Searching \ for '16f84' 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: '16f84'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'16F84'
1996\09\04@145306 by adrian

flavicon
picon face
I see that there is a 16F84 available - twice the RAM of the 16C84.

Looks good.

Has anyone had any experience of this ? Is it a direct replacement ?

--
_                                  FREE SMS->Fax -  Call 0973 577510
(_) _| _ . _  _   Tel 07050 ADRIAN  Nokia orange in stock *NOW*. E&OE
( )(_|(  |(_|| )  Fax  0500 222258  http://www.rhanna.demon.co.uk/aa/

1996\09\05@012951 by fastfwd

face
flavicon
face
Adrian Kennard <spam_OUTadrianTakeThisOuTspamrhanna.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I see that there is a 16F84 available - twice the RAM of the 16C84.
> ....
> Has anyone had any experience of this ? Is it a direct replacement ?

Adrian:

We've used it.  It used to be called "16C84A"... I'm surprised that
Microchip didn't follow their own example and change its name to
"16C841"; such a name change would have been consistent with the
16C71/16C710 and 16C71A/16C711 silliness.

The 16F84 is a direct replacement for the C84.

-Andy

Andrew Warren - .....fastfwdKILLspamspam@spam@ix.netcom.com
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1996\09\05@014235 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
>The 16F84 is a direct replacement for the C84.
>
>-Andy
>
>Andrew Warren - fastfwdspamKILLspamix.netcom.com
>Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

       Does it fix the code protect hole?

___Bob

1996\09\05@023916 by fastfwd

face
flavicon
face
Robert Lunn <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> Does [the 16F84, aka 16C84A] fix the code protect hole [in the
> 16C84]?

Bob:

You'll have to ask Microchip about that.  Their response will be
about as non-responsive as this one is.

-Andy

Andrew Warren - EraseMEfastfwdspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTix.netcom.com
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1996\09\05@024952 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
>> Does [the 16F84, aka 16C84A] fix the code protect hole [in the
>> 16C84]?
>
>You'll have to ask Microchip about that.  Their response will be
>about as non-responsive as this one is.
>
>-Andy

           No doubt.

           Which is a pity, as the lack of response renders the
           device unusable.

___Bob

1996\09\05@035909 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
Robert Lunn <robertspamspam_OUTHUEY.RDD.NECA.NEC.COM.AU> writes regarding the lack of
info on whether the PIC16F84 is more secure than the PIC16C84:
> Which is a pity, as the lack of response renders the
> device unusable.

Maybe you might be able to get Microchip to tell you whether the specific,
well-known, security problems of the 'C84 have been fixed, but it is almost a
certainty that they will not promise that it is "secure".

AFAIK, even the makers of high-security processors deliberately intended for
smart-cards don't actually guarantee that they are secure; there is no way
to prove that a part is secure against arbitrarily clever or well-funded
attacks.

The 'C84 was only intended to have modest security on par with other typical
inexpensive single-chip micros.  Many of them have security that can easily be
defeated; the 'C84 just has the misfortune of having a technique widely
publicized (mostly due to European satellite TV pirates).

If you pick some part other than an 'F84 solely on the basis of what you've
heard about the 'C84, any sense of security you may have is probably
misguided (IMNSHO).  There *are* people out there who can extract the code.

Cheers,
Eric

1996\09\05@050555 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face
>
>If you pick some part other than an 'F84 solely on the basis of what you've
>heard about the 'C84, any sense of security you may have is probably
>misguided (IMNSHO).  There *are* people out there who can extract the code.
>
>Cheers,
>Eric
>
Yes, but the '84 is particularly vunerable. The later revisions of the other
16Cxx devices with the unerasable code protection do offer greater security.
I don't see that Bob sense of security is misguided at all.

It is true that any PIC can be "cell scanned" and the program contents
reconstructed, but this proceedure is expensive and not 100% accurate.
Nothing at all like being able to put a protected '84 in a reader and
instantly copy the contents for no or little time/cost.

However, I must say that so far, microchip appear to have addressed every
weakness in the code protection of the eprom devices (as far as I can tell.)

For example, I believe the newer devices actually have multiple code
protection fuses, not just "logical" duplications. all are unerasable and
"OR" configured. This make it very hard, if not impossible to selectively
erase only the code protect fuse, one of the tricks previously used to break
code protection.

Devices vunerable to "incremental" programming, simply do not scramble the
vunerable locations anymore. A beautifully simple solution. My point is it
shows that microchip are at least thinking about the code protect issue.

Therefore, it might be reasonable to expect the code protection on the 16F84
has been "beefed-up."

Still, all this is not enough to assume your code is safe in an 16F84. The
evidence that it is/isn't will come from those who have tried to break it.
If it is not secure, I think we will hear about it quick enough.

A statement from microchip is most unlikely!

Jim

1996\09\05@054618 by Dave Mullenix

flavicon
face
>The 'C84 was only intended to have modest security on par with other typical
>inexpensive single-chip micros.  Many of them have security that can easily be
>defeated; the 'C84 just has the misfortune of having a technique widely
>publicized (mostly due to European satellite TV pirates).

I'm not a European satellite TV pirate, but I play on one TV.  Since the real
EsTVps seem to know about this security problem, would it hurt if somebody
told the rest of us about it?

I promise not to pirate any European Satellite TV signals.

1996\09\05@055239 by David Tait

flavicon
face
Eric Smith wrote:

> ... the 'C84 just has the misfortune of having a technique widely
> publicized (mostly due to European satellite TV pirates).

This might be a misfortune for the 'C84 and Microchip but I don't
think it's unfortunate for potential users of the chip.  Without the
publicity you would have a PIC you _thought_ was secure but could be
popped by your competitors.  OK, there would always be rumours of
insecurity but many might still use the PIC believing the rumours to
be untrue and find out the truth the hard way.

David
--
@spam@david.taitKILLspamspamman.ac.uk

1996\09\05@065717 by eza Asensio, Roberto

flavicon
face
Hi Dave and all,

At 04:45 5/09/96 -0500, you wrote:

>I'm not a European satellite TV pirate, but I play on one TV.  Since the real
>EsTVps seem to know about this security problem, would it hurt if somebody
>told the rest of us about it?

Well, also I'm not a TV pirate (at least, not a comertial one :-), but I
like to know the sort of infos that are posted, sometimes, on the Usenet
groups:

 "alt.satellite.tv.europe" and "alt.satellite.tv.crypt"

Also, as example, you can see:

  ftp://ftp.paranoia.com/pub/users/defiant/unsorted/%21hack57.txt
  ftp://ftp.paranoia.com/pub/users/defiant/picprog/picbust.zip

and a lot of other files, about pirate emulation of Smart Cards to access
Pay TV channels.

I don't understand your term "EsTVps", but most of the pirated channels
are used to change the encryption keys on a regular basis and some hours
late there are pirate implementations available and in one o two days the
new keys are on the "net" and used by a lot of comertial pirates.

>I promise not to pirate any European Satellite TV signals.

Don't problem and by the geometry of our planet, it's near imposible to
get the European channels on the USA (and of the same dificult, to get the
USA channels here :-).

Best regards:
--
Roberto Deza Asensio        |  KILLspamrdezaKILLspamspampopmail.cti.unav.es
Universidad de Navarra      |  RemoveMErdezaTakeThisOuTspamcun.unav.es
Centro de Proceso de Datos  |  spamBeGonerdaspamBeGonespamcpd.unav.es

1996\09\05@191659 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
I wrote:
> If you pick some part other than an 'F84 solely on the basis of what you've
> heard about the 'C84, any sense of security you may have is probably
> misguided (IMNSHO).  There *are* people out there who can extract the code.

To which Jim Robertson <TakeThisOuTnewfoundEraseMEspamspam_OUTNE.COM.AU> replied:
> I don't see that Bob sense of security is misguided at all.
...

Your argument does not contradict my statement.

> It is true that any PIC can be "cell scanned" and the program contents
> reconstructed, but this proceedure is expensive and not 100% accurate.

I don't know about "cell scanning", but there are companies that use
microprobing.  Unless you physically damage the part in deencapsulating it,
there is no reason to expect this technique not to be 100% accurate.

The known lack of security of the 16C84 does not prove that other parts
from Microchip or from other vendors are more secure.  Many other parts are
in fact just as vulnerable as the 16C84.

> Still, all this is not enough to assume your code is safe in an 16F84.

There is no way to assume your code is safe in any part.  Sorry, but it's
a fact of life.

Eric

1996\09\05@230329 by Martin J. Maney

flavicon
face
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Eric Smith wrote:

> There is no way to assume your code is safe in any part.  Sorry, but it's
> a fact of life.

Exactly right.  Once you distribute your code in any usable form, it's
not a question of whether it's vulnerable, but only whether it's
protection will be difficult enough to persude those who would like to
access it not to bother.  This is the point behind the observation that
the 16C84 has "enjoyed" very motivated attacks: you simply can't compare
it to another chip that hasn't been tested, not if you want to make a
meaningful comparison.

I expect that comparing microprocessor code protection schemes is
comparable to judging the security of an encryption protocol, and the
record there is littered with schemes that were thought to be impregnable
but proved surprisngly easy to crack.

1996\09\06@001214 by John Payson

flavicon
face
> On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> > There is no way to assume your code is safe in any part.  Sorry, but it's
> > a fact of life.
>
> Exactly right.  Once you distribute your code in any usable form, it's
> not a question of whether it's vulnerable, but only whether it's
> protection will be difficult enough to persude those who would like to
> access it not to bother.  This is the point behind the observation that
> the 16C84 has "enjoyed" very motivated attacks: you simply can't compare
> it to another chip that hasn't been tested, not if you want to make a
> meaningful comparison.
>
> I expect that comparing microprocessor code protection schemes is
> comparable to judging the security of an encryption protocol, and the
> record there is littered with schemes that were thought to be impregnable
> but proved surprisngly easy to crack.

This is very true.  The PIC16C84 is unique in that:

<A> The software in video descramblers is a target which appeals to a wide
   audience, thus many people might try to crack them.

<B> People who do crack TV decoders effectively trumpet their success (it
   may be that the 8748 keyboard chip on motherboards is commonly hacked,
   but motherboard manufacturers would hardly boast about this and the
   existence of an 8748 on a motherboard is hardly suspicious.


Nonetheless, since the PIC 16C84 weakness IS widely known, there is good
reason not to use that particular chip in cases where code security is of
any importance.  On the other hand, unless other chips have THAT SAME weak-
ness this should not be taken as a smear against Microchip IC's in general.

1996\09\06@002457 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
>If you pick some part other than an 'F84 solely on the basis of what you've
>heard about the 'C84, any sense of security you may have is probably
>misguided (IMNSHO).  There *are* people out there who can extract the code.

       A schoolboy with a plugpak and a couple of diodes can
       defeat the code protection on a 'C84.

       A skilled engineer with $100k+ of specialized equipment
       can defeat the code protection on a 'C61.

       This difference in degree is, to me, significant.

       The various responses to this issue boil down to: "no code
       protection scheme is perfect, so the particular protection
       scheme used doesn't matter".

       Taken to its conclusion this argument would suggest we
       shouldn't bother using code protection at all.

       Nevertheless, microcontroller manufacturers continue
       to design chips with code protection facilities, and they
       use the relative merits of their code protection schemes
       to extract competitive advantage in the marketplace.

       We nearly all release chips with code protection enabled.

       We do this to maximise the resources that a competitor
       must expend to reverse engineer our products.

       We do this because it is prudent, and because we usually
       have a legal obligation to do so.

       Where a chip contains information that is the intellectual
       property of the company for which we work and which is
       'company confidential' then we have a duty of non-disclosure.
       This requires us to talk all "reasonable" steps to prevent
       that information being made available to a third party.

       To the best of my knowledge, the code protection of a 'C84
       is weaker than the code protection of a 'C61.  All other
       things being equal, I am obliged to use a 'C61.

       To the best of my knowledge, the code protection of an 'F84
       is the same as the code protection of a 'C84.

       I would like Microchip to improve my knowledge of the
       _relative_ strengths of the code protection schemes
       of these various chips so that I can make informed and
       responsible decisions about my use of them.

       Note that I am _not_ asking Microchip to discuss with me
       the details of their code protection mechanisms.  Indeed,
       these details are 'company confidential' for Microchip!

       What confuses me is that Microchip is prepared to discuss
       the merits of the code protection of its devices (and par-
       ticularly the steps they take to improve code protection),
       excepting the 'C84.

___Bob

1996\09\06@032002 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
Robert Lunn <RemoveMErobertspamTakeThisOuTHUEY.RDD.NECA.NEC.COM.AU> wrote:
>   A schoolboy with a plugpak and a couple of diodes can
>   defeat the code protection on a 'C84.

>   A skilled engineer with $100k+ of specialized equipment
>   can defeat the code protection on a 'C61.

Sorry, but you're only *guessing* that a schoolboy can't defeat the protection
on a 'C61.  You may be right, but you have no proof.

I wasn't claiming that the 'C84 is as secure as anything else.  I was claiming
that there is no *hard evidence* that any particular other part is more secure.
The lack of evidence does not constitute proof that other parts are more
secure.  It is only possible to prove that a part *isn't* secure.

> To the best of my knowledge, the code protection of an 'F84
> is the same as the code protection of a 'C84.

Based on what?  I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that the same
vulnerability exists.  Are you blindly assuming that, or have you tried the
'C84 techniques on it?

If you really want to assume that the 16F84 security is weak, go right ahead.
But I *still* stand by my original statement:

> If you pick some part other than an 'F84 solely on the basis of what you've
> heard about the 'C84, any sense of security you may have is probably
> misguided (IMNSHO).  There *are* people out there who can extract the code.

And I'll add that for *many* chips it *doesn't* cost $100K.  The 'C84 isn't
the only one that is easy to defeat.  And no, I'm not going to present any
example to back up that claim.  I find it useful to be able to disassemble
other people's code from time to time, so I'm not giving away my trade
secrets any more than Microchip is giving away theirs.

Cheers,
Eric

1996\09\06@064316 by Luis Fernandez

flavicon
face
>>If you pick some part other than an 'F84 solely on the basis of what you've
>>heard about the 'C84, any sense of security you may have is probably
>>misguided (IMNSHO).  There *are* people out there who can extract the code.
>
>        A schoolboy with a plugpak and a couple of diodes can
>        defeat the code protection on a 'C84.
>
>        A skilled engineer with $100k+ of specialized equipment
>        can defeat the code protection on a 'C61.
>
>        This difference in degree is, to me, significant.


Probably this is *THE DIFFERENCE*. Seems to be a matter of efforts/benefits,
isn«t it?.

If your application is a low price product which is just worth to
manufacture in high volume production (so high volume sales) you would
probably have not to get concern about code protect.

Generaly, cheap and simple applications means *simple* code. If you spend
your energy/money in a highly secure hardware you will be just getting a
higer production cost. For anyone being able to compete with you clonning
the product can be easier to reverse-eng the application and then write his
OWN CODE.

If your application is really worth to be cloned and/or one can really make
money with it then you would have to look for a *secure* hardware and watch
if your product can deal with a higer cost.

There are manufacturers who claims for their CPUs to be highly secure, which
(as discussed here) is something hard to demonstrate. Dallas has a secure
version of his DS-5000 soft microcontroller (8051 clone). The local Dallas
distributor told me that this secure micro (DS-5002) was certified by an
European agency as being secure enought to handle cash transfers in bank
applications (??).

Dallas added the following security features to their DS-5002

       - Memory stored in encrypted form
       - Encription using on-chip 64 bit generator (DES encryption)
       - Automatic true random key generator
       - Self Destruct Input (Code destruction only ... not exploding !)
       - Top die coating to prevent microprobe
       - Customer specific versions with one-of-a-kind encryption algorithm

Now the bad news......ask for the price ! :-(

You just have to quantify how much money you wanna spend in security. Of
course it doesn't guarantee that your product is copy proof but the
neccesary equipment and skills to do it are much higer.

There are many applications were the code protection of a C84 is more than
enought. But if you really have to protect your code go to other products.


Luis Fernandez Cormenzana
RadioBit Sistemas, S.L.

Fax/Tel:+34-6-585 64 57
e-mail: radiobitEraseMEspam.....dragonet.es

1996\09\06@103838 by Roger Books

flavicon
face
And I will yet again assert my seemingly unpopular position on copy
protection.  All it does is helps the bad guys.

I write something nifty based around a microcontroller with copy
protection.  Joe Knockoff in someplace where the laws are ethically
challenged breaks the copy protection (and if he wants in bad enough
he will), and duplicates my code.  He then proceeds to ship 500 times
my volume for 1/3 the cost because of labor cost differences and puts
me out of business.  Being the honest person I am I have no clue how
to defeat his copy protection  to check so I lose big bucks.

I write the same thing on a micro with no copy protection.  He trivially
copies my code, and starts shipping his knock-offs back to the US.  At
this point I grab one of his units, check and find the copyright on
the chip still or compare his source to mine.  Immediately I get a
lawyer, an injunction against them shipping widgets, and a lawsuit to
recover my losses.  I now have evidence.

Roger

1996\09\06@130411 by Bob Blick

picon face
I have read that the code protect bit in windowed(EPROM) parts is not
erasable, even if the entire chip is erased.

Is the same true for the 16c84/16f84? If I set the protect bit when I
program it, there's no reusing it? In other words, the code protect bit is
not EEPROM, it's E#PROM or a fuse. ??

I'd rather use the $7 to see a movie than take the gamble :-)

Cheers, Bob

1996\09\08@192437 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
>If your application is a low price product which is just worth to
>manufacture in high volume production (so high volume sales) you would
>probably have not to get concern about code protect.

       Yes and no.

       Perhaps you are a small manufacturer hoping to use this
       new 'high volume' product to grow your business.

       You would be very concerned about an existing large
       manufacturer ripping off your product and using their
       economies of scale to immediately swamp you in both
       quantity and price in the marketplace.

>Generaly, cheap and simple applications means *simple* code. If you spend
>your energy/money in a highly secure hardware you will be just getting a
>higer production cost. For anyone being able to compete with you clonning
>the product can be easier to reverse-eng the application and then write his
>OWN CODE.

       Yes and no.

       Perhaps you have a novel method for implementing a
       previously difficult process that allows you to use
       a simple microprocessor (thus low cost).  Being novel
       it is difficult to reverse engineer without access
       to details of the method (that is, the code).

       You would be very concerned aobout losing your cost
       benefit over your competitors by them reading your code.

___Bob

1996\09\08@225834 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   >If your application is a low price product which is just worth to
   >manufacture in high volume production (so high volume sales) you would
   >probably have not to get concern about code protect.

           Perhaps you are a small manufacturer hoping to use this
           new 'high volume' product to grow your business.

           You would be very concerned about an existing large
           manufacturer ripping off your product and using their
           economies of scale to immediately swamp you in both
           quantity and price in the marketplace.

IMHO, you're all paranoid.  If a product is worth making in high volume, a
high volume manufacturer can throw a significantly larger and more powerful
processor and still implement it at a higher profit margin than a low volume
manufacturer can do with an "OTP" PIC.  Look at a $100 video game some time.

I know someone who built a $100 rs232 thermometer around a PIC.  He sanded
the part numbers off all the (5 or so) chips to make it harder to duplicate.
While it was a nice product, this was silly (IMHO.)  There are so many ways
to make a $100 rs232 thermometer that it's not even worth hiding the code.

BillW

1996\09\09@013805 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
>And I will yet again assert my seemingly unpopular position on copy
>protection.  All it does is helps the bad guys.
>
>I write something nifty based around a microcontroller with copy
>protection.  Joe Knockoff in someplace where the laws are ethically
>challenged breaks the copy protection (and if he wants in bad enough
>he will), and duplicates my code.  He then proceeds to ship 500 times
>my volume for 1/3 the cost because of labor cost differences and puts
>me out of business.  Being the honest person I am I have no clue how
>to defeat his copy protection  to check so I lose big bucks.
>
>I write the same thing on a micro with no copy protection.  He trivially
>copies my code, and starts shipping his knock-offs back to the US.  At
>this point I grab one of his units, check and find the copyright on
>the chip still or compare his source to mine.  Immediately I get a
>lawyer, an injunction against them shipping widgets, and a lawsuit to
>recover my losses.  I now have evidence.

       Given that you are relying on copyright to protect your code
       then the issue of hardware code protection is irrelevant.

       If you have written a novel in English and someone else
       translates it into Spanish :) then they are in breach
       of your copyright, and you can prevent distribution of
       the translation and sue for damages.

       Likewise, Knockoff and Co doesn't avoid copyright by
       taking your software and re-translating or re-encoding
       (indeed, encrypting) it.

       You simply get a court order requiring them to release
       their source code for inspection by your lawyers.

       And there's the rub...

               My basic position is that if you are relying
               on the law for success in the marketplace then
               you have already lost.

               If you need to call in the lawyers to prevent
               someone else copying and selling your ideas
               then you may as well pack up and go home.

               Life's too short.

       For example, if they are in a foreign jurisdiction you
       probably can't stop them shipping units.  You can only
       stop someone importing them.  Who are you going to sue
       to recover losses?  Does that entity have funds that
       you can recover?  How do you stop the principals of the
       company opening up shop on Monday under a new name, etc...

       I suggest that a hardware solution of uncertain effect-
       iveness is better than a legal solution that can't be
       enforced (which is most of them).

___Bob


'16F84'
1996\10\09@023810 by George Andreadakis
flavicon
face
What about new 16F84?

Is it compatible with 16c84?

1996\10\09@030800 by fastfwd

face
flavicon
face
George Andreadakis <EraseMEPICLISTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> What about new 16F84?
>
> Is it compatible with 16c84?

George:

The 16F84 is just a renamed 16C84A.  Externally, it's exactly like a
16C84, only with more RAM registers and some slight shuffling of the
configuration bits.

-Andy

=== Andrew Warren - RemoveMEfastfwdEraseMEspamEraseMEix.netcom.com                 ===
=== Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California          ===
===                                                       ===
=== Custodian of the PICLIST Fund -- For more info, see:  ===
=== http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499/fund.html ===

1996\10\09@034613 by George Andreadakis

flavicon
face
>
> George Andreadakis <RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
> > What about new 16F84?
> >
> > Is it compatible with 16c84?
>
> George:
>
> The 16F84 is just a renamed 16C84A.  Externally, it's exactly like a
> 16C84, only with more RAM registers and some slight shuffling of the
> configuration bits.
>

Can I program it with the old Picstart 16b1 as 16c84?

1996\10\09@050951 by fastfwd

face
flavicon
face
George Andreadakis <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> > The 16F84 is just a renamed 16C84A.  Externally, it's exactly like
> > a 16C84, only with more RAM registers and some slight shuffling of
> > the configuration bits.
>
> Can I program it with the old Picstart 16b1 as 16c84?

George:

Yes, although the configuration bits will be wrong if you're using
an old version of MPSTART.  I don't know whether Microchip has a
newer version of MPSTART that supports the 16F84 directly.

-Andy

=== Andrew Warren - EraseMEfastfwdspamspamspamBeGoneix.netcom.com                 ===
=== Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California          ===
===                                                       ===
=== Custodian of the PICLIST Fund -- For more info, see:  ===
=== http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499/fund.html ===


'16F84'
1998\04\12@140555 by racoon
flavicon
face
Hi!

How is it possible to bust 16F84?

Please reply...


Regards,


Herman
RemoveMEracoonKILLspamspamstarline.ee

1998\04\12@231414 by KIRK HELSETH

flavicon
face
A hammer is the first thing that comes to my mind.

MaD RaCooN wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\04\13@051740 by Haile, Sam

flavicon
face
No hammer wont do it :-)
I think...you are interested to know if you can re-program the eeprom right?



On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, KIRK HELSETH wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\04\14@051717 by Paul BRITTON

flavicon
face
He's more likely interested in reading a code protected part, as in
'PICbuster' and thinks that we might tell him!


>---------------------- Information from the mail header
-----------------------
>Sender:       pic microcontroller discussion list
<KILLspamPICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>Poster:       MaD RaCooN <EraseMEracoonspamEraseMESTARLINE.EE>
>Subject:      16F84
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
{Quote hidden}

1998\04\14@053418 by tjaart

flavicon
face
Paul BRITTON wrote:

> He's more likely interested in reading a code protected part, as in
> 'PICbuster' and thinks that we might tell him!

Of course we will!

16F84 busting method 1 :
   Connect some pins to 0V, and the others to 220V. Be sure to hold
   the pins with your fingers for effecient electrocution.

16F84 busting method 2 :
   Hit PIC repeatedly with hammer. Now hit yourself with the hammer.

16F84 busting method 3 :
   Buy Myke Predko's book, read it, and write the software yourself.

--
Friendly Regards

Tjaart van der Walt
spamBeGonetjaartspamKILLspamwasp.co.za

|--------------------------------------------------|
|                WASP International                |
|R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development|
|--------------------------------------------------|
|SMS .....0832123443spam_OUTspamwasp.co.za  (160 chars max)|
|     http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html     |
|Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686  Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973|
|          WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E          |
|--------------------------------------------------|

1998\04\14@113537 by ERIC SCHLAEPFER

flavicon
face
>> He's more likely interested in reading a code protected part, as
>> in 'PICbuster' and thinks that we might tell him!

>Of course we will!

Ditto!

{Quote hidden}

No, Myke's book doesn't come in any of the Asian
languages for reasons involving copyright law.

It's a start, though. How about some more:

4. Using a hack-saw, remove the cover of the DUT
(Device Under Trial.) Carefully examine the silicon
chip using a magnifying glass and copy down the
contents of its memory onto paper. Be sure to buy
lots of duplicate chips because this scheme needs
some practice to get it right.

5. Gently crack open the PIC using a hammer, and
sweep up all the bits and bytes with a soft brush.
All you have to do now is arrange them in the right
order.

6. Call the guy who programming the PIC and ask for
a full source code listing. Be diplomatic.

Try each one in turn to see what works. (You do have
plenty of time, right?)


Later,

Eric

1998\04\14@113537 by ERIC SCHLAEPFER

flavicon
face
>> He's more likely interested in reading a code protected part, as
>> in 'PICbuster' and thinks that we might tell him!

>Of course we will!

Ditto!

{Quote hidden}

No, Myke's book doesn't come in any of the Asian
languages for reasons involving copyright law.

It's a start, though. How about some more:

4. Using a hack-saw, remove the cover of the DUT
(Device Under Trial.) Carefully examine the silicon
chip using a magnifying glass and copy down the
contents of its memory onto paper. Be sure to buy
lots of duplicate chips because this scheme needs
some practice to get it right.

5. Gently crack open the PIC using a hammer, and
sweep up all the bits and bytes with a soft brush.
All you have to do now is arrange them in the right
order.

6. Call the guy who programming the PIC and ask for
a full source code listing. Be diplomatic.

Try each one in turn to see what works. (You do have
plenty of time, right?)


Later,

Eric

1998\04\15@064821 by Russell McMahon

picon face
....

>>16F84 busting method 3 :
>>Buy Myke Predko's book, read it, and write the
>>software yourself.
>
>No, Myke's book doesn't come in any of the Asian
>languages for reasons involving copyright law.

What's the bet?

1998\04\18@115735 by Bruce Shepherd

flavicon
face
I have a real basic question:

What's the difference between a 16C84 and a 16F84 as far as program memory is concerned? I know that the 'C84 has EEPROM and how to program one. But I don't know what Flash memory is. Is it the same idea as EEPROM, i.e. it can be programmed, and reprogrammed and retains it memory even when power is removed? If so, can a 16F84 be plugged into a 16C84 socket with no problem?

Thanks for your help
·

1998\04\19@014425 by NCS Products

flavicon
face
At 11:45 AM 4/18/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I have a real basic question:
>
>What's the difference between a 16C84 and a 16F84 as far as program memory
is concerned? I know that the 'C84 has EEPROM and how to program one. But I
don't know what Flash memory is. Is it the same idea as EEPROM, i.e. it can
be programmed, and reprogrammed and retains it memory even when power is
removed?

Yes.

If so, can a 16F84 be plugged into a 16C84 socket with no problem?

Yes.  Can even be programmed as a 16C84, but leave code protection off, if
you want to
be able to verify.

1998\04\19@034215 by Alex Torres

picon face
From: Bruce Shepherd <TakeThisOuTbshep.....spamTakeThisOuTINNOVA.NET>

>I have a real basic question:

>What's the difference between a 16C84 and a 16F84 as far as program memory
is >concerned? I know that the 'C84 has EEPROM and how to program one. But
I don't know >what Flash memory is. Is it the same idea as EEPROM, i.e. it
can be programmed, and >reprogrammed and retains it memory even when power
is removed? If so, can a 16F84 be >plugged into a 16C84 socket with no
problem?

Yes. C84 and F84 are the same. You can only invert PWRTE bit in Fuses if
your programmer software is not understand "F" chip.

>Thanks for your help

Alex Torres, Kharkov, Ukraine (exUSSR)
TakeThisOuTaltorKILLspamspamspamgeocities.com
2:461/28 FidoNet
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/6311


'16F84'
1998\05\02@153646 by Bruce Shepherd
flavicon
face
part 0 764 bytes
Bruce R. Shepherd

-----Original Message-----
From:   NCS Products [SMTP:.....ncsspamRemoveMEWORLDNET.ATT.NET]
Sent:   Sunday, April 19, 1998 1:47 AM
To:     RemoveMEPICLISTspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject:        Re: 16F84

At 11:45 AM 4/18/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I have a real basic question:
>
>What's the difference between a 16C84 and a 16F84 as far as program memory
is concerned? I know that the 'C84 has EEPROM and how to program one. But I
don't know what Flash memory is. Is it the same idea as EEPROM, i.e. it can
be programmed, and reprogrammed and retains it memory even when power is
removed?

Yes.

If so, can a 16F84 be plugged into a 16C84 socket with no problem?

Yes.  Can even be programmed as a 16C84, but leave code protection off, if
you want to
be able to verify.


'16F84'
1998\06\11@114355 by Dejair Jose Muner
flavicon
face
part 0 761 bytes
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=2>It is really impossible to read the
microcontroller 16F84.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=2>Dejair Muner<BR><A
href="spamBeGonedeja@spam@spamspam_OUTst.com.br">TakeThisOuTdejaspamspamst.com.br</A></FONT></DIV>> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

</x-html>

1998\06\12@064308 by Caisson

flavicon
face
Van: Dejair Jose Muner <dejaEraseMEspamST.COM.BR>
Aan: RemoveMEPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
Onderwerp: 16F84
Datum: donderdag 11 juni 1998 17:33

> It is really impossible to read the microcontroller 16F84 ?

What made you think that ?  (please answer, I'm curious ...)

Normally you can read the thing as a book.  If you enabled the code-protect
bit you will get garbeled data (high 7 bits are always Zero).

Greetz,
 Rudy Wieser

1998\06\14@215654 by Jim robertson

flavicon
face
At 10:01 12/06/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Van: Dejair Jose Muner <@spam@dejaRemoveMEspamEraseMEST.COM.BR>
>Aan: EraseMEPICLISTspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Onderwerp: 16F84
>Datum: donderdag 11 juni 1998 17:33
>
>> It is really impossible to read the microcontroller 16F84 ?
>
>What made you think that ?  (please answer, I'm curious ...)
>
>Normally you can read the thing as a book.  If you enabled the code-protect
>bit you will get garbeled data (high 7 bits are always Zero).

Nope, that's the 16C84 your describing. The 16F84 will read all zero's when
code protected.  As for being able to read the 16F84 (after code
protection,) well it would take a  better man than me to  spill the beans.

Jim


>Greetz,
>  Rudy Wieser
>


'16F84'
1998\11\04@095427 by aya Baptista
flavicon
face
I intend to program the 16F84. I wonder if the hardware programmers
originally made for the 16C84 work with the 16F84. The COM84 driver will do
too?

AndrŽ Malafaya Baptista

1998\11\04@105742 by Andre' Malafaya Baptista

flavicon
face
Does COM84 program 16F84? I think PIP02 does not.
Does anybody care to send me programmer software for 16F84 compatible
with simples hardware programmers (txd for power, rts for clock, dtr for
PC data out, cts for PC data in)?

TIA,
AndrŽ

1998\11\04@111441 by John Hansen

picon face
At 03:49 PM 11/4/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Does COM84 program 16F84? I think PIP02 does not.
>Does anybody care to send me programmer software for 16F84 compatible
>with simples hardware programmers (txd for power, rts for clock, dtr for
>PC data out, cts for PC data in)?
>
>TIA,
>AndrŽ
>

Try PIX.  It works with a wide range of programmers, including various
versions of the Tait programmer and the Ludi programmer.

http://home5.swipnet.se/~w-53783/

John Hansen


'16F84'
1999\01\04@073250 by Roy Kasmir
picon face
Has any one tried turning on a led with the 16F84 or the 16C84? Such a
simple program I don't see what I'm doing worng. I can get the led to
turn on but when check with a logic probe I've noticed that there is a
pulse on the pin. Also if I use an external clock and slow down to
under 1KHz the led won't turn on. I tried doing the same thing with a
12c508 and had no problem. No Pulse. I just want to know if any one
else has notice this problem.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1999\01\04@185645 by James Cameron

flavicon
face
Roy Kasmir wrote:
> Has any one tried turning on a led with the 16F84 or the 16C84?

Yes, and it has always worked fine.

However, if I am using pin RA4 I have to connect the LED to +5V rather
than to ground.  RA4 does not pull up.

> DO YOU YAHOO!?

I'd hate to use a free mailing service that does this to your every
message.  It's not free, because it costs you something in credibility.

--
James Cameron                                      (@spam@cameronspam_OUTspam.....stl.dec.com)

OpenVMS, Linux, Firewalls, Software Engineering, CGI, HTTP, X, C, FORTH,
COBOL, BASIC, DCL, csh, bash, ksh, sh, Electronics, Microcontrollers,
Disability Engineering, Netrek, Bicycles, Pedant, Farming, Home Control,
Remote Area Power, Greek Scholar, Tenor Vocalist, Church Sound, Husband.

"Specialisation is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein.

1999\01\05@063830 by Caisson

flavicon
face
> Van: Roy Kasmir <spamBeGoner_kasmirEraseMEspamYAHOO.COM>
> Aan: PICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Onderwerp: 16F84
> Datum: maandag 4 januari 1999 13:23
>
> Has any one tried turning on a led with the 16F84 or the 16C84? Such a
> simple program I don't see what I'm doing worng. I can get the led to
> turn on but when check with a logic probe I've noticed that there is a
> pulse on the pin. Also if I use an external clock and slow down to
> under 1KHz the led won't turn on. I tried doing the same thing with a
> 12c508 and had no problem. No Pulse. I just want to know if any one
> else has notice this problem.

Did you _disable_ your wach-dog ?  Otherwise it will "reboot" your program
after a while. That (the reset) will switch your output to input after wich
your program will switch it back to Output again.  Maybe that is the pulse
you see (you did not tell us the frequency, so I'm just guessing :-).

Greetz,
 Rudy Wieser

1999\01\05@064901 by Roy Kasmir

picon face
Thanks for your reply.

I did disable the watchdog timer. But I think I'll double check to
make sure it is being disabled.

The frequency of normal operation for this program was 4MHz (Internal
clock).

  Roy

---Caisson <RemoveMEcaisson@spam@spamspamBeGoneTELEBYTE.NL> wrote:
>
> > Van: Roy Kasmir <.....r_kasmir@spam@spamEraseMEYAHOO.COM>
> > Aan: .....PICLISTRemoveMEspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > Onderwerp: 16F84
> > Datum: maandag 4 januari 1999 13:23
> >
> > Has any one tried turning on a led with the 16F84 or the 16C84?
Such a
> > simple program I don't see what I'm doing worng. I can get the led
to
> > turn on but when check with a logic probe I've noticed that there
is a
> > pulse on the pin. Also if I use an external clock and slow down to
> > under 1KHz the led won't turn on. I tried doing the same thing
with a
> > 12c508 and had no problem. No Pulse. I just want to know if any one
> > else has notice this problem.
>
> Did you _disable_ your wach-dog ?  Otherwise it will "reboot" your
program
> after a while. That (the reset) will switch your output to input
after wich
> your program will switch it back to Output again.  Maybe that is the
pulse
> you see (you did not tell us the frequency, so I'm just guessing :-).
>
> Greetz,
>   Rudy Wieser
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1999\01\05@095649 by Caisson

flavicon
face
> Van: Roy Kasmir <.....r_kasmirSTOPspamspam@spam@YAHOO.COM>
> Aan: PICLISTEraseMEspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Onderwerp: Re: 16F84
> Datum: dinsdag 5 januari 1999 12:53

<snip>

> The frequency of normal operation for this program was 4MHz (Internal
> clock).

Sorry, I was not too clear with my question.  Wat you said was "I can get
the led to turn on but when check with a logic probe I've noticed that
there is a pulse on the pin."
What I ment was : what was the frequency of the pulse (width of and time
between).

Maybe you could provide us with (the relevant portion of) your program.

Greetz,
 Rudy Wieser

1999\01\05@230304 by Roy Kasmir

picon face
I'll hook up the oscilloscope tomorrow and measure the time of the
pulse. I haven't had a change to do that yet.
Here the simple program.

       INCLUDE <P16F84.INC>

       ORG     0

START
       CLRF    PORTB
       CLRF    TRISB
       MOVLW   0x8F
       MOVWF   PORTB

HERE
       GOTO    HERE

       END




---Caisson <RemoveMEcaissonspamspamBeGoneTELEBYTE.NL> wrote:
>
> > Van: Roy Kasmir <spamBeGoner_kasmirKILLspamspam@spam@YAHOO.COM>
> > Aan: PICLISTspam_OUTspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > Onderwerp: Re: 16F84
> > Datum: dinsdag 5 januari 1999 12:53
>
> <snip>
>
> > The frequency of normal operation for this program was 4MHz
(Internal
> > clock).
>
> Sorry, I was not too clear with my question.  Wat you said was "I
can get
> the led to turn on but when check with a logic probe I've noticed that
> there is a pulse on the pin."
> What I ment was : what was the frequency of the pulse (width of and
time
> between).
>
> Maybe you could provide us with (the relevant portion of) your
program.
>
> Greetz,
>   Rudy Wieser
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1999\01\06@065348 by paulb

flavicon
face
Roy Kasmir wrote:

> Here the simple program.

> START
>         CLRF    PORTB
>         CLRF    TRISB
>         MOVLW   0x8F
>         MOVWF   PORTB
>
> HERE
>         GOTO    HERE

 Well, you won«t get far with *that* code.  PORTB and TRISB compile to
the same file register.  I think you meant:

       MOVLW   0
       MOVWF   PORTB
       TRIS    PORTB
       MOVLW   0x8F
       MOVWF   PORTB

 *Please* ignore the blather about not using TRIS "for upward
compatibility" (presumably with PIC Java)!
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\01\06@134252 by andre

flavicon
face
Ray,

you need to change bank1  before trisb and after trisb bank0

Andre Abelian


Roy Kasmir wrote:

{Quote hidden}


'16f84'
1999\10\24@140202 by Saulius L.
flavicon
face
Helo,
could somebody write about 16f84 commands?

1999\10\24@213318 by Jason Muhammad

picon face
I would recommend one or two books: Easy Pic'n, Pic up the Pace, both by
David Benson.  These are excellent books for the 16F84 even if you have
experience with other processors or uP languages.

If you just want to know about the 16F84 instruction, the data sheet
actually has an example of how each instruction will affect data.  For
Example

ADDLW   Add literal and W
--------------------------------------
Ex.     ADDLW 0x15
       Before instruction
               W=0x10
       After instruction
               W=0x25

The data book can be very helpful (sometimes).

"Saulius L." wrote:
>
> Helo,
>  could somebody write about 16f84 commands?

--
Jason
========================================
Website: http://www.execpc.com/~milsumai
E-Mail:  .....milsumaispamRemoveMEexecpc.com
ICQ # :  12978762
========================================
         .:::.
          ,,,
        _(- -)_
       /  ( )  \
       \_/ : \_/
        |_/ \_|
         | | |
      -TRY PRAYER-

1999\10\25@234919 by Eric Richards

picon face
Great work Jason?
just when I have printed off 30430c.pdf file & saw it on page 55
my reliable star LC20 printing gets faded after printing a few dozen pages,
I should of gone brought the book.
>
>ADDLW   Add literal and W
>--------------------------------------
>Ex.     ADDLW 0x15
>        Before instruction
>                W=0x10
>        After instruction
>                W=0x25
I got it from http://www.microchip.com but you can also get it from microchip CDROM
JULY 1999


>From Eric
{Original Message removed}


'16f84'
2000\05\11@165120 by Frank Tarsitano
flavicon
face
Can anyone help?
I want to buy a 16f84 that is re-programmable, would
the part number be 16F84-04/p.

thanks for any advice
Frank

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

2000\05\11@170413 by smerchock, Steve

flavicon
face
Frank,

That is a 16F84 that runs at 4MHz.
All the 16F84 PICs are reprogrammable.
The -XX number is the frequency it runs at.

Best regards,
Steve


Steven Kosmerchock
Radio Frequency systems
Phoenix  Arizona  USA
http://www.rfsworld.com

http://www.geocities.com/resaerchtriangle/lab/6584


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Tarsitano [ftarsitanospam@spam@YAHOO.CA]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:37 PM
To: EraseMEPICLISTRemoveMEspamSTOPspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: 16f84


Can anyone help?
I want to buy a 16f84 that is re-programmable, would
the part number be 16F84-04/p.

thanks for any advice
Frank

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

2000\05\12@162141 by pandersn

flavicon
face
What do you mean?

The 16F84 is re-prgrammable hundreds of time; that is, the "f" means that
the part has flash program memory so you can reprogram it. You can use
MPLAB and the PICSTART-PLUS to program the 16f84.

OK?

Phil Anderson.

On Thursday, May 11, 2000 2:37 PM, Frank Tarsitano
[SMTP:RemoveMEftarsitanoKILLspamspamTakeThisOuTYAHOO.CA] wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2000\05\16@025703 by Andy Stephenson

flavicon
face
Yes, if you want a 4 MHz part in a 18 pin DIL package.

Rgds...

...Andy

Frank Tarsitano wrote:
{Quote hidden}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...