Slashdot Mirror
New Lock Aims To End Chip Piracy
Stony Stevenson writes "Pirated microchips based on stolen blueprints could soon be a thing of the past thanks to computer engineers at Rice University and the University of Michigan. The engineers have devised a way to head off this costly infringement by giving each chip its own unique lock and key. The patent holder would hold the keys, and the chip would securely communicate with the patent holder to unlock itself. The chip could operate only after being unlocked. The Ending Piracy of Integrated Circuits (Epic) technique relies on established cryptography methods, and introduces subtle changes into the chip design process without affecting performance or power consumption. With Epic protection enabled, each integrated circuit would be manufactured with a few extra switches that behave like a combination lock."
If I read the original article correctly:
If someone gets the chip design and is copying it to be built in another fab, it'd be possible (difficult, but much less difficult than a complete chip redesign or re-engineering) to remove this part of the chip (and increase the profit margin, since A: no investment on research and B: more die per unit silicon.)
What this is going to affect is people who run a fab making legitimate parts, but also run the same parts from the same masks but keep them off the books and sell them independently of the company that owns the design -- OEM ripoffs.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
That's how it starts, but that's not how it would end. Think of how much the government or any power abusing company seeking more of that would be on this like FOS. Especially if it becomes commonly manufactured. Not that this is 100%, but I wouldn't see a situation like this technology being force trickled on consumers to be completely unlikely either.
We've had it before, I believe it was called trusted computing. Boy do people love how that has turned out, if I recall correctly.
I understand that a processor blueprint is not something that people want compromised. Throwing a technical attempt to solve the problem rather than dealing with human error is just putting the blame in the wrong places and throwing stuff at the wall hoping things will stick.
I know this is /. but I took the time to find the actual paper, they cover the typical attacks on the security mechanism quite thoroughly. Apparently its very difficult to scan a mask, especially at the small scales the industry deals in today - they suggest it would be cheaper to simply design the chip yourself.
(Off-topic: the anti-spam mechanism atm gives an interesting result for my email address..."'poo' in gap" oO)
I think the [MS Word] paperclip is a great idea. - Miguel de Icaza
You seem to be missing the fact that the patent owner (who this is designed to protect) is a completely separate entity from the manufacturer. The manufacturer is nothing more than a subcontractor. The manufacturer obviously requires the blueprints to produce the chip. It is the manufacturer who is selling the patent owner's chips on the black market. Nothing is being "leaked". You can bet your life that the "signed agreements" you mention are without exception already in place. They're just being flouted.
Others who responded to my post have argued that you therefore shouldn't hire Chinese or other cheap chip production plants, because they are well known for failing to respect intellectual property and you have no possible recourse against them.
The thing is, businesses are always going to opt for the cheapest option. If this technological measure is cheaper than opting for a more expensive, "trustworthy" producer, then I don't think you have a case against it. This doesn't harm consumers in any way shape or form, simply because it doesn't involve them. The restrictions will have already been removed long before it reaches their hands.