IGC-approval levels for some types of Flight Recorders

As I know every unit has it's own unique key (at least should). So if
you manage to open a logger box without clearing the key, you can create
fake logs only for that unit.

/Janos

Don Johnstone wrote:
At 10:30 18 March 2005, Andrew Warbrick wrote:

So let's say Snake is rich enough to afford two Alices.
He can sacrifice one Alice to find out all about where
the switch is, he now knows how to defeat the switch,
by cutting the case if necessary and has a nice clean
case from Alice 1 with which to rebuild Alice 2 having
done the dirty deed.


and therein lies the problem with relying on this type
of security alone. The strength of RSA is that the
private (secret) key cannot be deduced from the public
key, well not easily. The weakness is that once you
have got the private (secret) key then all the units
that use that key are obsolete. Whoops. So if snake
gets the private key and publishes it on here then
all the units that use that key are insecure.

That's my understanding too. However, it does not mean
that a determined cheat couldn't, in theory, compromise
the security of their own logger and secure a world
record.

I think the point I was trying to make is that the
system isn't bulletproof, I don't consider my Colibri
to be much more secure than a Cambridge model 10, and
if I was a Cambridge logger owner I'd be cheesed off.


After all, these guys were the 'early adopters' who
got the whole secure logger system kickstarted and
paid more for the privilege. Without these 'early adopters'
we'd still be smoking barographs and losing claims
when the photo developers cut the negative.

At 13:00 18 March 2005, Jancsika wrote:

As I know every unit has it's own unique key (at least
should). So if
you manage to open a logger box without clearing the
key, you can create
fake logs only for that unit.

/Janos

I agree with you, I just added this short clarification.
Actually I would be happy even with the COTS solution...

/Janos

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
That's my understanding too. However, it does not mean
that a determined cheat couldn't, in theory, compromise
the security of their own logger and secure a world
record.

I think the point I was trying to make is that the
system isn't bulletproof, I don't consider my Colibri
to be much more secure than a Cambridge model 10, and
if I was a Cambridge logger owner I'd be cheesed off.


After all, these guys were the 'early adopters' who
got the whole secure logger system kickstarted and
paid more for the privilege. Without these 'early adopters'
we'd still be smoking barographs and losing claims
when the photo developers cut the negative.

At 13:00 18 March 2005, Jancsika wrote:

As I know every unit has it's own unique key (at least
should). So if
you manage to open a logger box without clearing the
key, you can create
fake logs only for that unit.

/Janos

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...
(snip)
Perhaps if you guys
would get off your duffs, get yourselves appointed as IGC delegates and
GFAC members, and change these silly rules, then I wouldn't have to
waste any more of my time coming up with bogus justifications...

Marc


It's like wrestling with a pig. Eventually you realize that the pig enjoys
it.
8^)
-Bob Korves

I think it is reasonnable that World Records are
subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than badge,
competition and ladder flights.

There was the case of the spurious British World
Altitude claim in ? the 60s / 70s.

There was a flight log that would have been a world
record (if claimed and validated), mentioned on this
forum, last year. I looked at the trace. It was
clearly not valid, but what had gone wrong was not
clear to me.

----------------

I would support a proposition that tracings for all
world record claims, and for all badge claims were
made accessible to all on the Internet. Logger files
are required for the BGA ladder and AeroKurier Online
Contest. It is not beyond the capabilities of the
authorities to make all world record and badge claim
flights available online. The issue of private
information is a non-issue, because the individual is
making a claim for their performance during a flight,
and a not unreasonnable requirement is for that claim
to be available to scrutiny.

If all such claims were available on the internet,
then I expect that the wider gliding community might
well be able to pick up on and alert the authorities
to a falsified logger.

There are obvious opportunites outside the logger to
falsify a claim eg if a standard class and open class
glider perform a task, and then the logger trace from
the open class glider is submitted as coming from the
standard class glider.

Rory

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Mottley" wrote:

IMHO, it's much harder to detect a digital file faked WR
with a current FR than it was to detect a faked baro and
camera flight that used pictures of real world TP's on the
alleged date of the flight and had an OO signature on the
foil baro trace.


That makes sense.

So, why not require a barograph PLUS a FR for a WR? Wouldn't different
technologies recording the same flight be harder to fake convincingly?
There's lots of perfectly good working barographs laying around.

I've got a like-new Reploggle if anybody wants to buy it.

Bill Daniels

Hear, hear!!
The issue, ultimately, is trust. With sufficient effort any system can be
broken. Use technology to make the documentation easier, and trusted
observers to validate the documentation

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
Rory O'Conor
wrote:

I think it is reasonnable that World Records are
subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than badge,
competition and ladder flights.

So do I. So here's how I'd do it - I'd rely more on the OO
for WR's and less on the "secure FR." I'd decrease cost
and "digital security" for badges. Badges up through the
2000K could be claimed by any COTS or cam/baro with an OO
there the day of the flight or with any FR (from EW to Model
10 to the latest and greatest) previously sealed by an OO.

If you want to improve security for WRs you need OO "eyes
on" and tighter control over the FR, not more digital bits
in the file recording the alleged flight..

Greg Arnold wrote:
Can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? What about taking
a flight that was made at some point in the past, and changing the
dates? Or changing a declaration post flight?

That won't give you a record.

It certainly could for a spped record in wave. The location of the
start/finish is critical to getting a good speed flight. If I could go
up and scope out the wave, then fly an air declared course, and later
fudge the log to indicate a ground declaration...

But of course, if I had a few friends up flying to tell me where to
make the start/finish points before I took off, then this particular
"cheat" wouldn't be needed.

Or I might declare a 500k O&R then at the turn point decide to stretch
the flight into a 750 or 1000k O&R due to incredible conditions.

In both these situations it's really a good pilot in good conditions
just trying to bend the rules. But I'm sure a good imagination could
stretch this some more.

What IS the rationale (other than the restriction of the old paper
declaration) for requiring the declaration to be made before takeoff.
Why not allow a declaration prior to the soaring performance at hand?

-Tom

X-no-archive: yes
In article , Rory O'Conor REMOVE_TO_REP
writes
I think it is reasonnable that World Records are
subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than badge,
competition and ladder flights.

There was the case of the spurious British World
Altitude claim in ? the 60s / 70s.

There was a flight log that would have been a world
record (if claimed and validated), mentioned on this
forum, last year. I looked at the trace. It was
clearly not valid, but what had gone wrong was not
clear to me.

I think Rory has hit the nail on the head. This only effect World
Records. It does not effect any other aspect of Gliding.

How many of the contributors to this thread have attempted a world
record?

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Perhaps if you guys
would get off your duffs, get yourselves appointed as IGC delegates
and
GFAC members, and change these silly rules, then I wouldn't have to
waste any more of my time coming up with bogus justifications...

Marc

Alternative suggestion. Rather than getting yourselves elected to the
IGC, focus on your local IGC Reps. Several of the arguments in this
thread have been tried before, and some of them obviously have some
merit. The problem with international bodies like the IGC is that there
is a lot of intertia to overcome (obviously Marc knows this better than
the rest of us duffers). The best place to start is with the
individuals who make up the body.

So, please start a campaign to your local IGC delegates. Names can be
found he

http://www.fai.org/directory/delegates.asp?id=6

I've found that a google on the name usually results in an email
address popping up (usually found on the Website of the national body
such as SSA, BGA, etc.)