The handset manufacturers do have erasure facilities and have done so as far back as I can remember from my Type Approvals days in the 1980s/1990s. Test chips were infilled with meaningless data to the maximum memory size of the chip's capacity and then two tests were conducted - "deleted" and "erased". The deletion test was merely to see if re-recording of data would be a problem. The erasure test was to see if any enhancement or improvement would be gained. No chip off was necessary for these tests.
So product description vis-a-vis actual capability is important. I agree with you jaclaz we need more info from Blancco.
For some stats on smart phones have a read of this.
http//
If I get a device from a suspect, what is the probability that just prior to collection the device was sent to a third party for detailed erasure?
What is the probability that a software and hardware combination for in-house erasure is not detected and identified, and was performed?
Chip-off - With with the latest encrypted iOS devices, isn't at least part of the encryption key outside of the general storage (flash memory)? This makes the chip-off more complicated as it requires the other device to be probed. Sort of like TPM on PCs.
JTAG - I have run into several devices where I know the IC should have JTAG on it per documentation, but the actual JTAG on the chip is inaccessible.
Mobile vs/or smart phone - I care little. Smart phones are indeed are a subset of mobile telephones. Non-smart phones are embedded systems. At a very high level, they both have a centralized processing device, a storage, and a semi-permanent instruction set. To separate them too much it is like saying devices prior to multitasking OSes were not computers because they did not multitask.
If we take it even further back, (IMTS and radio telephone) when there was no "programming" and the device was truly dedicated to a single function, the separation is much clearer to me.
As for the monolithic device issue, thanks jaclaz, but Nikolko's solution is almost impossible for me to implement. First, I would probably tear the device to shreds with a sanding tool. After sanding, I still would need the tools to put nails at the right spots… very very small spots… mrgreen (Interestingly, if Nikolko is in Moscow, why is he using English labeled polish?)
As for the monolithic device issue, thanks jaclaz, but Nikolko's solution is almost impossible for me to implement. First, I would probably tear the device to shreds with a sanding tool. After sanding, I still would need the tools to put nails at the right spots… very very small spots… mrgreen (Interestingly, if Nikolko is in Moscow, why is he using English labeled polish?)
As a matter of fact I posted the info tagging it as "looking horrible". roll
But I believe it is doable, of course if you come from a page that says (between the lines)
- DO NOT use sanding tools
- use INSTEAD a high speed felt roller and (very fine) polish paste
[/listo]
saying
First, I would probably tear the device to shreds with a sanding tool. After sanding, …
my guess is that you won't be able to replicate that. 😯
Seriously, the guys at http//flash-extractor.com/ do know where their towel is when it comes to these USB thingies.
jaclaz
Fine rubbing. Polishing, whatever. I understand the difference. Not interested on arguing on particle size.
I have seen their work. I was deprecating my abilities at this time to perform the process. Once the PCB exposed, I could not make heads or tails of it.