• State Not Answered
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 62 subscribers
  • Views 2631 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 125820
Options
This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts

Cryptocell for pca10040

YASH

Hi All,

I am new here, i wanted to know if i can perform encryption algorithm using pca10040. Do we have cryptocell on nrf52832-dk?

Thanks in advance.

Regards, khan

  • 0

    PCA10040 is name of the board (nRF52 DK) while CryptoCell must be integrated into some ARM Cortex chip. So the questions stays "Is nRF52840 (which is the only Nordic product supporting ARM CC) on PCA10040 dev kit?" and the answer is NO, for that you need PCA10056 aka "nRF52840 PDK" (aka Preview Dev Kit because nRF52840 wasn't released yet so the only thing you can get is engineering sample therefore only preview DK and only preliminary objective product specification).

    Btw. you can indeed perform certain "encryption algorithms" without accelerated HW security or only with limited acceleration, but indeed there will be performance hit.

  • 0 in reply to endnode

    Hello endnode,

    Thanks for this. How can i perform encryption? can you please assist me?

  • 0 in reply to endnode

    That's kind of broad question. My advise is: if you don't really know what exactly you want to protect (and against what attacks) and which verified crypto scheme to use then better don't do it at all.

  • 0 in reply to endnode

    I want to protect texts transmitted by mobile app over BLE to my BLE peripheral so that no one else read it. Can you suggest which algorithm i should use and how?

  • 0 in reply to endnode

    Any reason why are you brewing your home crypto protocol instead of using BLE native Security Manager feature with pairing/bonding and link confidentiality (encryption) and integrity (signature) through AES-128? Is it the bonding vulnerability which worries you or is it because your devices don't support this standard feature or is it because you need to manage large pool of unbonded devices? Otherwise just implement BLE security with MITM protection as designed in BT 4.2 and you are done. And if you are using some standard bricks like Nordic BLE stack (Soft Device) and SDK then you have 95% of things already implemented there...

    Have you read any blog post about native BLE security and how to define and implement custom crypto on APP layer if you really need to?

Related

core_v2_widget.Hide()