Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

"Max Kellermann" wrote in message
...
Paul Remde wrote:
It would not be possible for anyone other than LXNAV to make changes
to those products.

Paul, that is wrong, did you read my reply to your first post here?

___________________

Hi Max, Please clarify. How could it be possible to mess with the LXNAV
LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 firmware?

In your first reply I assumed that you were saying LX8000 when you meant
LK8000.

Paul Remde

Paul Remde wrote:
Hi Max, Please clarify. How could it be possible to mess with the LXNAV
LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 firmware?

The LXNav products are just Linux PCs, and it is easy to install a
customized firmware.

The LXNav firmware update comes with a shell script that gets executed
on the LX8000 (autorun.sh), and that would be the easiest hook of all
to get custom code in.

Once you have your custom AH code in, you can easily run it as a Linux
daemon, overlaying its data on the Linux frame buffer (/dev/fb0).

To detect such a hack, you would need to inspect all of the LX8000's
memory, it would be as hard as detecting a computer virus or a
rootkit. In other words: practically impossible for a competition to
do.

(The same is true for any other flight computer, the LX8000 is just an
example, because my club has one and I know well how the firmware
works)

In your first reply I assumed that you were saying LX8000 when you meant
LK8000.

No. The LK8000 name was explicitly choosen to get mixed up with
LX8000, to benefit from its good name, but no I really meant LXNav
LX8000.

Max

I shouldn't really but want to see if any out there have seen this?

http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS_mini.htm

Looks a cool piece of kit. Pity I'm not into cloud flying otherwise this could be quite compelling.

Colin

p.s. I don't live in the US or contest fly

This should be mandatory in the US! Of course we won't fly into clouds
because we're all honest. The Rules Committee should OK this immediately
for the safety of all! Tax payers should gladly purchase these for all
glider pilots!

Uhhhh... Nevermind...



"Ventus_a" wrote in message
...

I shouldn't really but want to see if any out there have seen this?

http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS_mini.htm

Looks a cool piece of kit. Pity I'm not into cloud flying otherwise
this could be quite compelling.

Colin

-p.s.- I don't live in the US or contest fly




--
Ventus_a

Actually, that looks like a cool toy for an experimental aircraft. Too bad
there's no room in my LAK and I'd rather be looking outside anyway.


"Dan Marotta" wrote in message
...
This should be mandatory in the US! Of course we won't fly into clouds
because we're all honest. The Rules Committee should OK this immediately
for the safety of all! Tax payers should gladly purchase these for all
glider pilots!

Uhhhh... Nevermind...



"Ventus_a" wrote in message
...

I shouldn't really but want to see if any out there have seen this?

http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS_mini.htm

Looks a cool piece of kit. Pity I'm not into cloud flying otherwise
this could be quite compelling.

Colin

-p.s.- I don't live in the US or contest fly




--
Ventus_a

At 06:42 09 April 2012, Max Kellermann wrote:
Paul Remde wrote:
Hi Max, Please clarify. How could it be possible to mess with the
LXNAV

LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 firmware?

The LXNav products are just Linux PCs, and it is easy to install a
customized firmware.

The LXNav firmware update comes with a shell script that gets executed
on the LX8000 (autorun.sh), and that would be the easiest hook of all
to get custom code in.

Once you have your custom AH code in, you can easily run it as a Linux
daemon, overlaying its data on the Linux frame buffer (/dev/fb0).

To detect such a hack, you would need to inspect all of the LX8000's
memory, it would be as hard as detecting a computer virus or a
rootkit. In other words: practically impossible for a competition to
do.

(The same is true for any other flight computer, the LX8000 is just an
example, because my club has one and I know well how the firmware
works)

Seriously this identifies the problem with this sort of rule: it is
impossible to enforce. A rule that cannot be enforced, like a law that is
not enforced is seldom complied with even by "honest" people. Pandora is
out of the box, technology has overtaken the ability to detect the fitting
or use of such an instrument. The FAI is as out of touch with reality on
this as they are with flight recorders, hacking the code for IGC files is
now so simple that it is no longer secure and it matters not how long the
key is. (The private key is in every flight recorder produced so all you
have to so is break into the software to get it, who wants to try and
compute it from the public key?)
When making rules one of the primary considerations should be "can it be
enforced"? Far to often the answer is no but ignorant people still make the
rule.

On Apr 13, 5:50*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
(The private key is in every flight recorder produced so all you
have to so is break into the software to get it, who wants to try and
compute it from the public key?)

The correct wording here would be that "A private key is in every
flight recorder produced so all you have to do is break into the
hardware to get it". Thank you for warning us, every badge or record
flight made by you or your mates in the future will require that the
flight recorder be sent to the IGC for inspection 8^)

Marc

At 01:19 14 April 2012, Marc wrote:
On Apr 13, 5:50=A0pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
(The private key is in every flight recorder produced so all you
have to so is break into the software to get it, who wants to try and
compute it from the public key?)

The correct wording here would be that "A private key is in every
flight recorder produced so all you have to do is break into the
hardware to get it". Thank you for warning us, every badge or record
flight made by you or your mates in the future will require that the
flight recorder be sent to the IGC for inspection 8^)

Marc

That is not going to work. The same private code is used in many flight
recorders, so all you have to do is break into one and break into the
software. You then have the private key for all similar flight recorders.
Mine as you put it is still intact. It is pointless relying on a private
key of any length if you are going to put it out into the world in an
easily available box, that is not security, that is total ignorance and I
suspect the penny has already dropped with the IGC as well, took em long
enough.
Getting back to the subject of the AH here are so many solid state rate
gyros on the market, which will interface to a pocket PC or whatever that
is is a complete nonsence to ban soaring software that has ability to
display an AH. Using a small stand alone unit, smuggled into the glider in
your Glock holster would make far more sense if someone is determined to
fly in cloud. Having the instrument does not force you to fly in cloud
anyway. Banning useful software in this way is an ignorant and ineffective
thing to do, especially when the software is "Open Source" and you can
change it how you will with no-one else being the wiser.
I have managed to get two of my gyros I use on models to inteface with my
iPaq and provide a working artificial horizon so it is not at all
difficult. Anyone who would like plans forward your name on a £50 note
to............

Don, do you race? Do you understand why there is a rule prohibiting hardware or software that allows cloud flying?

We all understand that if you want to, it is now easy to cheat. But the point is that because of the rule, it is CHEATING, and if you are caught you get booted from the race.

When not racing, by all means have an AH - it can be a life saver. But when you race you agree to play by the rules.

As far as carrying my Sig or Glock in my glider cockpit - You appear to be a Brit. So the most dangerous thing you would encounter following a landout is probably a band of rowdy football (soccer to us colonials) fans.

In my backyard, I have rattlesnakes, scorpions, coyotes, etc. And in some of the places I fly over, there are human coyotes that are a lot more dangerous. So if I choose to arm myself, because I can (unlike you poor bloody poms), then it's because I have evaluated the risk and feel it is worth doing.

Also, a Sig is good for shooting out the AH from your cheating competitor's instrument panel....

Cheers!

Kirk
66
"Gun control is hitting what you aim at - the first time..."

At 23:48 16 April 2012, kirk.stant wrote:
Don, do you race? Do you understand why there is a rule prohibiting
hardwa=
re or software that allows cloud flying?

We all understand that if you want to, it is now easy to cheat. But the
po=
int is that because of the rule, it is CHEATING, and if you are caught
you
=
get booted from the race.

When not racing, by all means have an AH - it can be a life saver. But
whe=
n you race you agree to play by the rules.

As far as carrying my Sig or Glock in my glider cockpit - You appear to
be
=
a Brit. So the most dangerous thing you would encounter following a
lando=
ut is probably a band of rowdy football (soccer to us colonials) fans.

In my backyard, I have rattlesnakes, scorpions, coyotes, etc. And in
some
=
of the places I fly over, there are human coyotes that are a lot more
dange=
rous. So if I choose to arm myself, because I can (unlike you poor
bloody
=
poms), then it's because I have evaluated the risk and feel it is worth
doi=
ng.

Also, a Sig is good for shooting out the AH from your cheating
competitor's=
instrument panel....

Cheers!

Kirk
66
"Gun control is hitting what you aim at - the first time..."

I think you are confusing having an AH with being allowed to cloud fly.
Cloud flying in competition is permmitted in the UK as is the fitting of an
AH. If the EASA rules are strictly complied with the removal of an AH is
not a simple task. A lot of gliders in the UK are fitted with AH for very
good reason, mine was although I took care to never deliberately set out to
fly in cloud. An even larger number, possibly a majority have a turn and
slip fitted. My point is simple, having a rule that says you cannot fly in
cloud is fine and enforceable. A ban on having an AH is not enforceable,
quite apart from the lash up that I built, my iPhone has an app that
provides that instrument so enforcing that ban is not possible without
draconian, and possibly unlawful measures, like searching every pilot
before they get into the cockpit. A rule that cannot be enforced is better
never made. Having an AH is not cheating, flying in cloud is (in some parts
of the world). By all means enforce no cloud flying, but crippling
technology is not the way to go about enforcing it. If someone wants to
cheat they will find a way of fitting an AH that you cannot see. Someone
who has no intention of cheating will not do so whatever instrument they
happen to have fitted.

I do not campaign against you right to bear arms so why should you campaign
to have software crippled that would improve safety where clouds are more
of a problem.