Ahh, that's right, i forgot they had internal altitude sensors.
I don't think for one second that trying to cheat by tampering with a log
would be easy - spoofing tens of thousands of datapoints in such a way that
it looks like a valid flight would be incredibly difficult and time
consuming - time that would be much better spent practicing :P. Having said
that, much the same would apply to attempting to tamper with a non-IGC
approved logger, you would still need to spoof the datapoints in such a way
that it looks like a valid flight.
>From what i've seen, it's common practice for competition pilots (especially
at the higher levels) to look at the top few pilots traces for the day to
see what better decisions they made, so it's not as though people wouldn't
notice the trace behaving significantly different to what they are used to
seeing. I guess i'm just saying that trying to successfully spoof a trace
even with a non-igc approved logger would be very difficult to get away with
in real life, and would likely see you never competing again (rightly so).
I'm not convinced the biggest hurdle would be trying to overcome the
protections put in place by the IGC certification, but rather the sort of
problems mentioned above.
Luke
On 29 March 2011 15:23, Hannu Niemi <[email protected]> wrote:
> There actually two things that make a logger IGC approved
>
> 1. The anti-tampering methods which both signs the code against changes in
> the file (easy) and against opening the device (electronic seal). Quite
> many of loggers have integral antenna to make your approach a bit difficult.
>
>
> 2. The approved loggers have also internal pressure metering to have
> reliable altitude reference (flight levels are based on normal pressure). It
> also makes faking the gps signal more difficult as gps height should follow
> the altitude trace.
>
> I believe that tampering with results is quite difficult in practice during
> the competition because you can't know much earlier where one should fly and
> at what time. Normally we are so many that being missed and still
> "as-of-been-there" is quite difficult an equation. At least here (and in
> most comps I know) the IGC files are made available and some peer-control
> would quite surely - at least in long run - show this forgery off. Also the
> time restraints give quite a little time for tampering.
>
> hannu (I have been scoring maybe 50-60 comps since '91)
>
>
> On 29.3.2011 8:10, Luke O'Donnell wrote:
>
> I was under the impression it was the same in Australia - generally
> XCSoar/SeeYou etc traces are accepted in smaller reigonal comp's, but not at
> the national level. If i recall correctly, the Australian National's rules
> (Jan 2011) were that you could submit a non-IGC approved trace only once
> during the competition - intended to be a failsafe in the event of a logger
> failure.
>
> I havn't found much solid documentation on the web RE the anti-tamper
> requirements for IGC-approved loggers, are these really all that
> tamper-proof? I imagine that anyone who was really dedicated to cheating
> could probably plug a device into the external GPS antenna connector of an
> approved logger and spoof the gps signals. This would remove the need for
> such a cheater to actually tamper with the .igc file, which would presumably
> be detectable with reference to some sort of hashing algorithm.
>
> Luke
>
> On 29 March 2011 14:50, Max Kellermann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2011/03/29 06:30, Hannu Niemi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Only thing you are missing without declaration is the "accelerated
>> > rate of fixes" near turnpoint (though I am not sure if GPS-NAV even
>> > supports this). In Volkslogger et al the logger logs fixes every
>> > second below 0.5 km before the turning point cylinder
>>
>> XCSoar does that.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
>> growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
>> are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
>> be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
>> today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xcsoar-user mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
> growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
> are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
> be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
> today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
> _______________________________________________
> Xcsoar-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
_______________________________________________
Xcsoar-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
