??? 04/03/04 00:00 Read: times |
#67832 - RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Anyone with enough knowledge to decode encryption will probably be capable of just rewriting the code. I am assuming that your code is not extremely complex
It is a known fact that creating code from a disassembly is tougher than writing it from scratch if the code is more than a few k. In my opinion, the only reason to really worry about protecting a hex file is when the risk is someone copying the hardware and uses the software 'as is'. Erik |
Topic | Author | Date |
Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Simpler method is better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Simpler method is better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Simpler method is better![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Code security and reflashing P89C51RB2 | 01/01/70 00:00 |