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

I use a Cambridge 25. Also using the cai2igc4olcb zip exe files for
conversion.
The program appears to successfully convert stating Seal; intact, Date
integrity check PASS, Security check PASS
After upload to OLC, the notorious RED V symbol (log file not valid)
appears for the flight.

Using Windows XP 32 bit.
The DOS data-cam.exe does not exist in Carl Ekdahl's script.

Would appreciate any help for successful conversion and upload.

Regards,
Shane

On Nov 22, 8:57*am, Shane Neitzey wrote:
I use a Cambridge 25. Also using the cai2igc4olcb zip exe files for
conversion.
The program appears to successfully convert stating Seal; intact, Date
integrity check PASS, Security check PASS
After upload to OLC, the notorious RED V symbol (log file not valid)
appears for the flight.

Using Windows XP 32 bit.
The DOS data-cam.exe does not exist in Carl Ekdahl's script.

Would appreciate any help for successful conversion and upload.

Regards,
Shane

I'm sure some others used to the Cambridge file conversion dance will
chime in with ideas. Best of luck Shane.

Oh and I'm surprised there hasn't been any chatter on RAS about this
tidbit of news on the OLC front page from a few weeks ago...

----
The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
31st
The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
the end of 2011.
----

It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
participation next year.
We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding ...

On Nov 22, 7:14*am, Tony wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:57*am, Shane Neitzey wrote:

I use a Cambridge 25. Also using the cai2igc4olcb zip exe files for
conversion.
The program appears to successfully convert stating Seal; intact, Date
integrity check PASS, Security check PASS
After upload to OLC, the notorious RED V symbol (log file not valid)
appears for the flight.

Using Windows XP 32 bit.
The DOS data-cam.exe does not exist in Carl Ekdahl's script.

Would appreciate any help for successful conversion and upload.

Regards,
Shane

I'm sure some others used to the Cambridge file conversion dance will
chime in with ideas. *Best of luck Shane.

Oh and I'm surprised there hasn't been any chatter on RAS about this
tidbit of news on the OLC front page from a few weeks ago...

----
The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
31st
The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
the end of 2011.
----

It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
participation next year.
We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding ...

I think the reason there hasn’t been any chatter may be because nobody
saw the announcement. Thanks for bringing it to our attention,
Tony! Unfortunately, it probably will result in a small drop in OLC
participation. I say “small drop” because I know many pilots with
older Cambridge flight recorders have been struggling for some time to
get flights validated often with no success. However, I do
understand OLC’s position on this. They are a volunteer organization
and probably have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sort
out these problems. Furthermore there are now lots of flight
recorders (I heard 50 altogether) whose igc files are accepted by
OLC. Prices start at $140. Don’t forget other devices such as
PowerFLARM, Oudie, even certain iPhones can produce flight records
acceptable to OLC.
Michael Mitton

The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
31st
The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
the end of 2011.
----

It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
participation next year.
We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding ...

I think the reason there hasn’t been any chatter may be because nobody
saw the announcement. * Thanks for bringing it to our attention,
Tony! * Unfortunately, it probably will result in a small drop in OLC
participation. * I say “small drop” because I know many pilots with
older Cambridge flight recorders have been struggling for some time to
get flights validated often with no success. * However, I do
understand OLC’s position on this. * They are a volunteer organization
and probably have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sort
out these problems. * Furthermore there are now lots of flight
recorders (I heard 50 altogether) whose igc files are accepted by
OLC. * Prices start at $140. * * Don’t forget other devices such as
PowerFLARM, Oudie, even certain iPhones can produce flight records
acceptable to OLC.
Michael Mitton

How nice of them to decide not to support the logger that started it
all. Wonder if all this really means is their latest conversion
program was set up as a one year solution, and you will still be able
to upload (although sometimes it takes several tries) a converted file
that is properly named?

Feel like I have come up to the Blazing Saddles Toll booth. Anybody
got any dimes? I got me a whole ****-load of Cambridge Loggers, but I
ain't got no dimes!

Steve Leonard

On Nov 22, 8:53*pm, Steve Leonard wrote:
The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
31st
The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
the end of 2011.
----

It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
participation next year.
We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding ....

I think the reason there hasn’t been any chatter may be because nobody
saw the announcement. * Thanks for bringing it to our attention,
Tony! * Unfortunately, it probably will result in a small drop in OLC
participation. * I say “small drop” because I know many pilots with
older Cambridge flight recorders have been struggling for some time to
get flights validated often with no success. * However, I do
understand OLC’s position on this. * They are a volunteer organization
and probably have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sort
out these problems. * Furthermore there are now lots of flight
recorders (I heard 50 altogether) whose igc files are accepted by
OLC. * Prices start at $140. * * Don’t forget other devices such as
PowerFLARM, Oudie, even certain iPhones can produce flight records
acceptable to OLC.
Michael Mitton

How nice of them to decide not to support the logger that started it
all. *Wonder if all this really means is their latest conversion
program was set up as a one year solution, and you will still be able
to upload (although sometimes it takes several tries) a converted file
that is properly named?

Feel like I have come up to the Blazing Saddles Toll booth. *Anybody
got any dimes? *I got me a whole ****-load of Cambridge Loggers, but I
ain't got no dimes!

Steve Leonard

They never really did support the 10/20/25 per IGC guidelines. They
created a work-around (wrapping the cai file within an igc file) to
keep those loggers involved. It's not like they didn't spend some
effort to include them. That work-around is a messy solution and
doesn't really support the spirit of secure igc logs.

I hate that they're dropping support of these loggers. I know there
are plenty still out there in use. At the same time, I also understand
why they don't want to continue supporting this work-around.

I believe the only way those loggers will be supported on the OLC
going forward is if someone comes up with a way to correctly convert
cai to official igc files. That's probably not likely for two reasons.
One, the manufacturer has abandoned them a long time ago. Two, that
would open a loophole for fudging the security of the log.

Too bad for those who own these loggers. They're still very functional
instruments.

Maybe the solution to this problem is simply to change PDA software.

Both XCSoar and LK8000 (there may be others) create files that the OLC
accepts. For the past couple years I haven't bothered to download files
from my flight recorder. Instead I post the file generated and stored on my
PDA. The PDA generated file are have a blue "V" (OLC-valid) instead of a
green "V" (IGC-valid).

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"Westbender" wrote in message
...

On Nov 22, 8:53 pm, Steve Leonard wrote:
The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
31st
The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
the end of 2011.
----

It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
participation next year.
We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding
...

I think the reason there hasn’t been any chatter may be because nobody
saw the announcement. Thanks for bringing it to our attention,
Tony! Unfortunately, it probably will result in a small drop in OLC
participation. I say “small drop” because I know many pilots with
older Cambridge flight recorders have been struggling for some time to
get flights validated often with no success. However, I do
understand OLC’s position on this. They are a volunteer organization
and probably have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sort
out these problems. Furthermore there are now lots of flight
recorders (I heard 50 altogether) whose igc files are accepted by
OLC. Prices start at $140. Don’t forget other devices such as
PowerFLARM, Oudie, even certain iPhones can produce flight records
acceptable to OLC.
Michael Mitton

How nice of them to decide not to support the logger that started it
all. Wonder if all this really means is their latest conversion
program was set up as a one year solution, and you will still be able
to upload (although sometimes it takes several tries) a converted file
that is properly named?

Feel like I have come up to the Blazing Saddles Toll booth. Anybody
got any dimes? I got me a whole ****-load of Cambridge Loggers, but I
ain't got no dimes!

Steve Leonard

They never really did support the 10/20/25 per IGC guidelines. They
created a work-around (wrapping the cai file within an igc file) to
keep those loggers involved. It's not like they didn't spend some
effort to include them. That work-around is a messy solution and
doesn't really support the spirit of secure igc logs.

I hate that they're dropping support of these loggers. I know there
are plenty still out there in use. At the same time, I also understand
why they don't want to continue supporting this work-around.

I believe the only way those loggers will be supported on the OLC
going forward is if someone comes up with a way to correctly convert
cai to official igc files. That's probably not likely for two reasons.
One, the manufacturer has abandoned them a long time ago. Two, that
would open a loophole for fudging the security of the log.

Too bad for those who own these loggers. They're still very functional
instruments.

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

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.

Exactly my thought. Requiring so-called "secure" files limits the
access to such a site artificially, and is no more than promoting the
commercial logger industry.

After all, we are all in it for the money and the girls right? If
they want to cheat that bad let them.

When manufacturers don't publish their cryptographic algorithms, it's
a sure sign that they were not designed properly ("Snake Oil"),
because good cryptography is one that withstands mathematical
analysis.

No IGC logger has a published verification procedure. The vendors
publish closed-source EXE files for validation, as a black-box that
magically tells you if a signature is correct.

If you want to cheat, just buy two loggers. Both will have the same
"private key" needed for signing. Open one (carefully, so it will not
trigger key deletion), extract the private key, and use that private
key to sign fake flights for the serial number of the second logger.

(And that's not even exploiting potential mathematical flaws in the
signature algorithm!)

This kind of security is an illusion, and not worth the hundreds of
dollars we spend on it.

Max

No practical cryptography is immune from mathematical analysis, ask the
NSA. It's just that the analysis may take a few hundred years at the
present state of computing (but Moore's law applies).

What makes you think that all flight recorders of one type have the same
private key?

Security is deemed to be sufficiently good to make it easier to break a
World Record than to break the security; that's all that is needed.

What the OLC requires is a matter for them, but since they are siiting in a
room maybe continents away from the location of the flight, I guess they
thing IGC file verification is necessary.

Flight recorders make the OLC possible - don't knock it.

At 07:36 24 November 2011, Max Kellermann wrote:
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.

Exactly my thought. Requiring so-called "secure" files limits the
access to such a site artificially, and is no more than promoting the
commercial logger industry.

After all, we are all in it for the money and the girls right? If
they want to cheat that bad let them.

When manufacturers don't publish their cryptographic algorithms, it's
a sure sign that they were not designed properly ("Snake Oil"),
because good cryptography is one that withstands mathematical
analysis.

No IGC logger has a published verification procedure. The vendors
publish closed-source EXE files for validation, as a black-box that
magically tells you if a signature is correct.

If you want to cheat, just buy two loggers. Both will have the same
"private key" needed for signing. Open one (carefully, so it will not
trigger key deletion), extract the private key, and use that private
key to sign fake flights for the serial number of the second logger.

(And that's not even exploiting potential mathematical flaws in the
signature algorithm!)

This kind of security is an illusion, and not worth the hundreds of
dollars we spend on it.

Max

Peter Purdie wrote:
No practical cryptography is immune from mathematical analysis, ask the
NSA. It's just that the analysis may take a few hundred years at the
present state of computing (but Moore's law applies).

Are you sure you mean cryptanalysis? What you say sounds more like
brute-forcing, and this is not what I mean.

What makes you think that all flight recorders of one type have the same
private key?

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?

Max