From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:00:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Laws of physics
Message-ID: <199603312156.PAA18604@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
> Subject: Re: [NOISE] Cable-TV-Piracy-Punks
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 11:36:51 -0800 (PST)
> 
> We aren't talking about IC masks here.  We are talking about
> electrostatic charges which would instantly leak away if the
> insulation around them were in the least bit compromised.

Actualy the data in a PROM is not electrostic, it is quite dynamic and the
chip itself would undergo no permanent damage if removed from the original
case and examined in the right environment (namely a good vacuum).

> If you put something fragile inside a container which cannot be
> breached without exposing the fragile thing to a destructive
> environment, then the fragile thing is very unlikely to be
> retrieved intact.

Only if you are sloppy and/or don't understand the technology.

> The specific parameters here will of course
> vary with what technology is available, but I think live EEPROM
> cells deep inside a multi-layer VLSI device are probably safe
> from scrutiny for the lifetime of your average smart card.  Live
> registers too, for that matter.

Not. Not only woud SQUID technology be applicable but STM and MNR
technologies would also be applicable to this type of hardware analysis. The
chip is simply to big to prevent this type of analysis. Get it down to
atomic scale (nanotech) and SQUIDs are about your only resource.