Revised IGC-approvals for some types of legacy recorder

I agree with Paul.

So, all the world records that have been set with a CAI mod 10/20/25 may
perhaps not be secure enough???? The reason for increasing the security
should, if you using rational arguments, be a result of attempts to
cheat. I wonder which records that can be....

Of course all this is pure nonsense. Is this the way IGC is using its
resources to increase world wide gliding membership?

Yes, the decision was taken at the IGC plenary meeting, but lots of
delegates did not understand what was really happening as the
presentation was, if I may you use the word, very clever. I did not
realize at the meeting that the result was to degrade existant recorders.



Robert



Paul Remde wrote:
Yes, but doesn't the CAI system work? It is my impression that it is
perfectly secure and has never been compromised. So why suddenly call it
"insecure".

What is the plan to get the approval back in place? What must CAI do to
make it meet your new requirements?

Paul Remde

"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"tango4" wrote:


After going to all of the time designing the hardware security along

came

the idea of public key cryptography so the IGC spec was 'upgraded' to
incorporate this additional security layer. The Cambridges and others

got

caught between the two specs.

Public key cryptography was well known in 1994 when the Cambridge 10's
were used at the NZ pre-worlds, and in fact I *told* them at the time
that they should be using something like RSA instead of something
home-grown.

Oh well.

-- Bruce