Red V symbol (log file not valid) after OLC upload.

On Nov 24, 3:00*am, Max Kellermann wrote:
If they had a different private key, then VALI.exe would need to
include all public keys of all loggers sold. *And you would have to
update the VALI.exe each time the vendor generates new keys for new
loggers he will sell, and each time somebody wants to have his logger
repaired. *Then think about what happens when a pilot sends a logger
for repair, how will inserting a new key into the logger work? *How
will the existing VALI.exe on the OLC server get to know about this?

While that would be technically possibly, and it would be possible to
pregenerate thousands of keys in advance, I do not think any logger
vendor has done this.

Do you think they did?

The vendors of IGC approved flight recorders are required to do this,
as spelled out in the specification, which can be obtained here
(unfortunately, the FAI web site is a bit wonky, right now):

http://www.fai.org/igc-documents

All flight recorders currently approved for "all flights" or "all
badges and diplomas" have unique public/private key pairs for each
unit. I, as a member of the IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval
Committee, would like to see the algorithms standardized and the
public keys openly distributed, but life is always a bit more
complicated than it might seem...

Marc

Marc wrote:
All flight recorders currently approved for "all flights" or "all
badges and diplomas" have unique public/private key pairs for each
unit.

Thanks Marc, I must have missed that part of the spec when I last read
it. Interesting, I wonder how the public keys are distributed to the
VALI.exe files.

Whenever I see such "security by obscurity", I fear the worst.
Usually, this assumption is close to the truth.

I, as a member of the IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee,
would like to see the algorithms standardized and the public keys
openly distributed, but life is always a bit more complicated than
it might seem...

Too sad, that's a big chance that was missed. It's extremely
cumbersome or impossible to validate an IGC file on a machine other
than Windows-i386.

Max

On Nov 23, 10:02*am, Cliff Hilty
wrote:
Im still trying to figure out why any of the files have to be "secure" !
Security is an illusion. I thought the intent of the OLC was to promote
more people flying and friendly competition. Still scratching my head with
all of this regulatory crap. After all, we are all in it for the money and
the girls right? If they want to cheat that bad let them. Its been my
experience that the cheaters are found out and rightly ostersized out of
the sport anyway. Just my .2 cents worth. And while Im at it that goes the
same for badge and record flights. AFAIC KISS principal applies. What are
we testing after all, how good am I at flying or following recording
procedures. Jumping off the soap box now and flame sheilds on!

CH

I think OLC is losing their focus. They used to show one could use
almost any GPS to record a flight. I own 3 Cam Nav 20's. I use the
XC soar program to post with the blue "V" but found out the hard way
last year that this is not valid for the League. We lost a lot of
points due to this. I do have an SN10 so I guess I need to buy the
USB adapter to easily download from it. I have also just spent big
bucks on the PowerFlarm in order to be safer but also for the logger
which is now not certified yet. Any one know if the PowerFlarm log
will be useable by the time League starts for league scoring?

At 17:16 24 November 2011, LOV2AV8 wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:02=A0am, Cliff Hilty
wrote:
I have also just spent big
bucks on the PowerFlarm in order to be safer but also for the logger
which is now not certified yet. Any one know if the PowerFlarm log
will be useable by the time League starts for league scoring?


Unlikely unless and until they apply for approval..........

On Nov 23, 7:02*pm, Cliff Hilty
wrote:
Im still trying to figure out why any of the files have to be "secure" !
Security is an illusion. I thought the intent of the OLC was to promote
more people flying and friendly competition. Still scratching my head with
all of this regulatory crap. After all, we are all in it for the money and
the girls right? If they want to cheat that bad let them. Its been my
experience that the cheaters are found out and rightly ostersized out of
the sport anyway. Just my .2 cents worth. And while Im at it that goes the
same for badge and record flights. AFAIC KISS principal applies. What are
we testing after all, how good am I at flying or following recording
procedures. Jumping off the soap box now and flame sheilds on!

CH

Can't agree more. These requirements are nonsense. Logger security is
an illusion.. There are easier ways to fake a flight. You can just
take your secure logger in a power plane and claim a wave flight. Or
stay on tow for the whole flight and manipulate the start and end of
the flight in the claim form. I've seen many flights with land outs
and aero retrieve all included in the flight since the pilot did not
turn off the logger until after the aero retrieve. I believe it is
also possible to hook condor to a PDA and generate a valid IGC file.
Someone posted such a flight once as an experiment.
We need to put pressure on OLC to drop these requirements.

A PDA file may have the .IGC suffix, but it isn't a valid file for any
Badge, Record or OLC claim (no pressure data).

At 06:24 25 November 2011, Ramy wrote:
I believe it is
also possible to hook condor to a PDA and generate a valid IGC file.
Someone posted such a flight once as an experiment.
We need to put pressure on OLC to drop these requirements.

Peter Purdie wrote:
A PDA file may have the .IGC suffix, but it isn't a valid file for any
Badge, Record or OLC claim (no pressure data).

A PDA file is valid for OLC. OLC approved quite a few PDA
applications (including XCSoar and most/all commercial ones).

And it is trivial to fool any PDA software by sending fake NMEA data
into its serial port (Condor or fully synthesized). That NMEA stream
may include fake pressure data and even fake ENL data.

Max

So OLC will accept a totally insecure PDA file but reject a Cambridge 20
one because it CAI verification is done on the raw data file? They must
have some logic to it ;-)

At 08:10 25 November 2011, Max Kellermann wrote:
Peter Purdie wrote:
A PDA file may have the .IGC suffix, but it isn't a valid file for any
Badge, Record or OLC claim (no pressure data).

A PDA file is valid for OLC. OLC approved quite a few PDA
applications (including XCSoar and most/all commercial ones).

And it is trivial to fool any PDA software by sending fake NMEA data
into its serial port (Condor or fully synthesized). That NMEA stream
may include fake pressure data and even fake ENL data.

Max

Peter Purdie wrote:
So OLC will accept a totally insecure PDA file but reject a Cambridge 20
one because it CAI verification is done on the raw data file? They must
have some logic to it ;-)

Easy to fix: feed your Cambridge 20 IGC file to a PDA, and let the PDA
sign it with its software key .. ;-)

Max

On Nov 25, 3:04*am, Max Kellermann wrote:
Peter Purdie wrote:
So OLC will accept a totally insecure PDA file but reject a Cambridge 20
one because it CAI verification is done on the raw data file? *They must
have some logic to it ;-)

Easy to fix: feed your Cambridge 20 IGC file to a PDA, and let the PDA
sign it with its software key .. ;-)

Max

This will work for those who fly pure gliders, but motorgliders can
not use PDA as loggers since they do not produce ENL record. As such,
the alternative is to to change to the non notorized version in the
OLC claim to be able to use PDA generated IGC files. A solution that
quiet a few motorglider pilots use. Another proof that OLC requirement
for secure files is nonesense.

Ramy