Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I like the COTS idea, but I don't think this is the way to do it. I
suspect most pilots would find it easier to buy, borrow, or rent an
approved logger than to find an "approved OO"! So, be careful what you
wish for, in case you get it.

For pilots that don't operate out of large club, the approved logger is
a god send, because getting an experienced OO when you need one can be
impossible. The approved logger makes the OO's task much easier,
especially if it's used sealed to the glider.

I take your point, Eric, and it's a valid one to some extent - more so
in your country than most others I'd guess. The approved logger system
is well established though and could continue in parallel with an
"approved OO" system. I think an alternative system for badges up to
Silver/Gold would certainly be helpful at Club level. In most
countries, willing, experienced OOs are more common than expensive loggers.

Actually, as Tim's post showed, the opposition to any alternative is so
violent and resistance to different ideas is so entrenched within the
IGC establishment that I don't expect any change. I wouldn't waste too
much of my life thinking about it if I were you. I didn't. I flew my
"new" Ka6 on Saturday and had a wave flight in a DG-500 today. Great
weekend! I hope yours was as good.

Graeme Cant

At 10:18 01 June 2004, Marc Ramsey wrote: (snip)
How much security is enough?

It is perhaps here where there is the greatest problem.
It seems that most people view the 'security' measures
applied to barographs and loggers as a measure to prevent
cheating. They do not and never will. All security
does is buy time, it makes cheating more difficult
so the 'man on the Clapham Omnibus' (for those across
the pond, the ordinary man in the street) cannot easily
fake a trace. While reading this thread I am somewhat
at a loss as to why somene would want to load in a
flight to a GPS using a simulator, much easier to doctor
the ensuing computer file. Any security measure involving
a computer can be defeated, it's the time it takes
that makes the difference.
For that reason I always, if I am the OO download to
my own computer, never to anyone elses and I keep a
copy of the file forever.
A GPS sealed in a box is as secure, if not more so
than a smokey barograph. It is many more times secure
as a computer file produced by a 'secure' logger, the
security algorithums of which are historically interesting,
almost. The information contained in the GPS memory
is raw source data, that produced by the logger is
not. Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs,
if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more difficult
than decoding and faking a computer file.

I seem to recall someone earlier inthis thread saying
that geometric altitude was more accurate and easily
corrected than barometric, which as we all know is
wildly inaccurate dependent on temperature which the
barograph does not record.

Don Johnstone wrote:

A GPS sealed in a box is as secure, if not more so
than a smokey barograph. It is many more times secure
as a computer file produced by a 'secure' logger, the
security algorithums of which are historically interesting,
almost. The information contained in the GPS memory
is raw source data, that produced by the logger is
not. Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs,
if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more difficult
than decoding and faking a computer file.


Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
would pass the verification test.
--


Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
would pass the verification test.

I'm sure you ARE very special Eric and you're absolutely right that a
sealed barograph is MUCH, MUCH less secure than the over-specified,
self-destructing, weakly-encrypted, kilobuck loggers the IGC mandates.

It's irrelevant to the point discussed here (fairly) consistently for
the past fortnight, however, which is that:

(1) a properly OOed COTS GPS in a lunch box is no LESS secure than a
sealed barograph and...

(2) the level of security of a sealed barograph is perfectly adequate
for the vast majority of glider flights so...

(3) Why doesn't the IGC give its imprimatur to a set of procedures which
would be internationally accepted for the vast majority of glider
flights using COTS GPS loggers right up to World champs and World records?

Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as completely
adequate security for all purposes, why do we need heightened security
for GPS loggers used for those same purposes? Very few of us will ever
compete in a World Championship or set a World record. Until we do, a
COTS GPS sealed in an OOed lunchbox would be fine.

....and yes, I know YOU could unravel the seal - but then you ARE a very
special person.


Graeme Cant

Graeme Cant wrote:
Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as completely
adequate security for all purposes, why do we need heightened security
for GPS loggers used for those same purposes?

A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a
number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence (i.e.,
photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance legs. The
additional security required of approved flight recorders was a direct
response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera documentation
for world records (the result of a number of known cheating incidents).

Marc

Excellent! After hundreds of posts, a straight statement of policy (or
at least one well-connected individual's version of policy) - that a
data recording device, sealed by and OO, placed in the glider and
removed from the glider by an OO - whether that device is a camera, a
barograph or a simple GPS engine - is not good enough. That implies
the technical people working to support our sport seized on the new
digital world as the opportunity to solve a problem, to deal with an
unsatisfactory situation.

Perhaps we need to debate that proposition.

Bruce

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Graeme Cant wrote:

Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as
completely adequate security for all purposes, why do we need
heightened security for GPS loggers used for those same purposes?


A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a
number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence
(i.e., photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance
legs. The additional security required of approved flight recorders
was a direct response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera
documentation for world records (the result of a number of known
cheating incidents).

Marc

In article ,
says...
Eric Greenwell wrote:

Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
would pass the verification test.

I'm sure you ARE very special Eric and you're absolutely right that a
sealed barograph is MUCH, MUCH less secure than the over-specified,
self-destructing, weakly-encrypted, kilobuck loggers the IGC mandates.

Clearly, my post addressed the sealing only, and not the overall system.
I don't know why you are putting words in my mouth, since I am in favor
of the COTS idea, as I have stated before.


It's irrelevant to the point discussed here (fairly) consistently for
the past fortnight, however, which is that:

(1) a properly OOed COTS GPS in a lunch box is no LESS secure than a
sealed barograph and...

I think this could be true, using the proper GPS and procedures. The
challenge, I think, is to choose GPS(s) that pilots want to use AND
allow simple procedures, so the OO is not burdened excessively.

(2) the level of security of a sealed barograph is perfectly adequate
for the vast majority of glider flights so...

I'm assuming you mean "badge flights". Correct?


(3) Why doesn't the IGC give its imprimatur to a set of procedures which
would be internationally accepted for the vast majority of glider
flights using COTS GPS loggers right up to World champs and World records?

As another poster mentioned, World records require a secure recorder. I
don't know what is required in World comps, but I see no reason to not
to require secure recorders. The usual argument for COTS is to encourage
participation in badges by newer pilots, which certainly doesn't include
World comp capable pilots. I think sticking to the "early pilot" group
will make it easier to get COTS accepted, and attempting to extend to
World comps and records will make acceptance much less likely.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

I have never used a lead seal, I have used sticky paper
tape signed over the join. I would far rather use the
power of my computer over unlimited time than try and
unstick and restick in exactly the same place while
the baro is still in the glider. Remember the OO seals
the baro and witnesses it's placement in the glider
and it's removal. I am not saying it cannot be done,
what I am saying is that it cannot be done in the time
available. Security buys time, that is all it does.
Time, as far as a digital file is concerned, remember
that it is just a series of 0s and 1s, is unlimited.
As far as personally faking a file, I may not have
that skill, I know an 12 year old next door who does
though.

At 20:30 02 June 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

A GPS sealed in a box is as secure, if not more so
than a smokey barograph. It is many more times secure
as a computer file produced by a 'secure' logger,
the
security algorithums of which are historically interesting,
almost. The information contained in the GPS memory
is raw source data, that produced by the logger is
not. Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs,
if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more
difficult
than decoding and faking a computer file.


Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could
remove and
replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown
to the OO, but I
don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved
flight recorder that
would pass the verification test.
--


Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Don Johnstone wrote:
...
As far as personally faking a file, I may not have
that skill, I know an 12 year old next door who does
though.

If he is able to fake a digital signature, he is an
advanced researcher in cryptography ...

Robert Ehrlich writes:

Don Johnstone wrote:

As far as personally faking a file, I may not have that skill, I
know an 12 year old next door who does though.

If he is able to fake a digital signature, he is an advanced
researcher in cryptography ...

But you don't have to fake the file, just fake the signals into the
FAI logger and use a pressure chamber.

Some one should submit a `suitable' claim file, flown at 100K' with
all the security intact.

Logging raw satelite data and carrier phase would be a bit more
secure, it could be post proscessed when the prescision ephemeris data
is available a few days later. It would be REALLY hard to predict that!

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.