part 0 412 bytes <P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hello: does anyone know how to read the program of a pic 16c621 wich code protection fuse has been blown ? I«m working with the Pic Start development kit. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I«ll really appreciate your help about this point.</FONT>
</P>
> Diego Lynch wrote:
>
> Hello: does anyone know how to read the program of a pic 16c621 wich
> code protection fuse has been blown ? I4m working with the Pic Start
> development kit.
>
> I4ll really appreciate your help about this point.
No, can't be done.
That's why code protect is there in the first place.
So, dump the chip.
To my knowledge, there is no nondestructive way to read the
program memory once the Code Protect Bit has been blown.
After all, that's the purpose of Code Protect in the first
place. I don't know what to tell you other than you can try
to get the source and reprogram another part. But if you
are trying to read the code in the part, you apparently don't
have or can't get the source, so I don't know what else to
say. Except good luck.
>This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BF09C7.801A9692
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Hello: does anyone know how to read the program of a pic 16c621 wich
>code
>protection fuse has been blown ? I«m working with the Pic Start
>development
>kit.
>I«ll really appreciate your help about this point.
>
>------_«extPart_001_01BF09C7.801A9692
> does anyone know how to read the program of a pic 16c621 wich
> code protection fuse has been blown?
Let me reply in a sort of FAQ as this request is absurdly common.
Code protection is a facility offered by the manufacturer to sell
chips at a premium to users who exhibit paranoia that their code will be
able to be examined and perhaps repaired by others. This is the
software equivalent of a circuit diagram.
Many manufacturers of both software and hardware expect to multiply
their profitability by forcing the end user to obtain service (including
bug-fixes) of the equipment exclusively from themselves. The ability of
a user to determine either circuit diagrams or the equivalent, machine
code and repair the equipment themselves would defeat this.
Another aspect is the possibility of a competitor "cloning" the
product, though of course, such a competitor will most likely have
sufficient design resources to "reverse" or re-engineer the product
anyway.
The nub of the matter is that the ability to defeat code-protection
is a *commodity*. *If* it is possible, no-one is about to give it to
you for free anymore than they'd give you a free supply of new cars!
And as it's something of a "black market" commodity, then it's hardly
something they'd approach you about in a public forum or indeed in any
way until you've made clear your "bona fides"; that your intent and
ability to pay for the information or service is *substantial*.
--
Cheers,
Paul B.
> Another aspect is the possibility of a competitor "cloning" the
> product, though of course, such a competitor will most likely have
> sufficient design resources to "reverse" or re-engineer the product
> anyway.
True, Except that if it takes you $10,000 to get from point A to point Y,
I'll take the design (and code) disassemble it and get from point A to point
Z for only MY $1000.
> True, Except that if it takes you $10,000 to get from point A to point
> Y, I'll take the design (and code) disassemble it and get from point A
> to point Z for only MY $1000.
I suspect, as others have said previously, that sometimes, perhaps
often, an emulated product rather than a "reverse-engineered" one, may
benefit from *not* having the original source or object code to look
at. I.e., you do not suffer the temptation to make the same mistakes as
the original.
--
Cheers,
Paul B.
