Sign in
Search piclist
Subscribe to piclist
piclist by Keywords
12F675 | 16F628 | 16F84 | 16f877 | 16F877A | 16F88 | 18F458 | ADC | AVR | Bootloader | CAN | CCS | CRC | EAGLE | EEPROM | ICD | ICSP | IDE | JDM | LED | Macros | Microchip | MPLAB | PCB-CAD | PIC10F | Pic12f675 | PIC16F84 | PIC16F84A | PIC16F877 | PIC18 | PIC18F452 | PicBasic | PICC | PICSTART | PWM | RS-485 | RS232 | SMT | SPI | UART | USART | USB | Wireless | Wisp628 | Xilinx
Ads
Discussion Groups
Discussion Groups | Piclist | 16F88 bootloader
A discussion group for the PICMicro microcontroller. Also called the Microchip PIC, this list is dedicated to the use and abuse of this fine, simple, microcontroller. Close to topic posts are welcome, ie. general electronics.
16F88 bootloader - upand_at_them - Aug 8 10:29:00 2004
|
All the examples I've seen for ICSP use a MAX232, but the PICAXE 18X, which is a PIC16F88, has a simple two-resistor serial interface. Any reasons why I can't use the resistor interface for PIC ICSP? Mike |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
RE: 16F88 bootloader - Wouter van Ooijen - Aug 8 10:59:00 2004
|
> All the examples I've seen for ICSP use a MAX232, but the PICAXE 18X, > which is a PIC16F88, has a simple two-resistor serial interface. Are you talking about ICSP or self-programming (bootloader)? Do you care about reliability and reproduceability, or are you after the lowest possible cost-per-unit? Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
RE: 16F88 bootloader - Bob Underwood - Aug 8 12:10:00 2004
|
And don't forget that the MAX232 inverts, the resistors obviously don't,
so you would have to take care of that somewhere. There are some hardware
hacks with transistors that would do the inversion, but might it not just
be easier to do it right. Bob U. At 08:59 AM 8/8/2004, you wrote: > All the examples I've seen for ICSP use a MAX232, but the PICAXE 18X, |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - Dave Mucha - Aug 8 13:00:00 2004
|
--- In , Bob Underwood <aa6bt@r...> wrote: > And don't forget that the MAX232 inverts, the resistors obviously don't, so > you would have to take care of that somewhere. There are some hardware > hacks with transistors that would do the inversion, but might it not just > be easier to do it right. > > Bob U. There are bunches of RS232 chips other than the MAX232. is there any reason why that particular chip is required ? Often I see Maxim chips in designs because the hobby market uses free samples for the designs. Is the MAX232 required for the design ? What are the alternatives ? Dave |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
RE: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Wouter van Ooijen - Aug 8 13:09:00 2004
|
> There are bunches of RS232 chips other than the MAX232. is there any > reason why that particular chip is required ? there is one good reason that chip is used very often (ok, three reasons): - it has been along a long time - it is available from just about any supplier - it is cheap Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - upand_at_them - Aug 8 13:29:00 2004
|
I guess I was talking about both. I don't see why the ICSP interface can't be the same as that for self-programming. Since no high voltage is used they're both just sending logic signals. Cost isn't really an issue since this is a single item project for myself. I just want simplicity and low power consumption - the MAX232 would consume power even when it's not used. Mike --- In , "Wouter van Ooijen" <wouter@v...> wrote: > > All the examples I've seen for ICSP use a MAX232, but the PICAXE 18X, > > which is a PIC16F88, has a simple two-resistor serial interface. > > Are you talking about ICSP or self-programming (bootloader)? > > Do you care about reliability and reproduceability, or are you after the > lowest possible cost-per-unit? > > Wouter van Ooijen > > -- ------------------------------------------- > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl > consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
RE: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Wouter van Ooijen - Aug 8 14:03:00 2004
|
> I guess I was talking about both. I don't see why the ICSP interface > can't be the same as that for self-programming. Since no high > voltage is used they're both just sending logic signals. Creating logic sequences with a serial port is not impossible but not easy (or fast) either, so doing ISCP directly is not popular for serious designs. It is used however for low-cost designs (check the ic-prog website for designs). The signals from a serial port are not logic-level, so you will need some kind of level converter. A simple resistor will often work. Whether that is enough for you is up to you to decide. > I just want simplicity and low power consumption - the > MAX232 would consume power even when it's not used. You don't mention reliability, so I guess the resitor approach is good enough for you :) Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - Phil - Aug 8 14:21:00 2004
|
it depends on what you mean by max232 vs other rs232 chips. There are a number of clones (er, second source versions) of the max232 that are cheaper and work pretty much the same. You'll need to distinguish between max232a and max232 clones, also. The non-A parts use larger caps (1 uf vs 0.1 uf). There are other rs232 drivers that should work just fine but I think the max232 design has plenty of examples and is easy to add to a project in a cook-book way so people just design it in. It doesn't hurt that you can get max232 clones for under a $1 if you look around. I bought a bunch off of ebay so that's what I use. --- In , "Dave Mucha" <dave_mucha@y...> wrote: > --- In , Bob Underwood <aa6bt@r...> wrote: > > And don't forget that the MAX232 inverts, the resistors obviously > don't, so > > you would have to take care of that somewhere. There are some > hardware > > hacks with transistors that would do the inversion, but might it > not just > > be easier to do it right. > > > > Bob U. > There are bunches of RS232 chips other than the MAX232. is there any > reason why that particular chip is required ? > > Often I see Maxim chips in designs because the hobby market uses free > samples for the designs. > > Is the MAX232 required for the design ? > What are the alternatives ? > > Dave |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - Phil - Aug 8 14:46:00 2004
|
maybe this is a dumb question but 45 minutes of googling and searching various archives leads me to it: Is there a bootloader that runs on the 16F88?? I didn't see one. I like the chip and a bootloader would be a huge benefit. Maybe not quite enough for me to modify some other bootloader, though...\ Phil |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Igor Janjatovic - Aug 9 1:39:00 2004
|
> I guess I was talking about both. I don't see why the ICSP interface > can't be the same as that for self-programming. Since no high > voltage is used they're both just sending logic signals. If ICSP interface is the same as that for bootloader, then why using bootloader? > Cost isn't really an issue since this is a single item project for > myself. I just want simplicity and low power consumption - the > MAX232 would consume power even when it's not used. Use low power RS232 transceiver with shutdown and with receiver enabled while in shutdown. Regards, Igor |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Vasile Surducan - Aug 9 2:46:00 2004
|
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Igor Janjatovic wrote: > > I guess I was talking about both. I don't see why the ICSP interface > > can't be the same as that for self-programming. Since no high > > voltage is used they're both just sending logic signals. The ICSP may have LVP,HVP or both. If it's a prototype board, populated with SO/TSSOP packages (and if it's possible), having both volatge levels is a good choice. I let other people to say why. > If ICSP interface is the same as that for bootloader, then why using > bootloader? 16F88 is not an ideal device for bootloader. However, why using a bootloader? A bootloader is usefull only in prototyping/developing stage when the user is testing multiple routines and need too many programming-erasing sequences. Why both botloader and ICSP ? Because probably the prototyping becomes a final product and require memory protection which a bootloader can't offer. Because the PIC have a SO or TSSOP package and there is a virgin microcontroller soldered onboard. So the bottloader software must be programmed somehow inside the microcontroller. Easy, isn't it ? Is much cheaper for a developer to use the same board for prototyping as the product itself. It's also cheap enough to have an ICSP and a bootloader connection (assuming you don't use the RS232 for loading, like most popular loaders but other PIC pins like Wouter's one wire serial bootloader or ZPL) > > > Cost isn't really an issue since this is a single item project for > > myself. I just want simplicity and low power consumption - the > > MAX232 would consume power even when it's not used. No, there are so many Maxim transcievers with shut down and low power consumtion, just visit the site. If you don't like what you see check my collection/ideeas about RS232 interfacing: http://www.surducan.netfirms.com/RS232.html and try to understand my english... :) Vasile |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Stef Mientki - Aug 9 8:55:00 2004
|
>>If ICSP interface is the same as that for bootloader, then why using >>bootloader? >> > >16F88 is not an ideal device for bootloader. > Hi Vasile, tell me why not ? > However, why using a >bootloader? A bootloader is usefull only in prototyping/developing stage >when the user is testing multiple routines and need too many >programming-erasing sequences. > Depends on what you want to achieve. As almost all my designs already I have need for USB communication (is functionality), bootloading is the most fantastic thing I've ever seen. Development and serial debugging is fast and easy. But even when the products are at my customers, I just send a them file, and they load it up. Sorry but I don't know any other way to achieve such easy upgrading. cheers, Stef > |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - Phil - Aug 9 9:53:00 2004
|
Actually, a place where a bootloader might be usefull is in field configuration of large amounts of data. Suppose you had a device that needs a large amount of tabular data to drive your application and the data can change based on the needs/wants of the customer/user. I'd want to build bootloading capabilities into my application. Maybe bootloading is the wrong term but the scenario is - hook up a notebook computer to the serial connection and upload the new data. I have such an application right now but have gone the route of using a PIC with more flash (16F648A) and storing the most likely tables in flash. Still, it doesn't afford me as much flexibility as I think my customers will want. --- In , Vasile Surducan <vasile@s...> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Igor Janjatovic wrote: > > > > I guess I was talking about both. I don't see why the ICSP interface > > > can't be the same as that for self-programming. Since no high > > > voltage is used they're both just sending logic signals. > > The ICSP may have LVP,HVP or both. If it's a prototype > board, populated with SO/TSSOP packages (and if it's possible), > having both volatge levels is a good choice. I let other people to say why. > > > If ICSP interface is the same as that for bootloader, then why using > > bootloader? > 16F88 is not an ideal device for bootloader. However, why using a > bootloader? A bootloader is usefull only in prototyping/developing stage > when the user is testing multiple routines and need too many > programming-erasing sequences. Why both botloader and ICSP ? > Because probably the prototyping becomes a final product and require > memory protection which a bootloader can't offer. Because the PIC have a > SO or TSSOP package and there is a virgin microcontroller soldered > onboard. So the bottloader software must be programmed somehow inside > the microcontroller. Easy, isn't it ? > > Is much cheaper for a developer to use the same board for prototyping as > the product itself. It's also cheap enough to have an ICSP and a > bootloader connection (assuming you don't use the RS232 for loading, like > most popular loaders but other PIC pins like Wouter's one wire > serial bootloader or ZPL) > > > > > > Cost isn't really an issue since this is a single item project for > > > myself. I just want simplicity and low power consumption - the > > > MAX232 would consume power even when it's not used. > > > > No, there are so many Maxim transcievers with shut down and low power > consumtion, just visit the site. If you don't like what you see check my > collection/ideeas about RS232 interfacing: > http://www.surducan.netfirms.com/RS232.html > and try to understand my english... :) > > Vasile |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Peter van Hoof - Aug 9 17:03:00 2004
|
[snip] > Use low power RS232 transceiver with shutdown and > with receiver enabled > while in shutdown. [snip] Better yet, make the max232 chip part of the cable and unplug after transfering data additional advantages only one chip per cable (low cost) and usable for any design you make. Peter van Hoof __________________________________ |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Vasile Surducan - Aug 10 3:42:00 2004
|
Hi Stef, Suppose you are living in the East and send a hex file for uploading to one of your customers (which have already bought your tool), learning him how to upload and configure the stuff, you have created your own competitor. He will produce a tool with your last firmware inside. And maybe will be better than yours just by 30% modification he made. Reverse PCB to SCH is a joke for someone having good eyes (and some years of experience). Of course a bootloader is a cool stuff. But I didn't see yet a mass product (OTP, flash) without code protecting (only by mistake). Looking to 16F88, a bootloader of 100 bytes without protecting the page where the bootloader is located, means almost 4kbyte of memory, isn't it ? It's ok. Unfortunately the Microchip distributors in the East of Europe just say this chip exist. If you want to buy it is much difficult. Like with the LF versions. top 10 wishes, Vasile http://surducan.netfirms.com On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Stef Mientki wrote: > > > > > >>If ICSP interface is the same as that for bootloader, then why using > >>bootloader? > >> > >> > > > > > >16F88 is not an ideal device for bootloader. > > > Hi Vasile, tell me why not ? > > > However, why using a > >bootloader? A bootloader is usefull only in prototyping/developing stage > >when the user is testing multiple routines and need too many > >programming-erasing sequences. > > > Depends on what you want to achieve. > As almost all my designs already I have need for USB communication (is > functionality), > bootloading is the most fantastic thing I've ever seen. > Development and serial debugging is fast and easy. > But even when the products are at my customers, > I just send a them file, and they load it up. > Sorry but I don't know any other way to achieve such easy upgrading. > > cheers, > Stef > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions > Yahoo! Groups Links |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Stef Mientki - Aug 10 8:18:00 2004
|
hi Vasile, Vasile Surducan wrote: >Hi Stef, >Suppose you are living in the East and send a hex file for uploading to >one of your customers (which have already bought your tool), learning him how >to upload and configure the stuff, > The user only has to press a preprogrammed button in his application program, which will download the new hex file from the web, and program it in the PIC, so hardly tolearn anything. > you have created your own competitor. >He will produce a tool with your last firmware inside. And maybe will be >better than yours just by 30% modification he made. Reverse PCB to SCH is >a joke for someone having good eyes (and some years of experience). > I agree, if you've large bulk application, it's not the way to go. But for research projects (which are my customers) it's great. And if the whole worlds copies it, I'm very happy, because then I'm involved in an epochmaking research project ;-) (btw just right now I'm thinking of making bootable datasection for JAL, so even in the smallest PICs you can easily change (a bit) functionality) Stef > |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - rtstofer - Aug 10 14:14:00 2004
|
I don't know how the code protection bits work when a boot loader is in play - worth investigating. I would add some type of encryption to the datafile (maybe single DES if the code is small enough) and have the key unique to each chip. I don't know if this will work. --- In , Vasile Surducan <vasile@s...> wrote: > Hi Stef, > Suppose you are living in the East and send a hex file for uploading to > one of your customers (which have already bought your tool), learning him how > to upload and configure the stuff, you have created your own competitor. > He will produce a tool with your last firmware inside. And maybe will be > better than yours just by 30% modification he made. Reverse PCB to SCH is > a joke for someone having good eyes (and some years of experience). > > Of course a bootloader is a cool stuff. But I didn't see yet a mass > product (OTP, flash) without code protecting (only by mistake). > Looking to 16F88, a bootloader of 100 bytes without protecting the > page where the bootloader is located, means almost 4kbyte of memory, isn't > it ? It's ok. Unfortunately the Microchip distributors in the East of > Europe just say this chip exist. If you want to buy it is much difficult. > Like with the LF versions. > > top 10 wishes, > Vasile > http://surducan.netfirms.com > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Stef Mientki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>If ICSP interface is the same as that for bootloader, then why using > > >>bootloader? > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >16F88 is not an ideal device for bootloader. > > > > > Hi Vasile, tell me why not ? > > > > > However, why using a > > >bootloader? A bootloader is usefull only in prototyping/developing stage > > >when the user is testing multiple routines and need too many > > >programming-erasing sequences. > > > > > Depends on what you want to achieve. > > As almost all my designs already I have need for USB communication (is > > functionality), > > bootloading is the most fantastic thing I've ever seen. > > Development and serial debugging is fast and easy. > > But even when the products are at my customers, > > I just send a them file, and they load it up. > > Sorry but I don't know any other way to achieve such easy upgrading. > > > > cheers, > > Stef > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
RE: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Wouter van Ooijen - Aug 10 14:44:00 2004
|
> I would add some type of encryption to the datafile (maybe single > DES if the code is small enough) and have the key unique to each > chip. > > I don't know if this will work. It certainly won't create the worlds smallest bootloader. Note that breaking a cypher is much easier for a known-plaintext attack, and with PIC programs the first few instructions can almost be regarded as known. The choosen-cypher attack might crack the cypher even faster. There is some webpage about this approach (for a 8051 with external (encrypted) code). Bootloaders and code protection (in the sense of keeping your code secret) don't go together very well. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Michael Puchol - Aug 10 15:54:00 2004
|
If you are REALLY that desperate to protect your work, then an option is to send a replacement chip pre-programmed and protected, instead of a field update. If you give out the hex file in any form, it WILL come out in the open at some stage of the upgrade process - it can be captured right off the serial data stream to the bootloader. To implement any form of useful encryption in a bootloader is not AFAIK viable due to space. A simple XOR or substitution cypher can be easily hacked. There are some other ways around this, for example, one is choosing a chip that has individual bank read/write protection, so you can protect your bootloader, and load the useful code in the remaining banks - you can set the fuses as needed. In the case of an 18F452, you have 4x8kB banks, which make for a hefty bootloader which could incorporate a tougher encryption system. Personally, the only project that I've had to really protect I didn't allow the client to perform field updates, and a Dallas iButton served as a dongle to the PIC, so I could in fact "license" the hardware as required. The client could even have spare boards, but only so many iButtons. Best regards, Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "rtstofer" <> To: <> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:14 PM Subject: [piclist] Re: 16F88 bootloader > > I don't know how the code protection bits work when a boot loader is > in play - worth investigating. > > I would add some type of encryption to the datafile (maybe single > DES if the code is small enough) and have the key unique to each > chip. > > I don't know if this will work. > --- In , Vasile Surducan <vasile@s...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Stef, > > Suppose you are living in the East and send a hex file for > uploading to > > one of your customers (which have already bought your tool), > learning him how > > to upload and configure the stuff, you have created your own > competitor. > > He will produce a tool with your last firmware inside. And maybe > will be > > better than yours just by 30% modification he made. Reverse PCB to > SCH is > > a joke for someone having good eyes (and some years of experience). > > > > Of course a bootloader is a cool stuff. But I didn't see yet a mass > > product (OTP, flash) without code protecting (only by mistake). > > Looking to 16F88, a bootloader of 100 bytes without protecting the > > page where the bootloader is located, means almost 4kbyte of > memory, isn't > > it ? It's ok. Unfortunately the Microchip distributors in the East > of > > Europe just say this chip exist. If you want to buy it is much > difficult. > > Like with the LF versions. > > > > top 10 wishes, > > Vasile > > http://surducan.netfirms.com > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Stef Mientki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>If ICSP interface is the same as that for bootloader, then why > using > > > >>bootloader? > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >16F88 is not an ideal device for bootloader. > > > > > > > Hi Vasile, tell me why not ? > > > > > > > However, why using a > > > >bootloader? A bootloader is usefull only in > prototyping/developing stage > > > >when the user is testing multiple routines and need too many > > > >programming-erasing sequences. > > > > > > > Depends on what you want to achieve. > > > As almost all my designs already I have need for USB > communication (is > > > functionality), > > > bootloading is the most fantastic thing I've ever seen. > > > Development and serial debugging is fast and easy. > > > But even when the products are at my customers, > > > I just send a them file, and they load it up. > > > Sorry but I don't know any other way to achieve such easy > upgrading. > > > > > > cheers, > > > Stef > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the > instructions > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions > Yahoo! Groups Links |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - rtstofer - Aug 10 17:01:00 2004
|
I haven't thought this all the way through but you are certainly correct: if you know what the first few bytes must be then you are well on the way to breaking the cipher. But of course, the byte stream in the file doesn't have to be in memory address order as long as there is space available for reassembling it. Maybe there is an off-chip (E)EPROM... I doubt the approach is cryptographically secure but it just might be good enough to keep the curious at bay. Nothing is secure from the determined individual. --- In , "Wouter van Ooijen" <wouter@v...> wrote: > > I would add some type of encryption to the datafile (maybe single > > DES if the code is small enough) and have the key unique to each > > chip. > > > > I don't know if this will work. > > It certainly won't create the worlds smallest bootloader. Note that > breaking a cypher is much easier for a known-plaintext attack, and with > PIC programs the first few instructions can almost be regarded as known. > The choosen-cypher attack might crack the cypher even faster. There is > some webpage about this approach (for a 8051 with external (encrypted) > code). > > Bootloaders and code protection (in the sense of keeping your code > secret) don't go together very well. > > Wouter van Ooijen > > -- ------------------------------------------- > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl > consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - rtstofer - Aug 10 17:10:00 2004
|
Another approach if the encryption is trash is to hide the data in a snowstorm. Send a ton of bytes, some of which have useful data. --- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > I haven't thought this all the way through but you are certainly > correct: if you know what the first few bytes must be then you are > well on the way to breaking the cipher. > > But of course, the byte stream in the file doesn't have to be in > memory address order as long as there is space available for > reassembling it. Maybe there is an off-chip (E)EPROM... > > I doubt the approach is cryptographically secure but it just might > be good enough to keep the curious at bay. Nothing is secure from > the determined individual. > > --- In , "Wouter van Ooijen" <wouter@v...> > wrote: > > > I would add some type of encryption to the datafile (maybe > single > > > DES if the code is small enough) and have the key unique to each > > > chip. > > > > > > I don't know if this will work. > > > > It certainly won't create the worlds smallest bootloader. Note that > > breaking a cypher is much easier for a known-plaintext attack, and > with > > PIC programs the first few instructions can almost be regarded as > known. > > The choosen-cypher attack might crack the cypher even faster. > There is > > some webpage about this approach (for a 8051 with external > (encrypted) > > code). > > > > Bootloaders and code protection (in the sense of keeping your code > > secret) don't go together very well. > > > > Wouter van Ooijen > > > > -- ------------------------------------------- > > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl > > consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - Phil - Aug 10 18:41:00 2004
|
The key issue here is that if you can't code protect, any one can copy your bootloader and once that happens, all bets are off since the device would look and respond just like yours. Which PICs support CP of individual banks? It is probably a good idea to include a copyright statement in the code itself. This wont prevent theft but will allow easy proof of willfull infringement and, I'm-no-lawyer-but-pretty-sure, allow you to claim treble damages. On a side note - how secure is the code protection in the PIC line? I suppose some one with a scanning microscope could pry off the lid and figure it out. --- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > Another approach if the encryption is trash is to hide the data in a > snowstorm. Send a ton of bytes, some of which have useful data. > --- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > > > I haven't thought this all the way through but you are certainly > > correct: if you know what the first few bytes must be then you are > > well on the way to breaking the cipher. > > > > But of course, the byte stream in the file doesn't have to be in > > memory address order as long as there is space available for > > reassembling it. Maybe there is an off-chip (E)EPROM... > > > > I doubt the approach is cryptographically secure but it just might > > be good enough to keep the curious at bay. Nothing is secure from > > the determined individual. > > > > --- In , "Wouter van Ooijen" <wouter@v...> > > wrote: > > > > I would add some type of encryption to the datafile (maybe > > single > > > > DES if the code is small enough) and have the key unique to > each > > > > chip. > > > > > > > > I don't know if this will work. > > > > > > It certainly won't create the worlds smallest bootloader. Note > that > > > breaking a cypher is much easier for a known-plaintext attack, > and > > with > > > PIC programs the first few instructions can almost be regarded > as > > known. > > > The choosen-cypher attack might crack the cypher even faster. > > There is > > > some webpage about this approach (for a 8051 with external > > (encrypted) > > > code). > > > > > > Bootloaders and code protection (in the sense of keeping your > code > > > secret) don't go together very well. > > > > > > Wouter van Ooijen > > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------- > > > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl > > > consultancy, development, PICmicro products |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Michael Puchol - Aug 10 18:44:00 2004
|
Hi, The 18F452, for example, has four main banks, each of which can have different fuses, such as CP, read/write protect, etc. There is also a special 'boot' block that can be sepparately protected. I suspect other PICs in this series have similar configurations, but the one I've worked with hands-on is the 452. Regards, Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil" <> To: <> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:41 AM Subject: [piclist] Re: 16F88 bootloader > The key issue here is that if you can't code protect, any one can > copy your bootloader and once that happens, all bets are off since > the device would look and respond just like yours. > > Which PICs support CP of individual banks? > > It is probably a good idea to include a copyright statement in the > code itself. This wont prevent theft but will allow easy proof of > willfull infringement and, I'm-no-lawyer-but-pretty-sure, allow you > to claim treble damages. > > On a side note - how secure is the code protection in the PIC line? > I suppose some one with a scanning microscope could pry off the lid > and figure it out. > > --- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > > > Another approach if the encryption is trash is to hide the data in > a > > snowstorm. Send a ton of bytes, some of which have useful data. > > > > > > --- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > > > > > I haven't thought this all the way through but you are certainly > > > correct: if you know what the first few bytes must be then you > are > > > well on the way to breaking the cipher. > > > > > > But of course, the byte stream in the file doesn't have to be in > > > memory address order as long as there is space available for > > > reassembling it. Maybe there is an off-chip (E)EPROM... > > > > > > I doubt the approach is cryptographically secure but it just > might > > > be good enough to keep the curious at bay. Nothing is secure > from > > > the determined individual. > > > > > > --- In , "Wouter van Ooijen" <wouter@v...> > > > wrote: > > > > > I would add some type of encryption to the datafile (maybe > > > single > > > > > DES if the code is small enough) and have the key unique to > > each > > > > > chip. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if this will work. > > > > > > > > It certainly won't create the worlds smallest bootloader. Note > > that > > > > breaking a cypher is much easier for a known-plaintext attack, > > and > > > with > > > > PIC programs the first few instructions can almost be regarded > > as > > > known. > > > > The choosen-cypher attack might crack the cypher even faster. > > > There is > > > > some webpage about this approach (for a 8051 with external > > > (encrypted) > > > > code). > > > > > > > > Bootloaders and code protection (in the sense of keeping your > > code > > > > secret) don't go together very well. > > > > > > > > Wouter van Ooijen > > > > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------- > > > > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl > > > > consultancy, development, PICmicro products > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions > Yahoo! Groups Links |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - Dave Mucha - Aug 10 21:30:00 2004
|
--- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > Another approach if the encryption is trash is to hide the data in a > snowstorm. Send a ton of bytes, some of which have useful data. Kinda like Windows ! ton of code, most is useless. I've never heard of it being called snowstorm, but it seems to fit. Dave |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - copywrite - Dave Mucha - Aug 10 21:36:00 2004
|
--- In , "Phil" <phil1960us@y...> wrote: > The key issue here is that if you can't code protect, any one can > copy your bootloader and once that happens, all bets are off since > the device would look and respond just like yours. > > Which PICs support CP of individual banks? > > It is probably a good idea to include a copyright statement in the > code itself. This wont prevent theft but will allow easy proof of > willfull infringement and, I'm-no-lawyer-but-pretty-sure, allow you > to claim treble damages. IIRC, Tandy/Radio Shack took someone to court over the theft of their operating system. TRSDOS ???? The court was so stupid and so nieve about anything to do with compters. After much debate on both sides and huge sections of code being compared on the Tandy guys went to the other guy's box, hit some keys on the keyboard and brought up an Easter Egg that was a black screen with TANDY RADIO SHACK filling the screen. The opposing attourney claimed that is was a coincecence that some bits here and there could magically create the screen shot. Tandy lost. Go figure. |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Stef Mientki - Aug 11 3:22:00 2004
|
Dave Mucha wrote: A good engineer (with the right tools) can watch the functionality and put it into another processor.--- In p...@yahoogroups.com, "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote:Another approach if the encryption is trash is to hide the data inasnowstorm. Send a ton of bytes, some of which have useful data.Kinda like Windows ! ton of code, most is useless. I've never heard of it being called snowstorm, but it seems to fit. So the real thing to worry about is protection of the functionlity of an idea and not the byte-code. And again Bill has found a trick to protect that: ensure that the behaviour differs every time ;-) Stef Dave ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/dN_tlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Mr S - Aug 11 8:45:00 2004
|
Bill has a better protection than yet mentioned: Who would *want* to copy windows???? :-) --- Stef Mientki <> wrote: > > Dave Mucha wrote: > > >--- In , "rtstofer" > <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > > > > >>Another approach if the encryption is trash is to > hide the data in > >> > >> > >a > > > > > >>snowstorm. Send a ton of bytes, some of which > have useful data. > >> > >> > > > > > >Kinda like Windows ! ton of code, most is > useless. I've never > >heard of it being called snowstorm, but it seems to > fit. > > > > > A good engineer (with the right tools) can watch the > functionality and > put it into another processor. > So the real thing to worry about is protection of > the functionlity of an > idea and not the byte-code. > > And again Bill has found a trick to protect that: > ensure that the > behaviour differs every time ;-) > > Stef > > >Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > >to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com > and follow the instructions > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
[OT] copying windows -- was "Re: 16F88 bootloader" - Scott Lee - Aug 11 9:51:00 2004
|
I have some coworkers & friends who work very hard at reverse engineering a portion of windows' functionality. They call their product Samba. Curiously if they every succeed at the goal of displacing MS they too will be out of work. --- In , Mr S <szinn_the1@y...> wrote: > Bill has a better protection than yet mentioned: Who > would *want* to copy windows???? :-) |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Stef Mientki - Aug 11 10:10:00 2004
|
Mr S wrote: >Bill has a better protection than yet mentioned: Who >would *want* to copy windows???? :-) > Ok the quality of a product, might even be a better protection !!! :-) :-) Stef > |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
[OT] copying windows -- was "Re: 16F88 bootloader" - Phil - Aug 11 11:02:00 2004
|
Isn't SAMBA the SMB windows networking subsystem on Linux? I'd say they have been very successful. I use it on all my Linux boxes. They have a tough job because MS keeps changing the SMB interface gratuitously with each OS release but they seem to very on top of it. Its an outstanding piece of work. On copying windows - I think there are a lot of people that would love to clone it to break MS's strangle hold on DT computing. On a low end PC, more than 10% of the pruchase price goes directly to MS. That's real incentive. Finally, on the blizzard protection concept. There is a saying in the secure computing community that "protection through obfuscation is no protection at all". Or put another way, there is always some smart, dedicated guy who will figure it out and it only takes one. Phil --- In , "Scott Lee" <midl_man@y...> wrote: > I have some coworkers & friends who work very hard at reverse > engineering a portion of windows' functionality. They call their > product Samba. Curiously if they every succeed at the goal of > displacing MS they too will be out of work. > --- In , Mr S <szinn_the1@y...> wrote: > > Bill has a better protection than yet mentioned: Who > > would *want* to copy windows???? :-) > |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: [OT] copying windows -- was "Re: 16F88 bootloader" - Mr S - Aug 11 15:04:00 2004
|
Scott, I like your name. Even more than that, I like Samba and how it works. I appreciate even more that it doesn't require a windows interface. Samba makes windows pc's useful in the real world of networking and computing, not just in the MS view of that world. In my view, Samba does not simply immitate a portion of windows, it improves the windows desktop to the point that it is usable :) I have a great appreciation for your coworkers and friends. --- Scott Lee <> wrote: > I have some coworkers & friends who work very hard > at reverse > engineering a portion of windows' functionality. > They call their > product Samba. Curiously if they every succeed at > the goal of > displacing MS they too will be out of work. > --- In , Mr S > <szinn_the1@y...> wrote: > > Bill has a better protection than yet mentioned: > Who > > would *want* to copy windows???? :-) > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion > Toolbar. > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/dN_tlB/TM > --------------------------------------------------------------------~- > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and > follow the instructions > Yahoo! Groups Links __________________________________ |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - Dave Mucha - Aug 11 22:14:00 2004
|
--- In , Stef Mientki <s.mientki@m...> wrote:
> Dave Mucha wrote: > > >--- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > > > > >>Another approach if the encryption is trash is to hide the data in > >> > >> > >a > > > > > >>snowstorm. Send a ton of bytes, some of which have useful data. > >> > >> > > > > > >Kinda like Windows ! ton of code, most is useless. I've never > >heard of it being called snowstorm, but it seems to fit. > > > > > A good engineer (with the right tools) can watch the functionality and > put it into another processor. > So the real thing to worry about is protection of the functionlity of an > idea and not the byte-code. > > And again Bill has found a trick to protect that: ensure that the > behaviour differs every time ;-) > > Stef Sure, but many people think crashes and lock-ups are not a viable way of working ! Dave |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: 16F88 bootloader - Chad Russel - Aug 11 22:48:00 2004
|
--- In , "Dave Mucha" <dave_mucha@y...> wrote: > --- In , Stef Mientki <s.mientki@m...> wrote: > > > > > > Dave Mucha wrote: > > > > >--- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Another approach if the encryption is trash is to hide the data > in > > >a > > >>snowstorm. Send a ton of bytes, some of which have useful data. > > > > > > > > >Kinda like Windows ! ton of code, most is useless. I've never > > >heard of it being called snowstorm, but it seems to fit. > > > > > > > > A good engineer (with the right tools) can watch the functionality > and > > put it into another processor. > > So the real thing to worry about is protection of the functionlity > of an > > idea and not the byte-code. > > > > And again Bill has found a trick to protect that: ensure that the > > behaviour differs every time ;-) > > > > Stef > > Sure, but many people think crashes and lock-ups are not a viable way > of working ! > > Dave I like to hold on to the thought that even the richest man in the world has to reboot 5 times a day also. Unless he is smart enought to run Linux. Imagine if that news got out. Chad |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: 16F88 bootloader - Vasile Surducan - Aug 12 2:57:00 2004
|
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Chad Russel wrote: > I like to hold on to the thought that even the richest man in the > world has to reboot 5 times a day also. Unless he is smart enought to > run Linux. Whow ! Linux seems to work without UPS and mains power. I should try someday... :) Vasile |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )