| ??? 08/08/03 14:17 Read: times |
#52288 - RE: protecting the code in uc Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Protection is much overrated. Try, just once, to take your own code written in C and disassemble the .hex file. Even with your knowledge of the actual code, you will have 'a lot of fun' trying to make heads and tail of it. I can not imagine any case where a development based on a disassembly would be faster than starting from scratch. I once were charged with doing that legally (the only copy of the source burned) and ended up wasting a lot of time before throwing it away and just coding the thing - and this was even assembly code. I set the security bits for one purpose only: to appear concerned.
Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: protecting the code in uc | 01/01/70 00:00 |



