Aviation Instruments Encrypt Engine-Monitor Data

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."

Comments

proprietary lock in?

[dclaw]

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...

[uberdave]

It sounds like propriety lock-in to me. There is no other reason to encrypt diagnostic data.

Re:It sounds like...

[uberdave]

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.

Re:Also the Gemini:

[wcdw]

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:

[VidEdit]

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.

plagiarism

[SuperBanana]

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.

Re:Auto industry

[ScrewMaster]

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?

Re:There's no practical reason?

[krray]

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...

Re:Also the Gemini:

[wjsteele]

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 completely disagree with having the data in a encyrypted format. There is abolutly no reason to do that. A checksum/hash should be good enough to ensure the integrety of the data. They are choosing to encrypt the data for their own (financial?) reasons.

Bill

"Fix"?

[John Jorsett]

Is it a "fix" when you deliberately broke it in the first place?

Re:Liability

[SilverspurG]

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 drop a ton of poop on them.