron Wilder

flavicon
face
Hey... they deserve it if they copy my stuff without any renumeration.
Ron

Bob Barr wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\07\19@023343 by Bob Barr

picon face
Ron Wilder wrote:
>
>Hey... they deserve it if they copy my stuff without any renumeration.
>Ron
>

I agree completely. The part that I *really* like about your suggestion is
to allow things to work just long enough for them to get a bunch of units
into the field. They do deserve it.

Regards, Bob


{Quote hidden}

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\07\19@101721 by Mike Mansheim

flavicon
face
>> accessed at certain times and turns off the system at a four,  six, or
>> twelve month interval.  If someone copies your code they won't find it
>> for six months...

> You are *really* devious. I like that. :=) A six month time bomb, that's
> great.

As long as you have control of and know the location of every chip YOU have
shipped, otherwise you've hurt yourself.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


'[PICLIST] [PIC] Re: Who else uses the 16F877?'
2001\07\19@102600 by Jeff DeMaagd

flavicon
face
Hey guys, please use the [PIC] header for PIC related discussions.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Mansheim <Michael_J_Mansheimspamspam_OUTGRACO.COM>


> >> accessed at certain times and turns off the system at a four,  six, or
> >> twelve month interval.  If someone copies your code they won't find it
> >> for six months...
>
> > You are *really* devious. I like that. :=) A six month time bomb, that's
> > great.
>
> As long as you have control of and know the location of every chip YOU
have
> shipped, otherwise you've hurt yourself.

Have you been watching the thread at all?  At least present an argument for
your case.  I know a few possible dangers that you may be hinting at but you
shouldn't make us guess why you think this way.

Jeff

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2001 , 2002 only
- Today
- New search...