Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder

And may I add, I am not sure the elected leaders do not agree with me.
After all what happened in 1995 - 97, and how this topic was presented
in Prague, I am convinced that GFAC is living its own life and, although
putting in a massive work to keep gliding free from potential GPS
hackers, I am not sure it is good for the gliding movement.

Robert

Robert Danewid wrote:
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Robert Danewid wrote:

This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of
bad thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.

Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it
must be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean,
that's exactly how I feel about the present administration in
Washington D.C. 8^)

Marc

That is my opinion, not yours of course. Your argument is an argument
you use when you are running out of arguments.

Robert

No, Robert, it's an argument I use when there is no longer any point to
arguing. I think everyone understands that you don't like what's being
done. What, exactly do you suggest doing differently? In particular,
how would you approach the problem of documenting world record flights?

Marc

I strongly believe that there is no need to further increase security.

Please show me real life examples that people are cheating with our
current recorders. And even so, if you can, it only shows that they have
been detected and that the system worked. If there has been cheating,
why has it then been kept a secret? Why have these pilots not been
punished and their names published?

Perhaps the GFAC philosophy is to have a cheat safe system, and if
someone cheats and get caught it is covered up in order not to show that
the system after all was not cheat safe? No system is cheat safe. You
must find the right level. GFAC has found a sky high level.

Can you show me that the 1994 level of security was "right" at that time
and not overkill, as I think it was? Suppose it was right and will so be
for many years. Marc, I have been a critic of GFAC since 1994 and I
think that I had quite an influence in establishing the lowest approval
class. I have not changed my mind.

Show me evidence, not just lots of talk about computer tech.

What GFAC is doing is exactly the same thing as when our CAA says they
must increase controlled airspace in order to maintain flight safety.
GFAC says we must increase security in order to prevent cheating. In the
first case we (are supposed to) fight like hell to get CAA show us
arguments and facts, when it comes to GFAC we are supposed just to
accept it.

No point arguing more on this topic with you Marc, you are at the same
end of the gliding world as Ian, I am on the other side. Still, I am
sure you are great guy and I look forward to meet you some day.

Robert

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Robert Danewid wrote:

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Robert Danewid wrote:

This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of
bad thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.


Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it
must be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean,
that's exactly how I feel about the present administration in
Washington D.C. 8^)

Marc



That is my opinion, not yours of course. Your argument is an argument
you use when you are running out of arguments.

Robert


No, Robert, it's an argument I use when there is no longer any point to
arguing. I think everyone understands that you don't like what's being
done. What, exactly do you suggest doing differently? In particular,
how would you approach the problem of documenting world record flights?

Marc

Robert,

Robert Danewid wrote:
I strongly believe that there is no need to further increase security.

Are you suggesting that the security levels specified in 1994/95 were
adequate for our purposes, and any subsequent changes should be rescinded?

Please show me real life examples that people are cheating with our
current recorders. And even so, if you can, it only shows that they have
been detected and that the system worked. If there has been cheating,
why has it then been kept a secret? Why have these pilots not been
punished and their names published?

There is no evidence of actual cheating. The security systems of one of
the flight recorders approved under the 1995 specification was broken a
few years ago as an academic exercise. There is much evidence
suggesting that the security of other flight recorders approved under
the 1995 specifications could be even more easily broken.

Do you suggest waiting until there is a proven instance of cheating
before taking any action? Or, do you assume that any such cheating can
always be detected through other means (how?), therefore no changes are
necessary?

Perhaps the GFAC philosophy is to have a cheat safe system, and if
someone cheats and get caught it is covered up in order not to show that
the system after all was not cheat safe? No system is cheat safe. You
must find the right level. GFAC has found a sky high level.

As a member of GFAC, I can assure you that we all are aware that there
is no such thing as a cheat safe system.

Can you show me that the 1994 level of security was "right" at that time
and not overkill, as I think it was? Suppose it was right and will so be
for many years. Marc, I have been a critic of GFAC since 1994 and I
think that I had quite an influence in establishing the lowest approval
class. I have not changed my mind.

You'll have to tell me what you tink the "1994 level of security" was,
before I can express an opinion. I know you've been a critic, and I
know you were instrumental in the compromise that got the EW approved.
But, the fact that the EW was ultimately approved indicates that GFAC
and the IGC do not operate without some influence from the larger
soaring community.

Show me evidence, not just lots of talk about computer tech.

I am a computer geek. That's why I was appointed to GFAC. If you want
a political argument, try Ian or Bernald.

What GFAC is doing is exactly the same thing as when our CAA says they
must increase controlled airspace in order to maintain flight safety.
GFAC says we must increase security in order to prevent cheating. In the
first case we (are supposed to) fight like hell to get CAA show us
arguments and facts, when it comes to GFAC we are supposed just to
accept it.

No, you make your argument, and if enough people agree, the IGC and/or
GFAC will change direction as appropriate.

No point arguing more on this topic with you Marc, you are at the same
end of the gliding world as Ian, I am on the other side. Still, I am
sure you are great guy and I look forward to meet you some day.

I think I can safely say that Ian and I are rarely on the same side of
discussions within GFAC. I think I've stated enough of my opinions on
r.a.s. in the past for anyone paying attention to realize that I, too,
think we could make some changes that would result in simpler, cheaper
flight recorders. But, within GFAC, it is necessary to balance the
interests of the pilots and manufacturers, at the same operating under
the restrictions implied by being a subcommittee of the IGC.

Marc

Pat Russell wrote:

-there is a reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for
signs of tampering


This is a question of physical security. The person responsible
is the official observer. This has always been true.

Tampering can include alterations inside the box (physical, electrical,
or programing) that the observer can not detect just by examining the
box or the file it produces. The entity most likely to be able to
determine this is the company that produces it, though it's possible the
ability could be passed on to another entity.



-it can answer critics with questions about the security of algorithms


Electronic security is not perfect. It can be "strong" or
"weak" just like physical security. If the world believes that
the electronic security designed into the flight recorder is
strong enough to do the job, then there will be no critics. If
the world believes that new techniques have rendered the flight
recorder vulnerable, then it is GFAC's responsibility to issue a
disapproval. The manufacturer need not exist.

I agree the manufacturer would not be needed for this, once the unit is
approved. If further questions arise that only the manufacturer can
answer, and the manufacturer is no longer available, then the unit
should be downgraded.



-it can maintain the security keys


You may have to clarify this one. I don't think security
algorithms need maintenance.

As I understand it, the manufacturer maintains the keys for the
algorithms (the algorithm itself doesn't need maintenance). Different
keys can be used for different recorders. I don't know where these keys
go, or who ensures their secrecy, once the manufacturer is gone.

So yes, this is the question (verbose version):

In the absence of any security challenge, criticism, disapproval
notice, or special procedure required of the manufacturer, would
the manufacturer's retirement be reason enough to cause the
automatic downgrading of a flight recorder from usable for world
records to unusable for world records?

If, in this hypothetical situation, a recorder was downgraded only
because the manufacturer retired, I'd have to know the reasoning for
doing this before I could decide if it was a sufficient reason. I can't
think of one myself, but I am limited by my imagination!

Since the IGC flight recorder concept is basically about security, the
question seems to beg the question: of course, there is no reason to
disapprove a recorder if there is no concern for security.
--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I can't
think of one myself

I can't either, Eric. Thanks for the discussion!

-Pat

In my day job I do a bit of IT. We normally balance
risk of the outcome with reward when we talk of security.

Question - who in gliding is going to make a killing
from faking a GNSS log.

It really has to be 'just secure enough' to balance
the risk/reward question. I don't know anyone who is
going to become rich from declaring (and passing) a
new world record.

In reality, does the common gliding herd really mind
if someone fakes it. Who are GFAC/IGC protecting ?

If IGC suspect that someone has been cheating (remember
that they used to cheat with cameras) just refuse to
ratify the claim.

John

Thanks for that input!

Robert

John Ferguson wrote:
In my day job I do a bit of IT. We normally balance
risk of the outcome with reward when we talk of security.

Question - who in gliding is going to make a killing
from faking a GNSS log.

It really has to be 'just secure enough' to balance
the risk/reward question. I don't know anyone who is
going to become rich from declaring (and passing) a
new world record.

In reality, does the common gliding herd really mind
if someone fakes it. Who are GFAC/IGC protecting ?

If IGC suspect that someone has been cheating (remember
that they used to cheat with cameras) just refuse to
ratify the claim.

John

Marc Ramsey wrote:

I know you've been a critic, and I
know you were instrumental in the compromise that got the EW approved.
But, the fact that the EW was ultimately approved indicates that GFAC
and the IGC do not operate without some influence from the larger
soaring community.

I believe that IGC shall operate under complete influence of the larger
soaring community,
not only some influence. Marc, you are about to prove everything always
suspected about GFAC!

The compromise you are talking about was an official Swedish proposal to
the IGC meeting in 1997, which was deemed so severe that there had to be
a special pre-meeting in order to persuade me to think twice, which I
fortunately did not.


I am a computer geek. That's why I was appointed to GFAC. If you want
a political argument, try Ian or Bernald.

And I am a highly trained engineer in Structural Engineering. Although I
am an engineer, the worst thing I know is to let engineers solve all
problems. Because as an engineer, and I am one, you are trained to find
a "hardware" solution to all problems, even if it is a "software"
problem. And this often means a solution which is much to technical and
complicated. There is a German saying "Warum einfach machen wenn man es
so schön komplizieren kann". I think GFAC is using this as their motto.


But, within GFAC, it is necessary to balance the
interests of the pilots and manufacturers, at the same operating under
the restrictions implied by being a subcommittee of the IGC.


So GFAC is making rules/policies of their own? And what do GFAC think is
in the interest of pilots and manufacturers? Has that policy ever been
approved by the IGC? I thought GFAC was a committee whose work was
regulated by Terms-of Reference.

Now I rest my case.

Robert


Marc

Robert Danewid wrote:
So GFAC is making rules/policies of their own? And what do GFAC think is
in the interest of pilots and manufacturers? Has that policy ever been
approved by the IGC? I thought GFAC was a committee whose work was
regulated by Terms-of Reference.

Oh, get off it Robert. You know that GFAC is supposed to act as the
technical resource for developing specifications, testing procedures,
etc. Part of that is making sure we don't recommend changes that will
result in US$5000 flight recorders. Just as the primary reason for
recommending the "all badges and diplomas" approval level was to lower
the cost of flight recorders for the 99% of pilots who will never pursue
a world record. Nothing we recommend becomes policy, however, unless
the IGC approves it.

All I can say is, no discussion seems possible with anyone who still has
their head stuck in what happened nearly a decade ago. I have no doubt
that there are things that should be done differently, now, if we
started with a clean sheet of paper. But, as far as I can tell, no one
is willing to come up with a sensible proposal as to what we can change
now, given the current context.

If you are absolutely convinced the current system is corrupt and
unfixable, the solution seems to be to opt out of it, and start your
own. Meanwhile, there are other off-season topics which I find far more
fun to discuss...

Marc