Hi John, You are dead right. Obfuscation doesn't prevent you from using additional IP protection technique like encryption. In order to clarify everybodies knowledge about obfuscation vs. encryption, have a look at following article dealing about IP protection applied to C, Java and .NET. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-995962.html Why bother with encryption standardisation for VHDL-AMS (not for sure the core business of the language) where solutions exists to obfuscate the code and to encrypt such code. On top of it, if your code is obfuscated, there is absolutely nothing to change to the actual simulators. Simulators providers should maybe pay more attention to reach an 100% VHDL-AMS LRM compliance of their software product. Regards. Olivier Rolland Alain, Oliver, John and members of VHDL-AMS list... It is perhaps obvious but strangely not being stated here. The more secure approach is a combination of strong encryption and obfustication techniques. With many cypher algorithms, it is common academic knowledge (I am not breaking the US law by pointing out (pathetic situation)) the more one knows of the clear text, the easier it is to break a cipher. Obfustication schemes which replace identifiers help. Stronger obfustication techniques which re-map the language's keywords are even better (such as was done with the old PL language series). If you want to make VHDL more secure at the expense of slightly slower lexical scanning, add the capability to re-map keywords. Example of new concurrent statement where remap is a keyword: remap BEGIN COMMENCER; We are occupied with a large project using VHDL/VHDL-AMS and I have not had time to follow the earlier discussions, however it is unclear why there is an implied either / or. A more secure approach uses both. Best regards, John Dr. Olivier Rolland Systems'ViP c/o SEMIA 4, rue Boussingault F-67000 Strasbourg Tel: +33 671 128 130 Email: olivier.rolland@systemsvip.com Web: http://www.systemsvip.com Systems'ViP: Your innovation capitalization partner This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the person(s) or company named and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,please delete this message and notify the sender Alain Vachoux wrote: > Hi, > > John's email bounced as the email address used was not in the mailing > list (it is now). I'm posting it below. > > Regards, > Alain > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: IP security relies on both encryption and obfustication > Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:35:22 -0500 > From: John Willis <jwillis@ftlsystems.com> > To: Alain Vachoux <alain.vachoux@epfl.ch>, > olivier.rolland@systemsvip.com, jwillis@ftlsystems.com > CC: John Shields <John_Shields@mentor.com>, "1076.1 mailing list" > <vhdl-ams@server.vhdl.org>, Lance Thomson <lancet@us.ibm.com>, > vhdl-200x-ft@eda-stds.org > > Alain, Oliver, John and members of VHDL-AMS list... > > It is perhaps obvious but strangely not being stated here. > The more secure approach is a combination of strong encryption > and obfustication techniques. With many cypher algorithms, it > is common academic knowledge (I am not breaking the US law by > pointing out (pathetic situation)) the more one knows of the > clear text, the easier it is to break a cipher. Obfustication > schemes which replace identifiers help. Stronger obfustication > techniques which re-map the language's keywords are even better > (such as was done with the old PL language series). If you want > to make VHDL more secure at the expense of slightly slower > lexical scanning, add the capability to re-map keywords. > > Example of new concurrent statement where remap is a keyword: > remap BEGIN COMMENCER; > > We are occupied with a large project using VHDL/VHDL-AMS > and I have not had time to follow the earlier discussions, > however it is unclear why there is an implied either / or. > A more secure approach uses both. > > Best regards, John > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > John Willis jwillis@ftlsystems.com > FTL Systems Inc. FTL Systems UK Ltd. > 1620 Greenview Drive SW 2 Venture Road > Rochester, MN 55902 Chilworth Science Park SO167NP > +1.507.288.3154 (Land) +44.2380.767.700 (Land) > +1.507.358.0841 (Cell) +44.7951.572.068 (Mobile) > -------------------------------------------------------------- > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 23 2006 - 05:51:24 PDT