Yes, you are right. The drone anticollision
problem will likely solve the issue once and for
all. Don't hold your breath though. It has only
been 20 years and ADSB still hasn't had universal rollout.
Presumably it will be an open standard arrived at
by international agreement(or disagreement or the
Americans will come up with a standard and that
will be the de facto international standard). The
fight will be interesting. Bring popcorn.
The "fuss" is about possible flaws in a widely
used safety aid as a result of a decision to
encrypt for other than good engineering reasons.
As I said, if the originators of that letter are
who I think, I wouldn't bet against them having solid evidence.
As for the rest, Mark Newton told you twice and
I've told you that the cases you are sleazily
attempting to conflate are totally unlike. I
don't get a licence fee from other vario
manufacturers and I don't pay one. The unit is
just as useful to the owner if it is one or if there are
other users, unlike Flarm or any other traffic
awareness device. Anyone is free to design,
manufacture and market a vario system and does.
I also said that, where we want to interact with
third party devices, we publish the interface
specification. Yes it is our own but unencrypted.
An industry one would have been nice but there isn't one.
Are you or LX about to release the source code
for LX varios and nav systems? I don't think so and I wouldn't expect you to.
So once more, please stop the bullshit.
I did say please the first time too.
Mike
At 08:57 AM 3/8/2016, you wrote:
do you know how many new Flarms are sold each
year in Australia? on a Last 5 year average less
than 20. I do feel you are both trying to solve
a problem where there is nothing really to fuss about.
to an earlier point you have both ignored, In
time, new, very low cost anti collision devices
will be available. drones and some serous
stakeholders have ensured that significant chip
level investments required are already underway.
unlike gliding, drones are an "at scale" problem
and as such, attract the right level of fiscal attention to do that.
and Mike, please refrain from offending language
it's unbecoming. your response is mainly
unworthy of comment as your fundamental tenets
are still commercially flawed, which you in
running a successful business over an extended
period of time by selling propriety and fully
closed solutions would be fully aware of.
On 8 Mar 2016, at 9:25 AM, Optusnet
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
So as someone who cannot program a shoebox, and
understood less than 10% of the conversation
1 should we be advocating the removal of FLARM in Australian skies
2 do we need to change the Comp rules mandating FLARM
JJ
Sent from my iPad
On 8 Mar 2016, at 8:05 AM, Mike Borgelt
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
wrote:
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
<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
<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
