Sandisk Cruzer Blade 8GB - mismatch in chip marking

Typical Flash recovery cases

Moderators: Roman_TS, Dmitriy_TS, Filipp_TS

User avatar
edbrandt
Newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: 04.05.17
Reputation: 2 / (16)

Sandisk Cruzer Blade 8GB - mismatch in chip marking

Postby edbrandt » 09.11.18, 17:03

Hi there

I have physical broken Sandisk Cruzer Blade 8GB which I had to chip-off and read. But I notice that the marking on the chip differs from what PC-3000 Flash reports. Chip is marked SDTNNNAHSM-008G and chip is detected as SDTNNNAHEM-008G by PC3K. Anyone know which is correct? See picture..

I also have some trouble finding the correct solution for this chip.. No success in RAW recovery, and suggested XOR is 0 which looks wrong to me.. Any idea? Controller is marked Sandisk 82-00296-1

wrong-id.jpg
wrong-id.jpg (717.73 KiB) Viewed 144 times


Thanks a lot.

-Espen

User avatar
Amarbir[CDR-Labs]
Advanced user
Posts: 684
Joined: 03.08.09
Reputation: 7 / (67)

Re: Sandisk Cruzer Blade 8GB - mismatch in chip marking

Postby Amarbir[CDR-Labs] » 10.11.18, 20:51

Hi ,
Sometimes Two Chips Can Have Very LEss Paramter Difference And Hence They Work ,In Your Case Prepare The Case And Create a Ticket For TS ,Roman And Filipp Both Are Great Guys To Work On Flash :mrgreen:
Regards
Amarbir S Dhillon ,CDR Labs [ Chandigarh ,India ]
DataRecovery - The Affordable Way In India
Visit - > http://www.chandigarhdatarecovery.com My Facebook - > https://www.facebook.com/chandigarhdatarecovery

User avatar
Roman_TS
Site Admin
Posts: 364
Joined: 09.02.11
Reputation: 17 / (167)

Re: Sandisk Cruzer Blade 8GB - mismatch in chip marking

Postby Roman_TS » 12.11.18, 09:51

edbrandt

Hello.

We have a rule - newer trust to marking on NAND chip :) The only thing that we could trust at 100% - is a chip ID.
So if your marking is not 100% the same as in PC-3000 Flash - just ignore it.

Sometimes we get a 32GB NAND chips which are really have 64GB| capacity. But marking on this chips tell us that inside - only 32GB capacity, not 64GB. It happens because some manufacturers don't want to lose their money and kick-off partially working NAND chips into trash. Instead, they just cut a half of capacity and allows to use a healthy part of NAND chip. But when you are reading such fake 32gb chip, it will be detected as 64GB, where at least half of NAND will be filled by FF FF FF pattern (not used).
With best regards
ACELab technical support
ts.acelaboratory.com
blog.acelaboratory.com

User avatar
edbrandt
Newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: 04.05.17
Reputation: 2 / (16)

Re: Sandisk Cruzer Blade 8GB - mismatch in chip marking

Postby edbrandt » 12.11.18, 16:20

Roman_TS wrote:Source of the post
We have a rule - newer trust to marking on NAND chip The only thing that we could trust at 100% - is a chip ID.
So if your marking is not 100% the same as in PC-3000 Flash - just ignore it.

Sometimes we get a 32GB NAND chips which are really have 64GB| capacity. But marking on this chips tell us that inside - only 32GB capacity, not 64GB. It happens because some manufacturers don't want to lose their money and kick-off partially working NAND chips into trash. Instead, they just cut a half of capacity and allows to use a healthy part of NAND chip. But when you are reading such fake 32gb chip, it will be detected as 64GB, where at least half of NAND will be filled by FF FF FF pattern (not used).


Speaking about that.. I think I recall this was mentioned on the Flash training :D

Thanks

-Espen

User avatar
edbrandt
Newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: 04.05.17
Reputation: 2 / (16)

Re: Sandisk Cruzer Blade 8GB - mismatch in chip marking

Postby edbrandt » 14.11.18, 10:57

Case solved..

- NAND with very-very bad quality. Needed multiple rereads due to many of bit errors.

Thanks to TS and Roman, I managed to get back all files and even file structure. And customer is happy!

Thank you Roman!

-Espen


Return to “Data Recovery from NAND Flash memory chips”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest