Possible FLR Hacking?

[XXShadowXX]

To everyone else, I know the hacking theory is a bit out there, and it is possible FMS was being a total butthead of a system. On the first day of practice matches they almost made us switch to the 2009-2010 gaming adapters because the field failed to connect to the new ones for a good 8 hours.

Of course, it turned out that the wifi in the gym there was interfering with FMS.

The volunteers at an event work with limited data. Calling them out for making you switch controllers is pointless. If you want to check every level of a problem do it yourself, if you want your robot working as quickly as possible cut some corners.

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by XXShadowXX

The volunteers at an event work with limited data. Calling them out for making you switch controllers is pointless. If you want to check every level of a problem do it yourself, if you want your robot working as quickly as possible cut some corners.

Uhhh... I'm not sure he was calling them out, I read it more as a "The field was acting up and they were trying some crazy things out of desperation". Also, cutting corners? I'd never advise a team to do that, it never actually saves any time.

Matt

[BrandonD-1528]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

Uhhh... I'm not sure he was calling them out, I read it more as a "The field was acting up and they were trying some crazy things out of desperation". Also, cutting corners? I'd never advise a team to do that, it never actually saves any time.

Matt

I was indeed saying this. Their theory was that the 5v radios FIRST supplied were too underpowered to be reached by FMS, which I personally didn't believe. They ended up not switching to the old radios, because the problem was indeed fixed by RIT shutting down their wifi access points (there were like 20 of them in there). The volunteers did the best they could with what they had.

As for the battery thing, I'm aware that it was likely the cause of the issue. I just mentioned it because the robot didn't seem to power down, though I now realize the bridge probably died on its own.

And once again I mention that someone on our team mistakenly marked that battery as charged, and we didn't have time to check it before we queued.

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by BrandonD-1528

I was indeed saying this. Their theory was that the 5v radios FIRST supplied were too underpowered to be reached by FMS, which I personally didn't believe. They ended up not switching to the old radios, because the problem was indeed fixed by RIT shutting down their wifi access points (there were like 20 of them in there). The volunteers did the best they could with what they had.

As for the battery thing, I'm aware that it was likely the cause of the issue. I just mentioned it because the robot didn't seem to power down, though I now realize the bridge probably died on its own.

And once again I mention that someone on our team mistakenly marked that battery as charged, and we didn't have time to check it before we queued.

I didn't mean to sound harsh, sorry if I did, I just wanted to make it clear that as much as it might seem helpful to blame the evil forces of the field/etc, its only going to lead to more stress later. I hope you have a good season, and remember every time something breaks, it's a learning experience

[Bongle]

We were doing some testing with last year's robot today, and it's in pretty hurting shape. Even with a full battery, some very weird stuff can happen due to motors stalling. It is configured as a long-base 4WD tank drive with grippy wheels on front, slick wheels on back, and riding on carpet. Clearly, this configuration is really bad at turning.

Example of weirdness:
When we move the joystick full left or right, the robot sometimes shoots forward or backwards. We eventually figured that this was because one of the motors would trip its fuse while trying to turn, and the other one would then power the robot full-speed forward or backwards, depending on your direction of turn. So it ends looks like something un-commanded is happening, when in fact it's an interaction of the underpowered battery, fuses, and environment.

[Jeffy]

Originally Posted by Bongle

We were doing some testing with last year's robot today, and it's in pretty hurting shape. Even with a full battery, some very weird stuff can happen due to motors stalling. It is configured as a long-base 4WD tank drive with grippy wheels on front, slick wheels on back, and riding on carpet. Clearly, this configuration is really bad at turning.

This configuration should have no trouble turning unless it is direct driven by CIMS.

[Steve Ketron]

Everyone knows that every event does not get finished without a couple unsolved issues. One of those issues at the FLR was the few events were some robots seemed to be doing things on their own. I have seen similar things at other events every year. Is this worthy of being called hacked? No. Do I think my student jumped to a rash decision and posted this thread before he thought of what it is implying? YES Hopefully he has thaught of what he did so when we talk about it he will have learned a lesson and this will all be over.

FLR, was a great event. Thanks to everyone that put in a lot of long hours to make it a success. This was the first regional that the students on my team have attending and they had a great time. Lets give congrats to the winners, praise the great job that every team did and learn from our mistakes and get ready for the next week.

[BrandonD-1528]

I realize that this was likely not hacking but it was still a possibility. I was trying to gather opinions with this thread, nothing more. FLR is still the best event I've attended outside of the Championship thus far, and I have nothing against any of the teams or volunteers that were there. Sorry if it came off otherwise.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Steve Ketron

Hopefully he has thaught of what he did so when we talk about it he will have learned a lesson and this will all be over.

Steve,

The original post was coherent and well-written.

The discussion since has been calm, thoughtful and informative.

The topic is one that is always present and does not need to be kept locked away in the attic.

You are reacting very strongly to something, but I'm not sure what that something is. However, using only what is written in this dicussion thread as a guide, I see nothing troubling.

Blake

[Steve Ketron]

Originally Posted by gblake

You are reacting very strongly to something, but I'm not sure what that something is. However, using only what is written in this dicussion thread as a guide, I see nothing troubling.

Blake

Blake,

Unless you know the situation , then you don't know what is reacting strong or not. This has nothing to do with how it is written.

[whackedwatchdog]

Originally Posted by Steve Ketron

Blake,

Unless you know the situation , then you don't know what is reacting strong or not. This has nothing to do with how it is written.

At the risk of being rude, it sounds as if you might be reacting a little strongly. Blake might not (and probably does not) know the situation, but I see no reason to respond snidely to someone who is simply offering their opinion. If there is perhaps, something more to the situation, then let it go at that.

[Norman J]

Originally Posted by Steve Ketron

Is this worthy of being called hacked? No. Do I think my student jumped to a rash decision and posted this thread before he thought of what it is implying? YES Hopefully he has thaught of what he did so when we talk about it he will have learned a lesson and this will all be over.

I don't think your team has anything to be ashamed of about what Brandon did. He thought of a possibility and presented it in a clear and objective manner. The original post was devoid of unreasonable accusations and was well-written. I do not think anyone thinks worse of your team due to this thread.

Edit: That being said, there are numerous reasons why robots would act erratically. My team had a match where our robot would turn right every time our driver let go of the controls, but this turned out to be a fault with our control system. I think the joysticks weren't zeroed correctly or something like that.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Steve Ketron

Everyone knows that every event does not get finished without a couple unsolved issues. One of those issues at the FLR was the few events were some robots seemed to be doing things on their own. I have seen similar things at other events every year. Is this worthy of being called hacked? No. Do I think my student jumped to a rash decision and posted this thread before he thought of what it is implying? YES Hopefully he has thought of what he did so when we talk about it he will have learned a lesson and this will all be over.

Mr Ketron, I agree that your student probably jumped to conclusions but I have to wonder if this isn't something we should look into. What safe guards are in place to prevent such an occurrence from happening? What would the reaction be if it did occur (as far as FIRST goes)? How could it be proved (or disproved)?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

What safe guards are in place to prevent such an occurrence from happening?

I believe the burden of breaking WPA2 alone is great enough to prevent this from being an issue, ever.

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I believe the burden of breaking WPA2 alone is great enough to prevent this from being an issue, ever.

As mentioned prior though, some careful digging or social engineering might jump that hurdle.

After that, I'm not so convinced the system is that safe, it's worth looking in to. I don't think this particular instance is evidence of that, but I think it highlighted the fact it may be a problem. So far everyone has said that there was no hacking incident based on several plausible, likely explanations for the events that occurred. Other than relying on WPA security I haven't seen much counterargument about the 'hacking' not being possible.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but that's my $0.020000000000000001 (Sorry, using an Intel...)