At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:
On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
<http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/>http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
Smells like bullshit.
<http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf>http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
"Encryption of the radio protocol is a
consequence of the requirements for privacy and
security and was thus introduced nearly a decade
ago: It protects the system from abuse but also
from rogue devices implementing the protocol and
system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter
may have serious consequences for users of
proper devices since incorrect data may lead to
undefined behavior on the receiver end. The
encryption applied is an industrial-strength
symmetric cipher, fast enough to be run on all
devices with no performance degradation. Since
decryption or interception of encrypted
communication is illegal in most countries, this
also ensures the integrity of the system beyond
the technical barriers. Furthermore, the
encryption can be enhanced with software updates if security is compromised.â
This is a half-baked technical-sounding
justification for a restraint of trade.
So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB
is illegal as it breaks privacy and security?
There's no encryption and every aircraft is
identified by a unique code. Note that no
individual is identified, just the aircraft, same
as Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB goes to the horizon.
Let alone the engineering stupidity of
implementing an unnecessary encryption scheme
which adds complexity and failure modes.
Where is Flarm company's evidence that other
devices ever caused a problem? Apart from cutting in to their sales.
I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible
device having been commercially produced and that
was made by DSX. They claimed to have had 40% of
the Italian and Spanish markets before Flarm
started their encryption games and managed to
break the initial Flarm encryption scheme in 3 weeks.
Figure out the rest for yourselves.
Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this:
Let's find the messenger and shoot him.
Mike
Publish the standard, and have independent
auditors judge compliance with the standard to
award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for
compatible implementations. Devices that
arenât ârogueâ get to advertise themselves
as FLARM(sm), devices that donât, donât.
Comps can specify that they wonât accept
FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the
marketâs desire for interoperability clean up the raggedy ends.
Using encryption to lock competitors out of the
protocol altogether is going to be incredibly
funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to
stop providing software support to the
20,000-odd obsolete devices bought between 2004
and 2010. If you want to keep FLARM youâll
need to buy another device from the same company
that just shafted the device youâve already bought.
- mark
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
