Re: Suppression of URL details

In article
<8c49b6c0-0f41-4fc3-9784-ad8f7938f7e7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.co
m>,
Andy Dingley wrote:

> I don't object to "extreme", so much as it's use to qualify
> "obfuscation".
>
> You appear to be using obfuscation to imply "camouflage" (potentially
> discoverable, with effort)

Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.

I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
verification procedure for finding it:

Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!

No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.

Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
starter motor is *not* disabled.

Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
to show good faith.)

--
dorayme

Re: Suppression of URL details

On 2007-12-19, dorayme wrote:
[...]
> Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
> with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
> kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.
>
> I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
> be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
> it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
> verification procedure for finding it:
>
> Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!
>
> No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.
>
> Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
> Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
> kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
> evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
> or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
> starter motor is *not* disabled.
>
> Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
> scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
> investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
> to show good faith.)

A scheme I used to use was encryption of the firing order. Swap a few of
the HT leads around after you park, making sure you remember the inverse
obfuscation. The car won't start but nothing obvious will be wrong or
look recently unplugged or tampered with and you don't have to go around
with a rotor arm or anything else in your pocket.

Re: Suppression of URL details

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

> On 2007-12-19, dorayme wrote:
> [...]
> > Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
> > with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
> > kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.
> >
> > I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
> > be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
> > it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
> > verification procedure for finding it:
> >
> > Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!
> >
> > No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.
> >
> > Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
> > Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
> > kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
> > evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
> > or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
> > starter motor is *not* disabled.
> >
> > Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
> > scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
> > investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
> > to show good faith.)
>
> A scheme I used to use was encryption of the firing order. Swap a few of
> the HT leads around after you park, making sure you remember the inverse
> obfuscation. The car won't start but nothing obvious will be wrong or
> look recently unplugged or tampered with and you don't have to go around
> with a rotor arm or anything else in your pocket.

Yes. But it is a bother going under the bonnet, you know, in the
rain and people can see you... And there is an added danger: if
the thief is a bit savy and the odd firing order causes back
firing, it could trigger a convenient thought in him.

Oops, I might have revealed something about my own scheme
unwittingly. I should shut my big mouth! With my own car, its
best defence against theft is its totally disgraceful appearance.

--
dorayme

Re: Suppression of URL details

dorayme wrote:
> In article
> <8c49b6c0-0f41-4fc3-9784-ad8f7938f7e7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.co
> m>,
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>
>> I don't object to "extreme", so much as it's use to qualify
>> "obfuscation".
>>
>> You appear to be using obfuscation to imply "camouflage" (potentially
>> discoverable, with effort)
>
> Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
> with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
> kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.
>
> I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
> be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
> it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
> verification procedure for finding it:
>
> Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!
>
> No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.
>
> Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
> Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
> kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
> evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
> or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
> starter motor is *not* disabled.
>
> Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
> scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
> investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
> to show good faith.)

Another approach would be to have fake kill switches that look like real
ones all over the car--thousands of them--in addition to the real one.
*That* would provide real obfuscatory cover.

Re: Suppression of URL details

In article <5sviorF1bho5pU1@mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > <8c49b6c0-0f41-4fc3-9784-ad8f7938f7e7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.co
> > m>,
> > Andy Dingley wrote:
> >
> >> I don't object to "extreme", so much as it's use to qualify
> >> "obfuscation".
> >>
> >> You appear to be using obfuscation to imply "camouflage" (potentially
> >> discoverable, with effort)
> >
> > Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
> > with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
> > kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.
> >
> > I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
> > be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
> > it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
> > verification procedure for finding it:
> >
> > Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!
> >
> > No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.
> >
> > Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
> > Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
> > kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
> > evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
> > or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
> > starter motor is *not* disabled.
> >
> > Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
> > scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
> > investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
> > to show good faith.)
>
> Another approach would be to have fake kill switches that look like real
> ones all over the car--thousands of them--in addition to the real one.
> *That* would provide real obfuscatory cover.

A lot of trouble and expense though Plus it would alert the
thief to the avenue of attack. He could sample and get lucky
with just thousands?

In a way, my scheme is a variation on yours except that almost
anything in the cabin could be a switch. It is just that fiddling
with most things does nothing whereas fiddling with one
particular thing in a very very particular way will do the trick.

(btw I did consider a number of switches and wiring them to have
only one combination that worked, but, of course, this is a just
a variation on keypad locks... )

--
dorayme

Re: Suppression of URL details

dorayme wrote:
> In article <5sviorF1bho5pU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <8c49b6c0-0f41-4fc3-9784-ad8f7938f7e7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.co
>>> m>,
>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't object to "extreme", so much as it's use to qualify
>>>> "obfuscation".
>>>>
>>>> You appear to be using obfuscation to imply "camouflage" (potentially
>>>> discoverable, with effort)
>>> Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
>>> with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
>>> kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.
>>>
>>> I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
>>> be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
>>> it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
>>> verification procedure for finding it:
>>>
>>> Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!
>>>
>>> No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.
>>>
>>> Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
>>> Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
>>> kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
>>> evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
>>> or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
>>> starter motor is *not* disabled.
>>>
>>> Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
>>> scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
>>> investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
>>> to show good faith.)
>> Another approach would be to have fake kill switches that look like real
>> ones all over the car--thousands of them--in addition to the real one.
>> *That* would provide real obfuscatory cover.
>
> A lot of trouble and expense though Plus it would alert the
> thief to the avenue of attack. He could sample and get lucky
> with just thousands?

Well, in that case you can arrange it so that *none* of them is real,
fooling him into wasting his time on them while failing to notice the
truly obfuscated *real* switch that you've hidden and that looks like
something else. Like maybe setting the fan speed to the third out of
four available levels while pressing in the fifth station selector
button out of six on the radio.

> In a way, my scheme is a variation on yours except that almost
> anything in the cabin could be a switch. It is just that fiddling
> with most things does nothing whereas fiddling with one
> particular thing in a very very particular way will do the trick.
>
> (btw I did consider a number of switches and wiring them to have
> only one combination that worked, but, of course, this is a just
> a variation on keypad locks... )

Yup.

Re: Suppression of URL details

In article <5t060rF1b6ne0U2@mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <5sviorF1bho5pU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <8c49b6c0-0f41-4fc3-9784-ad8f7938f7e7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.co
> >>> m>,
> >>> Andy Dingley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I don't object to "extreme", so much as it's use to qualify
> >>>> "obfuscation".
> >>>>
> >>>> You appear to be using obfuscation to imply "camouflage" (potentially
> >>>> discoverable, with effort)
> >>> Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
> >>> with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
> >>> kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.
> >>>
> >>> I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
> >>> be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
> >>> it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
> >>> verification procedure for finding it:
> >>>
> >>> Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!
> >>>
> >>> No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.
> >>>
> >>> Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
> >>> Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
> >>> kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
> >>> evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
> >>> or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
> >>> starter motor is *not* disabled.
> >>>
> >>> Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
> >>> scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
> >>> investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
> >>> to show good faith.)
> >> Another approach would be to have fake kill switches that look like real
> >> ones all over the car--thousands of them--in addition to the real one.
> >> *That* would provide real obfuscatory cover.
> >
> > A lot of trouble and expense though Plus it would alert the
> > thief to the avenue of attack. He could sample and get lucky
> > with just thousands?
>
> Well, in that case you can arrange it so that *none* of them is real,
> fooling him into wasting his time on them while failing to notice the
> truly obfuscated *real* switch that you've hidden and that looks like
> something else. Like maybe setting the fan speed to the third out of
> four available levels while pressing in the fifth station selector
> button out of six on the radio.
>
Ah, your many real looking switches are decoys. Fair enough. But
then that would tend to alert the thief to the presence of kill
switch implentation. He would more easily dismiss the theory that
the car was just hard to start for more mundane reasons. Also
they are still real in that they would cost some $n.

> > In a way, my scheme is a variation on yours except that almost
> > anything in the cabin could be a switch. It is just that fiddling
> > with most things does nothing whereas fiddling with one
> > particular thing in a very very particular way will do the trick.
> >
> > (btw I did consider a number of switches and wiring them to have
> > only one combination that worked, but, of course, this is a just
> > a variation on keypad locks... )
>
> Yup.

--
dorayme

Re: Suppression of URL details

dorayme wrote:
> In article <5t060rF1b6ne0U2@mid.individual.net>,
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <5sviorF1bho5pU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>>
>>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <8c49b6c0-0f41-4fc3-9784-ad8f7938f7e7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.co
>>>>> m>,
>>>>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't object to "extreme", so much as it's use to qualify
>>>>>> "obfuscation".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You appear to be using obfuscation to imply "camouflage" (potentially
>>>>>> discoverable, with effort)
>>>>> Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
>>>>> with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
>>>>> kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
>>>>> be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
>>>>> it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
>>>>> verification procedure for finding it:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
>>>>> Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
>>>>> kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
>>>>> evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
>>>>> or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
>>>>> starter motor is *not* disabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
>>>>> scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
>>>>> investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
>>>>> to show good faith.)
>>>> Another approach would be to have fake kill switches that look like real
>>>> ones all over the car--thousands of them--in addition to the real one.
>>>> *That* would provide real obfuscatory cover.
>>> A lot of trouble and expense though Plus it would alert the
>>> thief to the avenue of attack. He could sample and get lucky
>>> with just thousands?
>> Well, in that case you can arrange it so that *none* of them is real,
>> fooling him into wasting his time on them while failing to notice the
>> truly obfuscated *real* switch that you've hidden and that looks like
>> something else. Like maybe setting the fan speed to the third out of
>> four available levels while pressing in the fifth station selector
>> button out of six on the radio.
>>
> Ah, your many real looking switches are decoys. Fair enough. But
> then that would tend to alert the thief to the presence of kill
> switch implentation.

No, don't you recall from "Victor, Victoria":

Toddy: Count Grazinski is our plausible diversion.

Victoria: Toddy, no audience is that gullible. They'll know he's a phony.

Toddy: Right.

Victoria: Well?

Toddy: They'll know HE'S a phony!

Re: Suppression of URL details

In article <5t0cdcF1bglqoU1@mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger wrote:

> > Ah, your many real looking switches are decoys. Fair enough. But
> > then that would tend to alert the thief to the presence of kill
> > switch implentation.
>
> No, don't you recall from "Victor, Victoria":
>
> Toddy: Count Grazinski is our plausible diversion.
>
> Victoria: Toddy, no audience is that gullible. They'll know he's a phony.
>
> Toddy: Right.
>
> Victoria: Well?
>
> Toddy: They'll know HE'S a phony!

I do now

--
dorayme