On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 09:20 AM, Dave Howe wrote:
No Such Agency doesn't fab much of anything; they can't afford to.
They
and their ilk are far more interested in things like FPGAs and
adapting
numerical algorithms to COTS SIMD hardware, such as graphics
processors
(a la http://www
At 06:00 PM 11/6/03 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>I guess I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't hypothesizing an attack
>against a fab. I was saying that
The focus on Thomspon-trojaned tools and Chipworks-style reverse
engineering is silly.
There are plenty of folks who need green cards,
or whose r
On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 09:56 PM, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
"Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 08:22 PM 11/6/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
I heard ten years ago that the National Semi fab on-site was a lowly
2-micron fab. Which was enough for keying material.
And rad-hard circuit
Tim May wrote:
> On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 09:20 AM, Dave Howe wrote:
>>> No Such Agency doesn't fab much of anything; they can't afford to.
>>> They and their ilk are far more interested in things like FPGAs and
>>> adapting numerical algorithms to COTS SIMD hardware, such as graphics
>>>
At 08:22 PM 11/6/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>I heard ten years ago that the National Semi fab on-site was a lowly
>2-micron fab. Which was enough for keying material.
And rad-hard circuits for their buddies at the NRO.
And 2 mics is fine for certain esoteric processes. Got GaAs?
That's done on 6"
> No Such Agency doesn't fab much of anything; they can't afford to. They
> and their ilk are far more interested in things like FPGAs and adapting
> numerical algorithms to COTS SIMD hardware, such as graphics processors
> (a la http://www.gpgpu.org/).
Why do they have their own fab plant if they
