[2780] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: DRUDGE-REPORT-EXCLUSIVE 5/20/98 (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sinster@darkwater.com)
Thu May 28 16:31:50 1998
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 12:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: cryptography@c2.net
In-reply-to: <v03130301b19297cb63fa@[24.128.118.45]> (reinhold@world.std.com)
From: sinster@darkwater.com
Sprach "Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>:
> At 9:00 PM -0400 5/27/98, Dave Emery wrote:
> >... And having much of the software
> >uploaded aviods the problems caused by cosmic ray events that flip
> >bits in roms - one really wants to keep the rom part of the code very
> >small.
[...]
> I am surprised that there aren't any radiation reliable ROMs built using
> error correcting codes, but if one cannot rely on ROM to hold a loader big
> enough to check a public key signature, then I have to concede. Hardware
> encryption would be the only way to go. Thanks for the explanation.
There are many ROM structures that are totally immune to cosmic rays. The
most common is mask-programmed ROM, also called wire ROM. But none of the
after-fab programmable ROMs are immune to cosmic rays. Some are hardened,
but none immune.
--
Jon Paul Nollmann ne' Darren Senn sinster@darkwater.com
Unsolicited commercial email will be archived at $1/byte/day.
If you won't defend your opinions with your life -- you don't deserve them.
