I need some input on what the best microcontroller (relatively cheap) and OS to use for a project I will be starting soon. The project requires a Ethernet connection, so an on-board MAC is desirable. A real time clock and several timers will be required. The MCU will need to interface with a RC5 encoder for IR control of devices (and possible RF communication as well). On the software side, the device needs to run either HTTPd with SSL or a custom daemon which includes encryption (probably blowfish). It will also need to run a NTP client to update the clock at regular intervals. The main function program will send commands to various devices through IR/RF and by operating relays at certain times as defined by a remote user via the daemon. Of course, if this seems impossible to implement without a MMU OS, I am willing to accept suggestions of MCUs with MMUs or possibly multiple chip solutions. Naturally, I would like to minimize the cost of the project. Thanks, David "Remove the spam to e-mail me"
General Advice
Started by ●December 9, 2004
Reply by ●December 9, 20042004-12-09
Your requirements don't directly mandate an MMU, but you'll possibly wind up with one for free anyway. Sharp has an ARM7 with on-chip MAC that might be interesting. LH79525, http://www.sharpsma.com/sma/products/mcu_soc/LH79525_Splash.htm You can actually do everything you want in an OSless 8-bit micro, but the annoying part is sourcing and integrating the MAC. I'd suggest that Sharp part and eCos.
Reply by ●December 9, 20042004-12-09
dbernat32 wrote:> I need some input on what the best microcontroller (relatively cheap) and OS > to use for a project I will be starting soon. > > The project requires a Ethernet connection, so an on-board MAC is desirable. > A real time clock and several timers will be required. > The MCU will need to interface with a RC5 encoder for IR control of devices > (and possible RF communication as well). >Zilog eZ80f91 sounds about right. They are a bit expensive in small quantities, but otherwise seem to have everything else you want. Development system with C, OS and lots of examples $99 I think. Paul Burke
Reply by ●December 9, 20042004-12-09
dbernat32 wrote:> I need some input on what the best microcontroller > (relatively cheap) and OS to use for a project I > will be starting soon.See Rabbit Semiconductor as a starting point. They make 8-bit modules that have Ethernet and limited SSL support. These guys may have SSL in the works: http://www.lantronix.com/products/eds/xport/index.html http://www.digi.com/products/embeddeddeviceservers/digiconnectme.jsp Richard
Reply by ●December 9, 20042004-12-09
dbernat32 wrote:> I need some input on what the best microcontroller (relatively cheap) and OS > to use for a project I will be starting soon. > > The project requires a Ethernet connection, so an on-board MAC is desirable. > A real time clock and several timers will be required. > The MCU will need to interface with a RC5 encoder for IR control of devices > (and possible RF communication as well). > > On the software side, the device needs to run either HTTPd with SSL or a > custom daemon which includes encryption (probably blowfish). It will also[...] Maybe check out Axis ETRAX MCM4+16, or the 100LX. http://developer.axis.com/. I use these. Let me know if you want more info from my perspective.
Reply by ●December 11, 20042004-12-11
SNIP> On the software side, the device needs to run either HTTPd with SSL or a > custom daemon which includes encryption (probably blowfish). It will alsoSNIP If you want to run SSL you will need a 32 bit processor (maybe you get away with 16 bits with clever coding and fast enough clock). For an 8 bit processor AES is a better choice than Blowfish. Or use a crypto-coprocessor (which are rare and expensive) or a DSP Wim
Reply by ●December 11, 20042004-12-11
Wim Ton wrote:>If you want to run SSL you will need a 32 bit processor (maybe you get away >with 16 bits with clever coding and fast enough clock). For an 8 bit >processor AES is a better choice than Blowfish. Or use a crypto-coprocessor >(which are rare and expensive) or a DSPSee _Implementing SSL on 8-bit micros_ at http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=45400043
Reply by ●December 12, 20042004-12-12
"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message news:10rmi48g7qend4c@corp.supernews.com...> > Wim Ton wrote: > > >If you want to run SSL you will need a 32 bit processor (maybe you getaway> >with 16 bits with clever coding and fast enough clock). For an 8 bit > >processor AES is a better choice than Blowfish. Or use acrypto-coprocessor> >(which are rare and expensive) or a DSP > > See _Implementing SSL on 8-bit micros_ at > http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=45400043 > >Interesting article! Is RC4 freely available today or covered by patents? Some time ago it was a Mirocsoft prorietary algorithm. Wim
Reply by ●December 12, 20042004-12-12
Wim Ton wrote:> >"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote... >> >> See _Implementing SSL on 8-bit micros_ at >> http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=45400043 >> >Interesting article! Is RC4 freely available today or covered by patents? >Some time ago it was a Microsoft proprietary algorithm.Close, but incorrect. RC4 is and always has been owned by RSA Data Security, Inc. Jim Bidzos, President of RSA, decided long ago to not patent RC4 but to instead rely upon trade secret protection - which means that RSA has never revealed the RC4 algorithm to the public, a requirement for obtaining a patent. Revealing, publishing, or using a trade secret is not illegal. Trade secrets are protected by contracts instead of laws. If you have signed a contract with RSA, you are bound by that contract and could be sued if you violate it. If, on the other hand, you don't have a contract with RSA and are using a copy that has been reverse-engineered, you are free and clear to use it. An interesting aspect of this is that we don't *really* know whether what we call "RC4" is the same as the RC4 owned by RSA. We do know that the two can encrypt and decrypt each other's output, and that this has been tested on millions of files. For this reason, some people call the RC4 that we use "ARCFOUR" instead of "RC4." Bottom line: go ahead and use it. -- Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/
Reply by ●December 12, 20042004-12-12
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:17:18 +0000, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote: [.....]> An interesting aspect of this is that we don't *really* know > whether what we call "RC4" is the same as the RC4 owned by RSA. > We do know that the two can encrypt and decrypt each other's > output, and that this has been tested on millions of files. > For this reason, some people call the RC4 that we use > "ARCFOUR" instead of "RC4."AFAIK the algorithm is sometimes called "ARCFOUR" because "RC4" is registered trade mark. At least in the USA. I don't think also that RC4 is a trade secret. One of the free RC4 implementations contains following comment: * Implemented from the description in _Applied Cryptography_, 2nd ed. * * ** Distribution ** of this software is unlimited and unrestricted. * * ** Use ** of this software is almost certainly legal; however, refer * to <http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/faq.html>. I haven't seen this link for a long time but AFAIR Rivest had invented RC4 and after that he started to work for RSA. Regards, /J.D. -- Jan Dubiec We're all living in Amerika jdx#slackware.pl Coca Cola +48 506 790442 Sometimes war Amerika by Rammstein
