IP: Exploding chips: Would you like to be fried with that?: [risks] Risks Digest 21.87

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:58:01 -0800
> From: Rob Slade <rslade () sprint ca>
> Subject: Exploding chips: Would you like to be fried with that?
>
>  From NewsScan Daily, 17 January 2002:
>
> > EXPLODING CHIPS COULD FOIL THIEVES
> > Researchers at the University of California in San Diego have developed a
> > way to blow up silicon chips using an electric signal --
>
> Now, at this point I was willing to dismiss this as the stuff of fiction.
> You all know how computers in books and movies always "blow up real good"
> when the bad guy plants a virus or something in them.  However:
>
> > an innovation that could be used to fry electronic circuitry in devices
> > after they're stolen or fall into the wrong hands. The American spy plane
> > that was impounded in China last year is an example where such technology
> > would have proven handy in destroying its secret electronics systems.
>
> OK, this make a bit more sense.  Obviously these are chips that are
> specifically designed to blow up once they receive a certain signal.
>
> At this point, though, you start to think about what kind of signal that
> could be.  And, could it be counterfeited?
>
> > Similarly, if a cell phone were stolen, the owner could alert the wireless
> > carrier, which would send a signal to trigger a small explosion in the
> > phone's chip, rendering it useless. The techniques uses a small amount of
> > the oxidizing chemical gadolinium nitrate applied to a porous silicon
> > wafer. (New Scientist 16 Jan 2002)
> >   http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991795
>
> OK, I am definitely certain that, if I need to get a new cell phone from now
> on, I am *definitely* not going to carry it in my pants pocket.  The RISKS,
> as have been frequently noted here, are obvious.
>
> (If we could get them to use those chips in pacemakers, wouldn't that just
> make a killer application, Peter?)
>
> rslade () vcn bc ca  rslade () sprint ca  slade () victoria tc ca p1 () canada com
> http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev    or    http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade
>
>   [I normally delete all trailer quote.  But this one from another message
>   from Rob is rather fascinating:
>     A modern US Navy cruiser now requires 26 tons of manuals.
>     This is enough to affect the vessel's performance.
>       -- `New Scientist' article on the paperless office
>   PGN]

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/