Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Encryption Security Hardware Your Rights Online Technology

Aviation Instruments Encrypt Engine-Monitor Data 152

Posted by timothy from the must-be-in-the-public-interest dept.
kitplane01 writes "Airplanes engines need to always work, and are monitored by engine monitors. JP Instruments' engine-monitor units have begun to encrypt the data output of its monitors so it can't be read by third-party software. Whether this is to protect itself liability-wise or to discourage competitors is unclear. It seems the company is working on a fix, which may require a fee from users to translate the file format."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Aviation Instruments Encrypt Engine-Monitor Data More

Aviation Instruments Encrypt Engine-Monitor Data

Comments Filter:

  • Terrorism (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:21PM (#12462809)
    I think its to prevent terrorists from listening in on engine data.....God Bless America
    • Call me dense, but how would this help?

      One more thing, how could they listen? It's not like its radio broadcasted.

      • Re:Terrorism (Score:3, Funny)

        by xlv ( 125699 )
        Call me dense, but how would this help?

        In this post 9/11 world, sarcasm is no longer allowed as it is unpatriotic. If you need proof of that, remember that it is often practised in old Europe and thus not in line with American values...
      • It's not like its radio broadcasted.

        Well, actually it is. Scroll down to my ACARS telemetery post or read this. [acarsonline.co.uk]

    • Re:Terrorism (Score:3, Funny)

      by Alsee ( 515537 )
      Yeah yeah yeah... it's there to help defend against terrorists too...
      but this is content encryption. Obviously the main justification for it is to stop the pirates. God Bless the DMCA.

      Oh, and it's also there to protect our children against the child molestors. Uhhhh... but I haven't quite figured out that part yet.

      -

  • proprietary lock in? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dclaw ( 593370 )
    this seems like an incredibly stupid and public way of locking customers into paying for information they were already previously getting for free.

    Hopefully no more companies in the industry will follow

  • It sounds like... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by uberdave ( 526529 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:22PM (#12462821) Homepage
    It sounds like propriety lock-in to me. There is no other reason to encrypt diagnostic data.

    • I wouldn't say there is no other reason to encrypt sensor data, though in this case, it very well could be proprietary lock-in.

      For instance, if enough information is recorded, you could reconstruct the whole flight using the sensor data in a flight simulator. This is very useful in determining exactly when and where a fault took place. There are many cases, however, where you don't want free and open access to that information (think military aircraft flights).

      • Re:It sounds like... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by uberdave ( 526529 )
        A few points:
        1. Military aircraft are maintained by military personnel.
        2. Data encryption, if needed, should be end user selectable, not locked in by the equipment vendor against end user wishes.
        3. I seriously doubt that you could determine anything more than altitude from the engine performance data. You would need data feeds from the navigation system to determine where the plane was.

  • Auto industry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:23PM (#12462833) Homepage Journal
    As long as the auto industry doesnt follow. There was a big deal over the use of car makers to provide info to third parties for the onboard electronics. I dont know what the status is now, I heard a while ago that the information is disorganized and hard to utilize. Auto dealers love it because it forces you to use their facilities at highly marked up prices, and puts 3rd party auto mechanics into a corner.

    • Re:Auto industry (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:52PM (#12462974)
      I remember Congress was looking at legislation to require automakers to make OBDII data more readily available to car owners and independent service shops. Does anyone else know what, if anything, became of that?

  • Just like Auto Engine Computers and Lexmark (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tangurena ( 576827 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:30PM (#12462867)
    The auto companies did something similar with OBD2 compliant engine computers. As a result, the association that represented independant repair shops had to sue the automakers and SAE to get the diagnostic information released.

    You should also take a look at Lexmark and how they used DMCA to sue Static Control Corp, an aftermarket inkject cartridge manufacturer. Earlier Slashdot story [slashdot.org]

  • I doubt this has to do with anything but liability concerns. The aviation industry has been the hardest hit by product liability. It's a miracle anyone is still in business.
    • Yes, the miracle of taxpayer subsidy.
      • Yes, the miracle of taxpayer subsidy.

        No, you're thinking of the large military contractors. We're talking about small-scale civil aviation. Boeing, Lockheed, et al don't produce the class of civil aviation products (i.e. light planes) that are subject to the kind of absurd liability claims that drove the old Piper company out of business. Companies like Beech, Cessna, Mooney, or Piper don't receive "taxpayer subsides", even in the form of military contracts. Really, you should make sure you understand th

        • Re:Liability (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SilverspurG ( 844751 ) *
          Within Doc's context, however, he was making a valid point.

          As for the smaller aviation industry, Doc's jibe is still perfectly valid. It was a jibe against the federal government, and it's the federal regulations controlled by federal politicians and influencing the opinions of federal judges which allows the liability lawsuits to decimate any company which may have a chance at competing with the big aviation industry.

          So, next time, be more polite and consider what the other person is saying before you d
          • allows the liability lawsuits to decimate any company

            Once again? Bush signed the Class Action Fairness [sic] Act [washingtonpost.com], which reduces the ways in which class action lawsuits against major corporations can be instigated. Corporations that could still be sued were very pleased.

            BTW: Did you know that, in all likelyhood, you've signed away your right to sue your bank, mortgage, or credit card company?

            • Bush signed the Class Action Fairness [sic] Act, which reduces the ways in which class action lawsuits against major corporations can be instigated
              Bush signed lots of things. What does that have to do with the aviation industry?
              • The parent indicated that the government and major companies WANTED class action lawsuits so they could be used disrupt the minor players. Quite to the contrary, big biz doesn't want any class actions at all, hence the Class Action Fairness [sic] Act.

                • Quite to the contrary, big biz doesn't want any class actions at all, hence the Class Action Fairness [sic] Act

                  I really had hoped that you had thought about it more than that. Clue: It's a game within a game within a game. Sometimes some people want the lawsuits, and sometimes other people want the lawsuits, and sometimes some other people don't want the lawsuits. Usually the people who want them and the people who don't want them maintain their opinions and sides pre, during, and post lawsuit bu

        • The other post in reply to yours [slashdot.org] makes my comment clearer. The bigger aviation industrialists have survived by the grace of taxpayer subsidy, and cleared competition by lobbying for the current legislative environment in which they are fitter to survive. A take on the scenario with which you seem to agree.

          You might take note that condescending "advice" about snide comments and misunderstanding the point usually comes from projected insecurities of your own. You look wiser when taking your own advice first,

  • PACE AP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yroJJory ( 559141 ) <me@[ ]y.org ['jor' in gap]> on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:33PM (#12462883) Homepage
    Not really a whole lot different that PACE Anti-Piracy's latest crap.

    I use some software that is protected using PACE's Interlok system. Unfortunately, the anti-piracy software is stopping me from legitimately using the software, refusing me the ability to serialize it on my machine.

    PACE's response? Send us the encrypted log file! They won't tell me what's in the log file, nor will they allow me to see it before sending it.

    Any amount of personal information could be in there, so I refuse to send it to them.

    Since when doesn't everything need to be encrypted to keep legitimate users from reading it?

  • Also the Gemini: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Monf ( 783812 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:34PM (#12462884)
    This is from AOPA's [aopa.org] review of the JPI model and the Insight model - the blurb below refers to the Insight Gemini. Maybe this is what JPI is now doing and why:

    The Gemini goes about data-logging quite differently. When you want to see what's been happening, simply point the supplied Hewlett-Packard HP200LX palmtop at the Gemini's faceplate and the information will be transferred by infrared link. The information remains encrypted in the HP200LX--it cannot be altered by the user- -so it may be more useful to resolve a warranty dispute or to see how renter-pilots are treating your leaseback bird.

    • Re:Also the Gemini: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wcdw ( 179126 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:42PM (#12462920) Homepage
      Encrypting the data to provide a 'blackbox' is doomed to failure; someone somewhere (outside the US, sad to say) is bound to hack it.

      And if format of the stored data can be reverse-engineered (e.g. by decompiling the reader code), the decryption process becomes that much easier.

      Although the 'article' sounds like it's designed to sell magazines more than anything else. No links to any of those forums where the users are supposedly up in arms, for example.

      • Re:Also the Gemini: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by wjsteele ( 255130 )
        I'm sorry, but I fail to see how having a 'blackbox' on an airplane is doomed to failure. Blackboxes are standard equipment on larger/complex commercial craft and I think all aircraft should be equipped with one... so that if an accident ever occurs, we can analyze what went wrong. It's always better to have more information than not enough in an accident investigation. And yes, I am a pilot. The state of technology is now available to equip all aircraft at a very resonable cost (including GA.)

        Now, I c
        • I'm sorry, but I fail to see how having a 'blackbox' on an airplane is doomed to failure.

          As am I, but having never said that, I'm just startled at the non-sequitor. Not reading the article is bad enough; not reading the comments is something else altogether!
      • And if format of the stored data can be reverse-engineered (e.g. by decompiling the reader code), the decryption process becomes that much easier.
        So you're saying that this is really a clandestine way for the aviation industry to export their previously illegal-to-export superstrength encryption schemes to their subsidiaries and business partners across the water?

    • Re:Also the Gemini: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by VidEdit ( 703021 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:44PM (#12462929)
      It would seem that JPI is using data integrity as an excuse for DMCA lock in. All they really need for integrity is a signature. Since their are federal regulations about engine overhauls for aircraft, I would think that there is a state interest in the data being accessible, but signed. This is a clear case of the miss-use of encryption.

  • ACARS telemetery data (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:39PM (#12462904) Homepage
    ACARS [acarsonline.co.uk] is an aircraft data telemetery system that transmits data, sometimes including engine performance, and can be receive with a simple scanner/computer setup.
    In this series of two messages, we see a takeoff (TO) engine performance report.

    ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: .N651UA
    Message label: H1 Block id: 5 Msg. no: D89C
    Flight id: UA0978
    Message content:-
    #DFB97418853250111173 5541565144173614933782162 261527 15
    0201 89 -2 0 0 671 146 27 A6F4039C8000080000D32000000000000000000000423

    Not that the unencoded info makes much sense, but I guess this will be another thing hidden away from view of nosey geeks. Poot!

  • Aircraft crash data? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aphrika ( 756248 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:41PM (#12462916)
    I don't know much about these kinds of systems, but I would've always assumed that partial unencrypted data would be much easier to recover in a plane crash situation. I guess it would pretty much instantaneously stop transmitting from the engine in question when the system failed.

    However, wouldn't encrypted data bring with it the risk that you couldn't get the data back? What happens if you have partial encrypted data in the system? Is there a risk that the encryption could make piecing together accidents more time-consuming or render the data useless to the investigation?

    In theory, could it even assist denying responsibility if the engine itself was the cause of a crash?
    • I doubt it would come to that - if a plane has to have a black box by law then there's bound to be some sort of specification it has to follow, the people responsible for the plane will have to pay whatever it costs so that the engine data is properly (legally) recorded, if they can't afford it, then they can't fly the plane. Same goes for any other rules and regulations about instrumentation - they either have to pay this company whatever it costs, or find a way to do it themselves, or not fly. Now if they

  • plagiarism (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:45PM (#12462934)

    Any particular reason "kitplane01" came within a sentence or two of posting the entire story in his/her submission?

    It's completely uncredited, and presented as material he/she wrote; that's called plagiarism, folks. Though things have gotten better over the years (I remember when more than half of the stories on the front page were like this), this still happens too often.

    It's also pretty pointless. The story summary is supposed to accurately describe the story, to help us determine if we want to follow the link, or read commentary.

  • There's no practical reason? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Perryman ( 882190 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:46PM (#12462943)
    Why would engine monitor data need to be encrypted? All it is is fuel flow rates, its pressure and temperature, FTIT, etc. The pilot needs to see this data anyway to monitor in-flight. Maybe they're talking about when this information goes through engine diagnostics or is stored for looking at later? Oh, and do these guys just do civilian aircraft, or military too? I'd think no one would buy their engine monitor units if they couldn't look at the logs to monitor their own aircraft statistics [think nascar]. Could be a good way to lose customers. What do you think?

    • Re:There's no practical reason? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by krray ( 605395 ) * on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:56PM (#12462993)
      I think that if one of our (pick your country :) military planes goes down in enemy territory that I don't want said enemy to have access to how well, or poorly the plane may or may not operate in certain circumstances...
      • Ah true. In that situation, the engine monitor data would be stored on the engine diagnostics, so hopefully they don't know how to read that. [It's not like its easy to read in the first place. You need the right connectors and power supply, and you'd need the software to read it off of there, and that stuff is pretty hard to get if you're not supposed to have it, let alone to understand how to do it by yourself if you don't have the equipment!] So, all in all, i don't think they'd know how to get that data
        • > Ah true. In that situation, the engine monitor data would be stored on the
          > engine diagnostics, so hopefully they don't know how to read that. [It's not
          > like its easy to read in the first place. You need the right connectors and
          > power supply, and you'd need the software to read it off of there, and that
          > stuff is pretty hard to get if you're not supposed to have it, let alone to
          > understand how to do it by yourself if you don't have the equipment!] So, all in
          > all, i don't think the
      • I think that if one of our (pick your country :) military planes goes down in enemy territory that I don't want said enemy to have access to how well, or poorly the plane may or may not operate in certain circumstances...

        This isn't for military aircraft, it's a civil aviation product. Military instrumentation has nothing to do with this situation.

      • yeah cause the chineese might use the fuel flow rates work out how to destroy all american military aircraft.

        outside the american military its 2005, inside its still the 1950's.

        Why is the US spending on defence more than 4 times what the chineese are spending ?
      • Fine, then turn the loggers off and scrub the data before the aircraft gets into hostile territory. Or, if the data may be needed, then scrub it if the plane crashes or the pilot punches out.
      • JPI isn't a military supplier - they make products for light aircraft (not even airliners). JPI is quite popular with homebuilders (people who build planes at home from kits or plans).

  • Well, I know it's illegal for cars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @01:59PM (#12463004)

    I know there are laws in place to keep automobile manufacturers from doing the same thing (since I make auto scantools for a living). That's one of the main reasons why the industry moved towards OBDII - to be compliant with the disclosure law.

    Maybe the rules apply to aircraft as well, and there's already a legal fix?

    I won't be able to ask anyone at work about which laws are in place until Monday, but this article has me curious about the legality of encrypting this kind of data for non-automobiles. If I find anything out, I'll post it here.

    • I know there are laws in place to keep automobile manufacturers from doing the same thing (since I make auto scantools for a living). That's one of the main reasons why the industry moved towards OBDII - to be compliant with the disclosure law.

      AFAIK, the OBD-II requirement involves exclusivly emmissions related data. It's not about allowing vehicle owners to fix their own vehicles or any other purpose. Take a look (since you make scantools) at which PID's are documented and known to the public. Compa

      • AFAIK, the OBD-II requirement involves exclusivly emmissions related data. It's not about allowing vehicle owners to fix their own vehicles or any other purpose.

        I'm new to working on the sofware (was doing hardware for the last year) and currently only fiddling around with ISO 9141-2 communication, so your post got me thinking. Had to do a little research. I wasn't able to find the text of the law, but I did find an online post about what codes are covered by OBD II, here [geocities.com].

        IIRC, the whole OBD II thin

  • Encoded (Not Encrypted) (Score:5, Informative)

    by dubner ( 48575 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @02:13PM (#12463075)
    Typical inept Slashdot editing: the data is *encoded* (as the original AvWeb article states), not encrypted. Sure, JPI is an evil company with a history of slimey dealings as shown here http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/jpi.html [earthlink.net] but lets be accurate about what they've done. If JPI (or someone else) was to provide info on the format of the encoded data there would be no news story.

    • Re:Encoded (Not Encrypted) (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If JPI (or someone else) was to provide info on the format of the encoded data there would be no news story.

      If you don't know how a datafile was created, it may as well be encrypted, since it's meaningless to you. I fail to see the distinction.

      It's funny how insulting Slashdot gets the most illogical of posts rated up.
  • So, don't buy their products. Or are they another messy, politically granted monopoly?

    • Re:let the market decide (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The problem is, I already own one; next time I send it for a firmware upgrade to get bugs fixed I can never download data from it again. (Without using their crappy "EZPlot" program.)

      It's too bad, (1) because I had wanted to get my EDM-700 upgraded to the EDM-800, which has fuel flow data as well; (2) because I spent money getting a serial port installed in my instrument panel so I could download the data easily, and that money has now gone to waste.

  • This wont last long (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) * on Saturday May 07, 2005 @02:39PM (#12463204) Homepage
    It's simple, really.

    "Can you say, with absolute certainty, that no third party fault detector would have found the problem with your engine?"
    "No, but..."
    "So, you intentionally embarked on a development program that hid problems with your engines. Thank you."

    This exchange, vaguely hinted at by FAA, would be quite enough.

  • Auto Makers (Score:2, Redundant)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 )
    Didnt they get burnt by something similar to this with their ECM's and told by the Fed's they cant restrict 3rd party access with dirty tricks like this?

    True airplanes engines are not quite the same thing, or as large a market but the principle is the same.

    • Re:Auto Makers (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vegeta99 ( 219501 )
      Well, yes, but OBD-II (On Board Diagnostics, Version II) is federally mandated, and the Society of Automotive Engineers has a set of standard codes for most every fault an ECM would detect. They also, however, made it possible for manufacturers to have proprietary codes, starting with 1. For example, if the oxygen sensor on my engine's #1 cylinder bank is indicating that the engine is running lean more than is allowed, and the ECU is correcting by running it intentionally rich, the SAE code would be P0130.

  • "Fix"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @03:31PM (#12463449)
    Is it a "fix" when you deliberately broke it in the first place?

  • this is to stop cheaters (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is to stop people from modifying the data to cover up the fact that they are saving money by not following the maintenance schedule.
    • I'm not sure how people could "cover up" anything...the information these systems record is related to engine performance (cylinder head temperatures, exhaust gas temperatures, and the like). Maintenance information is maintained on paper, with written sign-offs by the mechanics who do the work, and the FAA has VERY strict accountability procedures. (None of that affects the average pilot unless the FAA has cause to investigate a crash or complaint, but that's a separate issue).
  • Can they please release list of planes equipped with this stuff? - So I will have a chance to take another plane.

    Hope they will not opt to DRMfy they data. Just try to imaging message on plane: "Dear guests our plane is crashing down due to expired license for motor control protocol encryption. Please festen your belts and pray."

    Well, IIRC, this [CENSORED] was already tried in medicine and failed. No system is allowed to use encryption for sake of encryption when human life is at stake. Both medical l

    • You're unlikely to ever get on a plane with a JPI instrument. They are not used on airliners, they are used on privately owned light aircraft (and even then, in over 1000 hours of flight experience I've still not flown a plane with a JPI instrument). Unless you learn to fly yourself or know a private pilot, you're unlikely to ever see one.
      • That's releive. Isn't it? ;-)

        Honestly, I am, as a programmer, bemused by industrial automation people all the time I have to work with them.

        Money squeezing is norm of life: complaining aloud about say analyzer with encrypted data format so now they cannot use their expensive software from 3rd party. On first turn. And then, on second turn, during meeting they'll be first to propose change in file format just to ensure that customers will not be able to use cheap tools to read them.

        I'm seeing that sh

  • The encryption is for MSOffice-style lock in (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07, 2005 @05:48PM (#12464183)
    I own a JPI Engine analyzer in my plane. To respond to some misinformation above, they make various model of engine analyzers used in piston engine planes. The plane does not depend on the JPI to fly. It's used to gather the parameters from the engine as it runs for instant and with some models, stored for later analysis. It does warn of problems with the engine like overheating. The major feature is assisting with leaning the air/fuel mixture going to the engine, which pilots must do manually.

    In a nutshell JPI's owner has some vendetta against a competing company that was selling software to read and analyze the data from the JPI analyzer. JPI changed the format of the data output from the serial port of the device, and the format it was stored in the device's non-volatile RAM.

    JPI had sold software for Palm OS that would connect to the serial port and display the data in graphical format in real time on a Palm Pilot. Since the data stream was ASCII text you could do the same with any laptop.

    JPI had also supplied what at first they sold, but later became a free DOS utility called EZ-Save that would download the data and uncompress it to a comma separated plain text file. They also made available some Excel spreadsheets with macros that would turn the data into some nice charts for easy analysis.

    At some point recently the owner got bug up his backside about some competitor that is selling a competing program to analyze the data. JPI changed the steam and the stored data on current products to use encryption and removed all traces of the utilities on their web site. Of course this did not affect the 1000s of products already installed in planes. What they were doing though, was updating the firmware on any that came in service to have the encryption. Based on that, I vowed I wouldn't send mine in for repair if it burst into flames.

    Some excerpts from a aircraft owner mail list:

    JPI has recently made a decision to prevent the download of raw data from their EDM series of engine monitors. In the past, an EDM user could use a free piece of software, called EZSave, to transfer all the saved engine performance data from an EDM to a PC. The information was decoded and then stored in a plain text file as numerical values separated by commas (commonly called "CSV" format). This simple format made it possible to import this data in to most any software product, including Excel or any other graphing program. But recently support for EZSave was withdrawn and the program disappeared from JPI's website. In its place was a free version of JPI's fancy engine data graphing program, EZPlot. At the same time this was done, the firmware on new EDM units was updated to alter the data transfer format (from EDM to PC) so that existing copies of EZSave would no longer work. The result is that only EZPlot can talk to new EDM units, and EZPlot does not provide any way to save the raw data. This locks the user in to viewing the data only in ways that EZPlot allows. If you don't like the way EZPlot shows data, you are pretty much out of luck. Existing units in the field continue to work the way they always have, of course. But should you ever send your unit in for repair, it is likely that it will be "upgraded" with the latest firmware and EZSave functionality will be lost.

    This change puzzled me a bit, as it seemed to have no purpose other than secure an additional revenue stream for JPI (the feature-full version of EZPlot costs money) at the expense of interoperability. It also seemed designed to intentionally shut out a competing engine analysis program called EGTrends. Personally I don't care for either of those programs: I want the raw data so that I can graph it in a manner than makes sense to me. Oddly enough, the way in which I like to view the data is very similar to the way used by EZPlot's predecessor: a primitive (but effective) Excel template that JPI distributed years ago. So I decided that while I was at Sun 'n' Fun I would go talk to someo

  • As an owner of an airplane with a similar monitor, allow me these observations:

    1) The data in the engine monitor of my airplane will help me diagnose problems before they become serious. I had an intake valve get sticky on me once. It happened while decending from 5000 to 3000 AGL. I was too damned busy configuring for best glide, scrambling for my engine out check list, and considering whether to declare an emergency to look over at the monitor. By the time I had the presence of mind to do that, the p

Slashdot Top Deals

"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer

Close