27c256 | 4K81H | 68HC11A1 | 68HC11P1 | 68hc24 | 68HC711E9 | 68HC811 | 8255 | A2D | ADC | ADC12138 | Am85C30 | BRCLR | Buffalo | CMOS | EEPROM | EPROM | Ethernet | EVB | EVBU | HC11E1 | HC11E9 | HC711E9 | Horray | ImageCraft | IRQ | Keypad | LCD | MC68HC11D0FN | MC68HC11E1CFU3 | MC68HC11F1 | MC68HC711E9 | MC68HC711E9CFN2 | Microcore11 | Microstamp11 | Minikit | NVRAM | PSD | PSD8xx | PSD9xx | PT1000 | RS232 | RTS | RXD | SPI | SRAM | TXD | Watchdogs | XIRQ

G'day all Before I get to my question, I was looking at the Moto website for update information about the security bit and I came across a chip that I didn't know existed. It's a 68HC711EA9 with both mask ROM (12K), OTP Eprom (12K), the usual 512 bytes of EEPROM and a PLL clock generator. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it a "new " chip or is Motorola making a device that may replace some more of the HC11 family members? I do get a little paranoid I must confess!! Meanwhile, back at the ranch........The information I have shows the NOSEC bit forced to one, which would indicate that the part cannot be secured. I tried to program the CONFIG to $03 (NOSEC=0,NOCOP=0, ROMON=1 and EEON=1) and it became $0B instead showing that the NOSEC bit did not change. This was with a windowed HC711 part which is a few years old. Do the newer OTP parts allow for the security to be set? There is an engineering bulletin (EB378.PDF) showing how to set the security bit using PCbug by issuing the command MS 103f 05. This doesn't make any sense to me because bit 3 (NOSEC) is still one in the above command. Can anyone illuminate my dark mind please? I'm working on a project that uses the HC711E9 and I would like to have some code protection if possible. I have located the Int vectors in EEPROM partly because I can still reprogram the chip and of course to give some code protection as the EEPROM gets erased if a read attempt is made. Any help would be appreciated. Regards John Samperi ****************************************************** Ampertronics Pty. Ltd. 11 Brokenwood Place Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA Tel. (02) 9674-6495 Fax (02) 9674-8745 Email: Website http://ampertronics.com.au * Electronic Design * Technical Services * Contract Assembly ******************************************************

______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of m68hc11 -- send a blank email to m68hc11-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

John, AFAIK, only the 68SEC711 variants are the secure chips. I don't know how the security is implemented in hardware exactly, but I could probably dig up the bootloader code. Security is implemented in the bootloader and I believe the hardware forces only the single chip modes (i.e. single chip and bootstrap). Expanded multiplexed and test modes are blocked by hardware. Let me know if you want more details. Emmett Redd Ph.D. mailto: Associate Professor (417)836-5221 Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Material Science Southwest Missouri State University Fax (417)836-6226 901 SOUTH NATIONAL Dept (417)836-5131 SPRINGFIELD, MO 65804 USA > -----Original Message----- > From: John Samperi [mailto:] > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 4:33 PM > To: > Subject: [m68HC11] Security bit in HC711E9/ New HC11 member? > > G'day all > > Before I get to my question, I was looking at the Moto website for > update information about the security bit and I came across a chip > that I didn't know existed. It's a 68HC711EA9 with both mask ROM > (12K), OTP Eprom (12K), the usual 512 bytes of EEPROM and > a PLL clock generator. > Does anyone know anything about this? Is it a "new " chip or is > Motorola making a device that may replace some more of the > HC11 family members? I do get a little paranoid I must confess!! > > Meanwhile, back at the ranch........The information I have shows > the NOSEC bit forced to one, which would indicate that the part > cannot be secured. I tried to program the CONFIG to $03 > (NOSEC=0,NOCOP=0, ROMON=1 and EEON=1) and it > became $0B instead showing that the NOSEC bit did not > change. This was with a windowed HC711 part which is a few > years old. Do the newer OTP parts allow for the security to be set? > There is an engineering bulletin (EB378.PDF) showing how to set the > security bit using PCbug by issuing the command MS 103f 05. This > doesn't make any sense to me because bit 3 (NOSEC) is still one > in the above command. Can anyone illuminate my dark mind please? > > I'm working on a project that uses the HC711E9 and I would like to > have some code protection if possible. I have located the Int vectors > in EEPROM partly because I can still reprogram the chip and of > course to give some code protection as the EEPROM gets erased > if a read attempt is made. Any help would be appreciated. > > Regards > > John Samperi > > ****************************************************** > Ampertronics Pty. Ltd. > 11 Brokenwood Place Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA > Tel. (02) 9674-6495 Fax (02) 9674-8745 > Email: > Website http://ampertronics.com.au > * Electronic Design * Technical Services * Contract Assembly > ****************************************************** > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

(You need to be a member of m68hc11 -- send a blank email to m68hc11-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )