IGC-approval levels for some types of Flight Recorders

If it's still more difficult to fake the flight than make the flight, those
devices are still secure enough, no?

"Nick Gilbert" wrote in message
...
Marc,

Not sure if the patronising reply was necessary. Also, it was presumptuous
of you to assume I know nothing about this topic, whether I do or not.

I am simply questioning the seriousness of the security flaw. If it has
been
proven that flight traces with the redundant devices can be falsified (one
can only assume they have, otherwise we wouldn't be going through this at
all), then why not ask the question?

Nick.

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...
Nick Gilbert wrote:
Have all world records that were set with these devices been
retrospectively cancelled??

If not, why not if the security flaw is enough to cause the revoking of
the approval?

There is this little thing called "technological progress". The
computer
I have at home, right now, is around 500 times faster and has 2000 times
the memory that my computer had in 1996, when the original specs were
written for approved flight recorders. If you know anything, at all,
about computer-based cryptography, you'll recognize that security
ultimately depends upon certain kinds of calculations taking 10s to 100s
of years to complete. A calculation that would take 100 years on a fast
workstation in 1996, may be completed in a few weeks on a typical 2005
home PC. Now, extrapolate forward to 2010.

We can argue up, down, and sideways whether there is any need for
digital
signatures and other security mechanisms in approved flight recorders.
I'm fairly agnostic about that, myself. But, given that the IGC has
decided it wants at least some security, it is necessary to disallow
older
devices with questionable security for world record purposes, before
technological advances render them completely insecure.

Marc