Go to Post Maybe FIRST could get a sponsorship from Ikea, and we all could get flat-packed field parts with pictoral assembly instructions. And then all the parts could have funny names. - sanddrag [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-08-2012, 01:36
DampRobot's Avatar
DampRobot DampRobot is offline
Physics Major
AKA: Roger Romani
FRC #0100 (The Wildhats) and FRC#971 (Spartan Robotics)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Stanford University
Posts: 1,277
DampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond reputeDampRobot has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team 548 Einstein Statement

I've been watching this thread with much interest lately, and a few interesting points that (I believe) have not been addressed are still fresh in my mind.

First, aren't we forgetting the second person who brought down communications? The story that is corroborated both by the 548 mentor and the official report implies that there was a second attacker, who interestingly attacked the wifi network only after the 548 mentor did his three second demo attack. Most people appear to be assuming that the 548 mentor did all of the wifi atacks, which just doesn't appear to add up. Why did the second attacker act? Did they believe something similar to the first attacker, that they were being attacked? Or did they simply have a malicious intent?

Second, was there institutional knowledge of this security hole? It appears that at least two (and probably more, if this thread is any indicator) FRC members knew of this specific hole. Did no one on the official FRC team know of this? This seems unlikely to me, but depending on the extent of the knowledge of this hole, it certainly could be true. If so, why didn't they attempt to patch it? If not, does this point to an institutional problem in a lack of focus on security? In either case, more needs to be done to recognize and address future security holes.

Third, why did we never learn about this hole at Einstein, where it's relativity unlikely that two separate people coincidentally used this technique to bring down a match. Were there smaller incidents at regionals and division championships that simply did not get noticed until Einstein? Were people with knowledge of this quite until then, or simply unnoticed? And why did a thread never appear on CD with information about this? Surely, unless there was malicious intent, any loyal FIRSTer would rather report this than use it in a match. Were malicious (or simply very quite) people the only ones who ever knew or suspected a exploit of this type?

Hopefully, my questions were constructive and not offensive. I'm just a little surprised that I've never seen them asked or answered yet.
__________________
The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be lighted.

-Plutarch
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi