Richard,
I think Mark Newton already explained how the
code and protocols are different things. He just
told you again. As a supposed IT professional you
know this so please stop with the bullshit.
Nobody is asking Flarm to share the internal code
that makes the device work. The first
implementation of Flarm did not encrypt the
transmission protocol. They in fact published it
themselves. Only when a credible competitor,
making an inter operable system appeared did they
encrypt the transmissions. They've now done it in
such a way that the key keeps changing to make
breaking the encryption near impossible. There is
no good reason to do this except for commercial
advantage. It in fact introduces complexity and risk.
As for varios and Flarms - apples and oranges.
Are you really that silly? Again the source code
for the firmware in our varios is irrelevant
anyway. Deciding what the thing should do and
how is the hard part. I see our audios have been
explicitly emulated in at least two other
products and several other features also.
When it comes to interacting with other devices
such as PNAs etc we publish the messaging
protocol which is why XCSoar reads it and also
sends MacCready, bugs and ballast to the
B600/B800. We even used the CAI 302 input
protocol to make things easier for developers.
As for hunting down the originator of that email,
ROTFLMAO, "please don't throw me in the briar
patch". Sure would be fun seeing the internal
communications between the Flarm guys regarding
the decision to encrypt, subpoenaed. Let alone
the unwanted attention the case may attract from
various competition law regulators in Europe and other places.
Flarm is a nice proof of concept demonstration
that got out of hand. It has significant
limitations but for the purpose it was designed
(avoiding head on collisions in the Alps) it was a great advance.
Mike
At 10:01 AM 3/7/2016, you wrote:
Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from you.
You of all people should be honest in
acknowledging the challenging business economics
that are apparent in serving what is a tiny community.
Flarm have done a great job over the many years
supplying a reliable, life saving product that
cost less than some of your Varios.
Like you Mike, they have every right to protect
their IP and make a living. I donât see you
rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.
Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.
Right now, Flarm licence their code and design
to 9 other parties. Those parties add their own
value into the supply chain. As such, its a competitive market.
On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Mike Borgelt
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
wrote:
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.âÂÂ
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
arenâÂÂt âÂÂrogueâ get to advertise
themselves as FLARM(sm), devices that
donâÂÂt, donâÂÂt. Comps can specify that
they wonâÂÂt accept FLARMs without the
servicemark. Then let the marketâÂÂs 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 youâÂÂll need to buy another
device from the same company that just shafted
the device youâÂÂve already bought.
- mark
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
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
