The AT24RF08 _is_ the RFID chip. It's really one of a kind. See datasheet link in README.thinkpad. Philip Edelbrock wrote: > > Related side note- Could I get some clarification (from anyone reading > who may know) on the vulnerable hardware? > > The trouble, if I remember/understand correctly, wasn't that our code > eats RFID chips, but it was the particular Atmel chip (AT24RF08?) which > had a broken state machine which interprets I2C commands incorrectly > under certain circumstances. Are newer Atmel chips safe? Are other > RFID chips safe? At one point, we thought that only a handful of older > Thinkpads used the defunct vulnerable Atmel chip, and that any others > using other chips were safe. > > Just curious where our current understanding is at these days on this > sensitive topic. > > Phil > > Jean Delvare wrote: > > >>I've asked about the RFID EEPROM, and I'll check around to see if any > >>of the Netvistas also have it. > >> > >>The document Jean was referring to is here: > >> > >>http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=psg1MIGR-45120 > >> > >>You can also find it by searching the IBM site for 'identify ibm > >>thinkpad'. > >> > >>It describes how to identify which model of ThinkPad you are on using > >>the BIOS Build ID, and has a table with it. > >> > >>Hope it helps some. > >> > >> > > > >Actually, it could be the thing we are looking for for three years now. > >As said before (if I remember correctly), the table described in this > >document is rather easy to locate and decode. So the only missing step > >is to be able to have a match between the first two caracters of the > >BIOS build ID (HR, HV, HX...) and the presence or absence of the RFID in > >the given model. Maybe it is a bit more complicated (if the presence > >depends on something else) but it is definitely the base we need to > >start with. > > > >Then we would also need the same for non-Thinkpad IBM systems (Netvista, > >that is). > > > >Again, thanks a lot for your good work so far. We have never been this > >near from the solution, methinks. > > > > > >
