Naviter Oudie 3

On Friday, August 16, 2013 1:39:23 PM UTC+2, Paul Remde wrote:
They don't trust PDA/PNA devices because they
think someone could write software to intercept and change the GPS data
before it is recorded. I don't agree with them on this, but that is I
understand their position.

You don't agree that somebody could write a software to fake GPS positions? Seriously?

It's a technical fact that this can be done, and it's fairly easy. I do it all the time while I develop XCSoar, to test the software I write.

Your personal opinion on this is provably wrong. Stuff like that cannot be decided by consensus or personal opinion - if it's technically doable, no opinion can ever make it impossible.

(With some more effort, all loggers, even sealed ones, can be spoofed, without ever touching the logger - this has been demonstrated last week by the University of Texas. Never say never.)

Yo Max,

Chill dude. Paul was simply restating the long-held position espoused by the IGC's GFAC.

A committed enough cheater could defeat any of the current security features of IGC FRs; though many of them would require some significant level of complicity by an OO.

What everyone who pushed for GPS Position Recorders was looking for was/is a level of security that makes it impossible for a "casual" modification of a log file by a pilot who needs to eliminate one or two pesky fixes that "accidentally" put him/her into prohibited airspace or to slide a couple of fixes a half kilometer in one direction or the other to take care of a missed OZ. As long as the hardware/software combination is reasonably protected from this sort of casual hacking, NACs may (or may not) choose to promote devices as GPS Position Recorders.

Erik Mann

On Friday, August 16, 2013 9:25:23 AM UTC-4, Max Kellermann wrote:
On Friday, August 16, 2013 1:39:23 PM UTC+2, Paul Remde wrote:

They don't trust PDA/PNA devices because they

think someone could write software to intercept and change the GPS data

before it is recorded. I don't agree with them on this, but that is I

understand their position.



You don't agree that somebody could write a software to fake GPS positions? Seriously?



It's a technical fact that this can be done, and it's fairly easy. I do it all the time while I develop XCSoar, to test the software I write.



Your personal opinion on this is provably wrong. Stuff like that cannot be decided by consensus or personal opinion - if it's technically doable, no opinion can ever make it impossible.



(With some more effort, all loggers, even sealed ones, can be spoofed, without ever touching the logger - this has been demonstrated last week by the University of Texas. Never say never.)

On Friday, August 16, 2013 4:12:11 PM UTC+2, Papa3 wrote:
Paul was simply restating the long-held position espoused by the IGC's GFAC.

That was not the part I replied to.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 07:31:49 -0700, Max Kellermann wrote:

On Friday, August 16, 2013 4:12:11 PM UTC+2, Papa3 wrote:
Paul was simply restating the long-held position espoused by the IGC's
GFAC.

That was not the part I replied to.

You're absolutely correct here.

Remember the faked 500km flight by an ASK-13 (in 2011?) that caused all EW
loggers apart from the MicroRecorder to be immediately removed from the
IGC valid loggers list? AFAIK its never been established whether that was
done by writing a program that fed spoofed NMEA sentences to an actual EW
logger or whether it generated a fabricated IGC file that pretended to
have been made by an EW logger with an external GPS.

Either way it was an apparently valid, but faked, IGC log file that was
only rumbled because a successful 500km flight in an ASK-13 is, ahem,
unlikely.

I imagine that quite a few of us would like to know their identity so we
could bill them for the cost of replacing the loggers they made non-
compliant. Mine was an EW Model D.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Hi Max,

I guess I just disagree with the IGC on how secure loggers need to be. They
make the decisions. I respect them and everything they do. But I
respectfully disagree on whether products like the Oudie should be approved
for badges and records.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
__________________

"Max Kellermann" wrote in message
...

On Friday, August 16, 2013 1:39:23 PM UTC+2, Paul Remde wrote:
They don't trust PDA/PNA devices because they
think someone could write software to intercept and change the GPS data
before it is recorded. I don't agree with them on this, but that is I
understand their position.

You don't agree that somebody could write a software to fake GPS positions?
Seriously?

It's a technical fact that this can be done, and it's fairly easy. I do it
all the time while I develop XCSoar, to test the software I write.

Your personal opinion on this is provably wrong. Stuff like that cannot be
decided by consensus or personal opinion - if it's technically doable, no
opinion can ever make it impossible.

(With some more effort, all loggers, even sealed ones, can be spoofed,
without ever touching the logger - this has been demonstrated last week by
the University of Texas. Never say never.)