Re: Got carried away...
Steve Furlong wrote: >US tanks don't have built-in locks as in private autos. They have heavy >wire loops or bars and are locked with ordinary (if rather heavy-duty) >padlocks. Speaking of securing military vehicles... I understand that most US fighter jets are not equipped with self-starters. This differs from, say, Sweden and Finland, where fighters have self-starters, to facilitate quick takeoffs from backwoods roads. If the US were ever invaded, surely such independent operational ability would be a good thing. Perhaps the US has a greater fear of such vehicles going walkabout?
Re: Got carried away...
Steve Furlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Ken Brown wrote: >> ... An even >> if cars were "like little tanks" why not open them with ordinary >> physical keys, like real tanks? > >US tanks don't have built-in locks as in private autos. They have heavy >wire loops or bars and are locked with ordinary (if rather heavy-duty) >padlocks. No no, he was referring to "little tanks", presumably Lt.Gruber's one. The security model there is that if you steal it, Herr Flick hits you over the head with a huge knackwurst. Peter.
RE: Got carried away...
> Optimizzin Al-gorithym[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > At 09:02 AM 4/30/02 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote: > >Ken Brown wrote: > > > >> ... An even > >> if cars were "like little tanks" why not open them with ordinary > >> physical keys, like real tanks? > > > >US tanks don't have built-in locks as in private autos. They have heavy > >wire loops or bars and are locked with ordinary (if rather heavy-duty) > >padlocks. > > Of course, no security is impenatrable, and a few years ago > some (possibly unbalanced :-) yahoo stole a tank IIRC from > a SoCal National Guard and demonstrated that the Jersey > barriers on the 5 were not up to the task. Eventually a cop > climbed it and shot the guy in the tank. Remember to > lock that door. > > An inspiring bit of surrealtv, that was. > > Shawn Nelson, 1995, Clairemont CA (a suburb of San Diego) Nelson was an alcoholic plumber who had just lost his job, wife, and home. He was an Army reservist. He had tank training and access - he was not just some random yahoo off the street. The helicopter footage is pretty spectacular - he drove the tank around a suburban neighbourhood for a while, crushing cars and RVs, and taking out numerous fire hydrants and telephone poles. No one was injured. He tried to jump the median of a highway rather than run over a bunch of (occupied) police cars, and got high-centered. The cops used bolt cutters to open the M-60's hatch, and then shot him. Now THAT's Road Rage. Peter Trei
Re: Got carried away...
At 09:02 AM 4/30/02 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote: >Ken Brown wrote: > >> ... An even >> if cars were "like little tanks" why not open them with ordinary >> physical keys, like real tanks? > >US tanks don't have built-in locks as in private autos. They have heavy >wire loops or bars and are locked with ordinary (if rather heavy-duty) >padlocks. Of course, no security is impenatrable, and a few years ago some (possibly unbalanced :-) yahoo stole a tank IIRC from a SoCal National Guard and demonstrated that the Jersey barriers on the 5 were not up to the task. Eventually a cop climbed it and shot the guy in the tank. Remember to lock that door. An inspiring bit of surrealtv, that was.
Re: Got carried away...
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Neil Johnson wrote: > > I made a sign for a friend who had recently purchased a Vette. > It said "please ignore, this car is just a AMC Pacer with a REALLY GOOD paint > job". > You gotta be old enough to remember the pacer for that to make sense tho :-) I hope it was big enough to read from a distance. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Got carried away...
Ken Brown wrote: > ... An even > if cars were "like little tanks" why not open them with ordinary > physical keys, like real tanks? US tanks don't have built-in locks as in private autos. They have heavy wire loops or bars and are locked with ordinary (if rather heavy-duty) padlocks. -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Re: Got carried away...
I think I'll stick to my bicycle. Why would anyone would want to waste their money on a car like that? Or even trust their body to it? I suppose insurance companies might have an interest in limiting use of a car to people who were paid-up. An even if cars were "like little tanks" why not open them with ordinary physical keys, like real tanks? At least if someone nicks your keys they leave your body behind. I want to use my retinas for seeing with. Jan Dobrucki wrote: > I have been thinking about the window problem and the ignition too. > What I was thinking was a car of the not so far future. Where there > wont be any windows because the driver will see the outside throu a > camera and he wont need regular lights cause there'll be ultraviolet > or something like that. The car will be like a little tank, so to > speak. If the thief can't get in, then the ignition problem wouldn't > exist. So someone can steel the pgp keys of the driver, but what if > the key was, say a tatoe on his hand and would be visible only when > the drivers was thinking of say... green fried tomatoes. > Ok, so the thief managed to get into the car. There still voice > recognition, fingerprints, retina scan, DNA scan, and whatever you > can think of. I know this will be expensive, but in the future, well > lets just say I don't think it's going to be sweet.
Re: Got carried away...
On Monday 29 April 2002 06:10 am, Graham Lally wrote: > > Path of least resistance - *access* to the car is generally not the > problem. Instead weaker attacks such as breaking the glass, or forcing the > door work much better. Once inside, a different mechanism again would be > somebody just steals the PGP keys). To steal an idea from the Mary > Whitehouse Experience, iirc, car security will be complete when we can use > imaging technology to disguise someone's latest XR3i as a clapped out > Austin MiniMetro*. > > * Purely for demonstrative purposes only, obviously. I made a sign for a friend who had recently purchased a Vette. It said "please ignore, this car is just a AMC Pacer with a REALLY GOOD paint job". -- Neil Johnson, N0SFH http://www.iowatelecom.net/~njohnsn http://www.njohnsn.com/ PGP key available on request.
Re: Re: Got carried away...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I have been thinking about the window problem and the ignition too. What I was thinking was a car of the not so far future. Where there wont be any windows because the driver will see the outside throu a camera and he wont need regular lights cause there'll be ultraviolet or something like that. The car will be like a little tank, so to speak. If the thief can't get in, then the ignition problem wouldn't exist. So someone can steel the pgp keys of the driver, but what if the key was, say a tatoe on his hand and would be visible only when the drivers was thinking of say... green fried tomatoes. Ok, so the thief managed to get into the car. There still voice recognition, fingerprints, retina scan, DNA scan, and whatever you can think of. I know this will be expensive, but in the future, well lets just say I don't think it's going to be sweet. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 2.6.3ia Charset: cp850 Comment: information is ammunition iQEVAwUBPM3CnA/jCFZJN2XlAQFS+Qf/V7sUMXZFYMilT4kmRFMy3Ml1XfAEHzPO cKLMNtYtWpZtzKf1SzlYVXBK8tLLh9+aG7o76DHRKdytDQwQ06nHwEpcqTyishCP ws/ytHwL9/fsFD2I1xPxcdH0fcL0/0IWA1jIoXm3MkaIvL7ALWe4IdQRKq2dnxVH mVsjmt8zVMhyTBE6U0gW7Qkyp6pitYP+5cQ+p9vOvt9c49ucVsWbMyZEXDRC752L rHbdascXOVJPkzCmtT0qrCt65/xS7w/tkcAzf0m6c6hrwMyzucKDTBmKWOy2aq0a dbL4Juiq/e/HQh5Jrd8Jq9KvLxI4i5XEGuOVZ4fMY4JjuI1/cbcM6A== =Hlob -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Siedzisz i czytasz... a tam ktos wlasnie wykupuje Twoj urlop! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15b1
Re: Got carried away...
Jan Dobrucki wrote: > I do have an idea thou. I'm thinking how to implement PGP into car > locks. And so far I got this: The driver has his PGP, and the door > has it's own. Path of least resistance - *access* to the car is generally not the problem. Instead weaker attacks such as breaking the glass, or forcing the door work much better. Once inside, a different mechanism again would be needed to prevent the car from being hotwired. In short, the addition of PGP doesn't particularly enhance the security, especially if the protocol is still vulnerable to, say, identity theft (the encryption is useless if somebody just steals the PGP keys). To steal an idea from the Mary Whitehouse Experience, iirc, car security will be complete when we can use imaging technology to disguise someone's latest XR3i as a clapped out Austin MiniMetro*. Seems that it's just another case of trying to use a buzzword in an unnecessary solution, making it overly complicated from a user POV, and whilst ignoring the other fundamental aspects. As has been pointed out a multitude of times, encryption has its places and uses, most of which will never be the interest, imho, of the common populace. (Only perhaps on a need-to-use basis, such as SSL. I doubt pgp mail encrypting will become "natural", or indeed "sexy" to the sheeple.) And nor should it (have to) be. There are, however, still plenty of places where the techniques are, or would be, of great benefit. .g * Purely for demonstrative purposes only, obviously. -- "The history of cosmology is the history of us being completely wrong," "Sometimes I use Google instead of pants." http://www.exmosis.net/2:254/500.50
Re: Got carried away...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Quoting Jan Dobrucki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I do have an idea thou. I'm thinking how to implement PGP into car > locks. And so far I got this: The driver has his PGP, and the door > has it's own. The door has only one reciepient, the driver. And when > he wants to enter the car, its sends a certain number to the driver > say "1234", or something else like letters and whatever. Only the > driver can decrypt the message and see the contents. Each time the > drivers wants to open the door its something else. Next the driver > inputs the text sent by the door into a touchpad on the door. The > door opens and the drivers can enter... so is it a good idea or a bad > idea? I don't think the threat model justifies your solution. Locks on vehicles deter burglary of the vehicle's contents and theft of the vehicle itself. As long as automobiles have breakable glass, a lock will not prevent "smash-and-grabs". Ford has used simple code keypads on some of their cars for over 10 years. How will adding a strong cipher help prevent break-ins? Putting a strong cipher on the ignition would be a bit better. Many manufacturers use a special key that inlucdes a RFID or a specific resistor value to enable the ignition. However, this system can be bypassed by replacing the unit that reads the key with a previously stolen/modified unit. I believe preventing the control unit from being replaced would be the primary problem you would need to solve. -- Keith -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQE8zJ16kkhsfDhftukRAty0AJ9IXwFYJTe+u9GBvSWw15dJd/fFrgCeJUkv XP6YxTuz9FheZOcih7rEVQI= =l4PL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
