The error message is stupid no matter the reason for the check. With the old Macs it was similar, if no mouse was connected, it would say "No mouse found. Click on Ok to continue." Of course, there was no way to acknowledge the message with the keyboard, and the Mac was unusable without a mouse.
Also, the error says that the keyboard was not found, not the keyboard controller. The computer, even with the hack, should have run fine without keyboard (and in fact there was a setting in most computer's BIOSes of that time to disable this message).
My ISP changed their subscription system and I got a new login. It didn't work right away and with the help of the ISP I managed to finally connect with a temporary login. A week later I got a new login and it didn't work. When I called support, I thought that her name sounded familiar. I checked my call log and saw that I talked to her last time. When I told her so, I heard her typing, then she confirmed and passed me on to a technician, without me asking for it or saying anything else. The problem was fixed easily, and this was my quickest support call ever.
I couple of years back we had a special offer for Sun Blades at university. The machine I got didn't work, and so I called their support. When they asked to explain my problem, I described everything I did and why I concluded that the hard drive controller must be faulty. The lady on the phone did not interrupt me, and at the end of my description she just said that yes, she agreed and she would send a technician over. Not ever did she ask to reboot the machine or anything like that. And the technician came the next day and replaced the backplane - in my student dormitory (and yes, it worked afterwards).
Just an idea on how to work around potential weaknesses in the random number generator: 1) Set up a trusted and isolated system. 2) Use the system to generate key pairs 3) Some smart cards allow to import keys, including the private key (but do not allow to re-export the private key) 4) Dispose of private key after programming the smart card, and dispose of the system when replaced
This would not get around other weaknesses of the smart cards, but at least you can ensure that the card uses properly generated keys.
The SIM cards come with the keys preconfigured. As the GSM standard uses symmetric cryptography, the key has to be known and thus is stored somewhere outside the SIM card.
With smart cards, you can (and should) generate the keys yourself, or rather, let the card do it. The card normally uses asymmetric cryptography and will then store the private key internally and never disclose it, thus making it impossible for spy agencies to recover the keys*.
* There could be weaknesses, either as bugs or explicitly introduced by spy agencies. For instance, the card could use a weak random number generator (I remember an article that some ID cards used IDs that were not so random after all), or the card could have a back-door to extract the private key. In any case, the attack described, where an employee would be bribed to disclose a database of keys would not work for smart cards, but that does not mean that another attack is not possible.
Also note, just because we know that Gemalto has been compromised does not mean that other companies are more secure.
Well, there are actually multiple parts to any serious reply to your "wake-up call":
1) you might not hear/see people from the EU complaining because they might not do it on Slashdot (hint: not everybody speaks English).
2) What can realistically be done against the NSA?I mean, the US interferes almost everywhere, and if someone does not agree, there is a lot of political pressure. Besides, what exactly are Americans doing, other than complaining on Slashdot? (I am really glad for the EFF and a few other such organisations)
3) Please also consider that when Europeans complain, they are labeled as anti-American (or anti-Israel). So people might shut up because it's difficult to have a real argument. But the US might not have as much support outside the US as Americans like to believe.
I would also argue that Europeans (and other countries) really do a lot already. Maybe they don't complain that loudly, they just vote with their wallet (look at what is happening to Cisco or the military airplane deal from Barzil that went to Saab). Or they change laws to mandate having communications that are terminated on both ends in the same country stay in this same country instead of taking the cheapest route (often through London). In fact, I get the impression that Americans complain and European (and others) work hard on overcoming the problems.
If you have any useful ideas on how to tackle the issue efficiently, I (and a great many others, I am sure) would very much like to hear them.
The Google cache was taken down. The original author seems to have agreed to take down the information on his site as well, even without having been contacted him-self: https://sites.google.com/site/...
However, they were too late. The web archive has already archived their pages. Here are the relevant links:
10s forward and backward jumps (with the keyboard, so no point-and-click delays), or 1 minute and 10 minutes jumps are really great.
The mandatory ads on DVDs are annoying on stand-alone players. It would be easier and faster (no waiting for mail deliveries) to just download the movies. Why do I have to watch piracy warnings on a leagally-bought DVD when I could skip them on an illegal download?
Also, as I travel between North America and Europe, region codes are a real PITA. I actually have a stand-alone region-free DVD player, and I never had to update firmware, but I had to enter a secret number to activate the region-free feature. On my Linux laptop this worked out of the box. Do region-free BlueRay players exist? Is it really necessary to update the firmware? Both questions are potential deal-breakers by themselves!
I buy movies on DVD, then rip them to watch on my mobile devices. I would buy BlueRays and a stand-alone player if I could use them with my high-quality but non-DRM monitor.
Actually, to prevent "look[ing] for the hashes of those texts amongst the password" salted hashes are used. I believe password tables would already be reasonable sure if web sites would adopt salted hash algorithms, such as BCrypt.
This scheme is still vulnerable to to weak passwords, as you can just try the most common password (if restricted to a length greater or equal to 6 characters, it would probably be "123456") for randomb combinations of users until you get a combination that works. Once you have a set of user/password matches, you can then bruteforce other passwords. For large sets of passwords and a small number of correct passwords required, this scheme would hardly be better than standard salted hash approaches, not because the scheme is mathematically weak, but because of the lazyness of users (including me).
Thank you for pointing out one of the real flaws of the system! (sorry, no mod points)
There is another one: Since most people still use weak passwords (such as "password" and "123456"), if you have access to a password store, you can try a combination of user logins with the most likely passwords until you get a combination that is validated (I didn't run the numbers, but I bet it would hardly slow you down). Once you have that, you can use this to crack the rest of the passwords. So you wouldn't need to create fake accounts at all.
Well, the document (from which TFS is extracted) was written by a non-native English speaker (Ralph Langner, who is German). Interestingly, I note that as a non-native English speaker myself I make a number of mistakes that Americans find particularly annoying (this post is probably full of them), while at the same time I have difficulties reading comments with typical American mistakes (theirs / there's, then / than, he's / his, etc.). I think that native-English speakers rely more on how it sounds, while non-native English speakers tend to analyze the structure more and thus make different types of mistakes.
Anyway, I appreciate people pointing out mistakes as this allows me to learn.
I know I shouldn't have, but I read the whole document and it's really interesting. Langner thinks that the tactics (and probably the team as well) changed over time. Based on his observations I propose the following (conspiracy) theory:
The attacks on the enrichment plants have been going on much longer than anyone so far claims, maybe since the beginning. That's why Iran's progress was so much slower than what the Pakistany managed to do (the first generation centrifigues are supposedly extremely tricky). Instead of discovering the initial attack (described in the document), the Iranian's compensated for the seemingly random problems by including additional control measures not present in the design from Pakistan: shut-off valves to quickly isolate a malfunctioning centrifuge and over-pressure valves. It took them ten years instead of the two years of the Pakistany, but they still managed to get enrichement started. Maybe with their added failure-tolerant design the original attacks didn't work anymore, or there was a leadership change (as Langner speculates). Maybe the Iranian's suspected something and changed procedures also for contractors and workers (Langner thinks that the initial attack was with direct access to the system while the later attack had to somehow find a way in). Maybe then the initial team was the Israelis who wanted to remain hidden, and when their approach didn't work anymore they asked the Americans for help who used the NSA's attack library for a way accros the air gap. The Americans would probably also be less worried about remaining hidden and maybe actively wanted to send a message.
Altought admittely pure speculation, I think this scenario fits the known facts and observations. I'm curious to see what you think of this;-)
It's similar in Switzerland. If you pass your driving test with an automatic car, you still get the same license, but with a mention that you are only allowed to drive automatic (similar to the mention that one is only allowed to drive with glasses).
As for enforcing this system, wouldn't it be the more fancy cars (with lots of automation) that could actually enforce this, while the old cars (where you would actually need a better license) would not? You could still use biometrics, etc., to determine in a fancy car whether you're allowed to turn off the enhancements.
The article mentions that a connection from one point to anohter within Europe would likely stay within Europe. Maybe technically... On a recent trip to Paris I did a traceroute to an e-mail server in Switzerland, and essentially what I saw was: Paris (F) -> London (UK) -> Paris (F) -> London (UK) -> Paris (F) -> Lyon (F) -> Geneva (CH). There might be good reasons why the connection would go through London, but twice, and then come back? Considering that the UK is closely collaborating with the US in its data gathering, I have a feeling that this routing was not entirely by accident.
From what I understand, the point is that we are not concentrating on the biggest risks, but on the wrong risks. The measures we have taken to "protect" flights have resulted in more deaths (due to car accidents of people avoiding flying) than the deaths caused by the original incident that triggered the "security" measures.
All in all, we should not give up our freedoms for security theater that actually increases the overall risk.
It won't work because people cannot do anything else with the money and thus will spend it on some project. They will not choose the best project as they don't have any particular incentive to do so. They will rather spend the money on the project of the people they are friends with.
To make it work I would propose the following changes:
- Employees have to invest real money (e.g., from their salaries). Investments are, of course, completely voluntarily. Investments could be limited to e.g., $1000 per employee per year. The important thing here is that the employee has to invest real money that she/he could use otherwise, so they will only do so for projects that they really believe in.
- IBM would increase the investment to e.g., 10x the value the employee invested. This would ensure that there is a boost to what an employee can achieve with her/his investment.
- The employee gets a bonus if the idea turns into a (viable) business project / product. The bonus could be e.g., 10x the value invested. This would ensure that the employees have an incentive to participate in such projects and that they really choose projects they think are viable rather than the projects of their friends. There could be additional factors, such as a 100x boost if the project not only succeeds but really takes off.
How to choose the "boost factor"? Well, if 10% of projects succeed on average, then the boost factor should be bigger than (1 / 10%) to ensure that investors get on average their investment back (and thus are motivated to participate).
I am from Europe and I think that Asian countries have a huge advantage. You are forced to adopt IPv6, so while the rest of the world still hesitates and waits, you gain lots of experience and get plenty of people trained in a new technology that will eventually become essential. Once the rest of the world wakes up to the reality, you are ready. This actually worries me for my own country...
The problem is that military GPS receiver are most likely hardened against jamming attacks (their receivers have a wider dynamic range). Thus, in order to jam military receivers in a range of 500 yards you will jam civilian receivers in a much wider range (most likely within miles of the jamming device).
Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to promote this exercise, and I am aware of some of the problems it causes. All I am saying is that they really should perform a jamming attack if they are serious about this threat. To do so, they will need to find a solution that is acceptable to the public in question (i.e., the local fishermen).
The problem is that if you try to manually shut down GPS receivers, you might well forget a few. There was an exercise where they tested how a ship would react to GPS jamming. The expected, of course, the main navigation unit to fail, as it was based on GPS, and then the inertial navigation unit to take over. However, the inertial navigation unit also failed, as it used a time reference based on GPS. Similarly, a whole lot of other systems (if I remember correctly, radar) also failed for similar reasons. In my opinion, if they are serious about this exercise, they will need to jam GPS.
How about switching to the new technology? Some sites have already native IPv6 support, and for others you can use public IPv6->IPv4 proxies. See for instance:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/gateway/
Wind can stop almost immediately. Most wind turbines will continue to produce energy for approximately one minute. This is not enough for conventional power plants to power up, hence currently a high base load is needed. If you can, lets say, power up a conventional power plant within one hour (and maybe wind resumes by then as well), then if you charge your car over night the car will still be charged in the morning. The system will simply optimize the exact times when the car is being charged.
Additional option: Most people don't need 100% of the charge for most days. A user can choose what kind of guarantee is needed. For a normal trip to work (e.g., 50km) 50% would be enough. So the user goes for a cheaper charge for e.g., 70%. The system guarantees only 70%, but if energy is available, the battery will actually be charged more. If the user needs a higher charge (e.g., for a business trip or vacation), the user can choose a guaranteed higher charge but will have to pay more (as the system has less flexibility).
Wind energy and EVs each pose important problems when seen individually. Together they extend each other nicely to solve the individual problems.
There are lots of comments about increasing the load of the electric grid due to more electrical vehicles, etc. and that green energy sources, such as wind, cause problems with the base load. Well, this development can actually help! For instance, the Edison project (http://www.edison-net.dk/) aims at installing an intelligent charging network. Wind or solar power fails due to changing weather conditions, and the charging of batteries for EVs is simply interrupted for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
The error message is stupid no matter the reason for the check. With the old Macs it was similar, if no mouse was connected, it would say "No mouse found. Click on Ok to continue." Of course, there was no way to acknowledge the message with the keyboard, and the Mac was unusable without a mouse.
Also, the error says that the keyboard was not found, not the keyboard controller. The computer, even with the hack, should have run fine without keyboard (and in fact there was a setting in most computer's BIOSes of that time to disable this message).
My ISP changed their subscription system and I got a new login. It didn't work right away and with the help of the ISP I managed to finally connect with a temporary login. A week later I got a new login and it didn't work. When I called support, I thought that her name sounded familiar. I checked my call log and saw that I talked to her last time. When I told her so, I heard her typing, then she confirmed and passed me on to a technician, without me asking for it or saying anything else. The problem was fixed easily, and this was my quickest support call ever.
I couple of years back we had a special offer for Sun Blades at university. The machine I got didn't work, and so I called their support. When they asked to explain my problem, I described everything I did and why I concluded that the hard drive controller must be faulty. The lady on the phone did not interrupt me, and at the end of my description she just said that yes, she agreed and she would send a technician over. Not ever did she ask to reboot the machine or anything like that. And the technician came the next day and replaced the backplane - in my student dormitory (and yes, it worked afterwards).
Just an idea on how to work around potential weaknesses in the random number generator:
1) Set up a trusted and isolated system.
2) Use the system to generate key pairs
3) Some smart cards allow to import keys, including the private key (but do not allow to re-export the private key)
4) Dispose of private key after programming the smart card, and dispose of the system when replaced
This would not get around other weaknesses of the smart cards, but at least you can ensure that the card uses properly generated keys.
The SIM cards come with the keys preconfigured. As the GSM standard uses symmetric cryptography, the key has to be known and thus is stored somewhere outside the SIM card.
With smart cards, you can (and should) generate the keys yourself, or rather, let the card do it. The card normally uses asymmetric cryptography and will then store the private key internally and never disclose it, thus making it impossible for spy agencies to recover the keys*.
* There could be weaknesses, either as bugs or explicitly introduced by spy agencies. For instance, the card could use a weak random number generator (I remember an article that some ID cards used IDs that were not so random after all), or the card could have a back-door to extract the private key. In any case, the attack described, where an employee would be bribed to disclose a database of keys would not work for smart cards, but that does not mean that another attack is not possible.
Also note, just because we know that Gemalto has been compromised does not mean that other companies are more secure.
Well, there are actually multiple parts to any serious reply to your "wake-up call":
1) you might not hear/see people from the EU complaining because they might not do it on Slashdot (hint: not everybody speaks English).
2) What can realistically be done against the NSA?I mean, the US interferes almost everywhere, and if someone does not agree, there is a lot of political pressure. Besides, what exactly are Americans doing, other than complaining on Slashdot? (I am really glad for the EFF and a few other such organisations)
3) Please also consider that when Europeans complain, they are labeled as anti-American (or anti-Israel). So people might shut up because it's difficult to have a real argument. But the US might not have as much support outside the US as Americans like to believe.
I would also argue that Europeans (and other countries) really do a lot already. Maybe they don't complain that loudly, they just vote with their wallet (look at what is happening to Cisco or the military airplane deal from Barzil that went to Saab). Or they change laws to mandate having communications that are terminated on both ends in the same country stay in this same country instead of taking the cheapest route (often through London). In fact, I get the impression that Americans complain and European (and others) work hard on overcoming the problems.
If you have any useful ideas on how to tackle the issue efficiently, I (and a great many others, I am sure) would very much like to hear them.
I think this is the best comment I ever read on Slashdot! Thank you!!! And thank you for the work you do/did!
The Google cache was taken down. The original author seems to have agreed to take down the information on his site as well, even without having been contacted him-self:
https://sites.google.com/site/...
However, they were too late. The web archive has already archived their pages. Here are the relevant links:
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
(not modified)
https://oshpark.com/profiles/m...
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
No mod points, sorry. I totally agree!
10s forward and backward jumps (with the keyboard, so no point-and-click delays), or 1 minute and 10 minutes jumps are really great.
The mandatory ads on DVDs are annoying on stand-alone players. It would be easier and faster (no waiting for mail deliveries) to just download the movies. Why do I have to watch piracy warnings on a leagally-bought DVD when I could skip them on an illegal download?
Also, as I travel between North America and Europe, region codes are a real PITA. I actually have a stand-alone region-free DVD player, and I never had to update firmware, but I had to enter a secret number to activate the region-free feature. On my Linux laptop this worked out of the box. Do region-free BlueRay players exist? Is it really necessary to update the firmware? Both questions are potential deal-breakers by themselves!
I buy movies on DVD, then rip them to watch on my mobile devices. I would buy BlueRays and a stand-alone player if I could use them with my high-quality but non-DRM monitor.
Actually, to prevent "look[ing] for the hashes of those texts amongst the password" salted hashes are used. I believe password tables would already be reasonable sure if web sites would adopt salted hash algorithms, such as BCrypt.
This scheme is still vulnerable to to weak passwords, as you can just try the most common password (if restricted to a length greater or equal to 6 characters, it would probably be "123456") for randomb combinations of users until you get a combination that works. Once you have a set of user/password matches, you can then bruteforce other passwords. For large sets of passwords and a small number of correct passwords required, this scheme would hardly be better than standard salted hash approaches, not because the scheme is mathematically weak, but because of the lazyness of users (including me).
Thank you for pointing out one of the real flaws of the system! (sorry, no mod points)
There is another one: Since most people still use weak passwords (such as "password" and "123456"), if you have access to a password store, you can try a combination of user logins with the most likely passwords until you get a combination that is validated (I didn't run the numbers, but I bet it would hardly slow you down). Once you have that, you can use this to crack the rest of the passwords. So you wouldn't need to create fake accounts at all.
How is this different from the commercial solution that ID Quantique offers now already for several years?
http://www.idquantique.com/
Well, the document (from which TFS is extracted) was written by a non-native English speaker (Ralph Langner, who is German). Interestingly, I note that as a non-native English speaker myself I make a number of mistakes that Americans find particularly annoying (this post is probably full of them), while at the same time I have difficulties reading comments with typical American mistakes (theirs / there's, then / than, he's / his, etc.). I think that native-English speakers rely more on how it sounds, while non-native English speakers tend to analyze the structure more and thus make different types of mistakes.
Anyway, I appreciate people pointing out mistakes as this allows me to learn.
I know I shouldn't have, but I read the whole document and it's really interesting. Langner thinks that the tactics (and probably the team as well) changed over time. Based on his observations I propose the following (conspiracy) theory:
The attacks on the enrichment plants have been going on much longer than anyone so far claims, maybe since the beginning. That's why Iran's progress was so much slower than what the Pakistany managed to do (the first generation centrifigues are supposedly extremely tricky). Instead of discovering the initial attack (described in the document), the Iranian's compensated for the seemingly random problems by including additional control measures not present in the design from Pakistan: shut-off valves to quickly isolate a malfunctioning centrifuge and over-pressure valves. It took them ten years instead of the two years of the Pakistany, but they still managed to get enrichement started. Maybe with their added failure-tolerant design the original attacks didn't work anymore, or there was a leadership change (as Langner speculates). Maybe the Iranian's suspected something and changed procedures also for contractors and workers (Langner thinks that the initial attack was with direct access to the system while the later attack had to somehow find a way in). Maybe then the initial team was the Israelis who wanted to remain hidden, and when their approach didn't work anymore they asked the Americans for help who used the NSA's attack library for a way accros the air gap. The Americans would probably also be less worried about remaining hidden and maybe actively wanted to send a message.
Altought admittely pure speculation, I think this scenario fits the known facts and observations. I'm curious to see what you think of this ;-)
It's similar in Switzerland. If you pass your driving test with an automatic car, you still get the same license, but with a mention that you are only allowed to drive automatic (similar to the mention that one is only allowed to drive with glasses).
As for enforcing this system, wouldn't it be the more fancy cars (with lots of automation) that could actually enforce this, while the old cars (where you would actually need a better license) would not? You could still use biometrics, etc., to determine in a fancy car whether you're allowed to turn off the enhancements.
The article mentions that a connection from one point to anohter within Europe would likely stay within Europe. Maybe technically... On a recent trip to Paris I did a traceroute to an e-mail server in Switzerland, and essentially what I saw was: Paris (F) -> London (UK) -> Paris (F) -> London (UK) -> Paris (F) -> Lyon (F) -> Geneva (CH). There might be good reasons why the connection would go through London, but twice, and then come back? Considering that the UK is closely collaborating with the US in its data gathering, I have a feeling that this routing was not entirely by accident.
From what I understand, the point is that we are not concentrating on the biggest risks, but on the wrong risks. The measures we have taken to "protect" flights have resulted in more deaths (due to car accidents of people avoiding flying) than the deaths caused by the original incident that triggered the "security" measures.
All in all, we should not give up our freedoms for security theater that actually increases the overall risk.
It won't work because people cannot do anything else with the money and thus will spend it on some project. They will not choose the best project as they don't have any particular incentive to do so. They will rather spend the money on the project of the people they are friends with.
To make it work I would propose the following changes:
- Employees have to invest real money (e.g., from their salaries). Investments are, of course, completely voluntarily. Investments could be limited to e.g., $1000 per employee per year. The important thing here is that the employee has to invest real money that she/he could use otherwise, so they will only do so for projects that they really believe in.
- IBM would increase the investment to e.g., 10x the value the employee invested. This would ensure that there is a boost to what an employee can achieve with her/his investment.
- The employee gets a bonus if the idea turns into a (viable) business project / product. The bonus could be e.g., 10x the value invested. This would ensure that the employees have an incentive to participate in such projects and that they really choose projects they think are viable rather than the projects of their friends. There could be additional factors, such as a 100x boost if the project not only succeeds but really takes off.
How to choose the "boost factor"? Well, if 10% of projects succeed on average, then the boost factor should be bigger than (1 / 10%) to ensure that investors get on average their investment back (and thus are motivated to participate).
Sorry, can't mod. But this is the best comment I've seen for this story! Thanks!
I am from Europe and I think that Asian countries have a huge advantage. You are forced to adopt IPv6, so while the rest of the world still hesitates and waits, you gain lots of experience and get plenty of people trained in a new technology that will eventually become essential. Once the rest of the world wakes up to the reality, you are ready. This actually worries me for my own country...
The problem is that military GPS receiver are most likely hardened against jamming attacks (their receivers have a wider dynamic range). Thus, in order to jam military receivers in a range of 500 yards you will jam civilian receivers in a much wider range (most likely within miles of the jamming device).
Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to promote this exercise, and I am aware of some of the problems it causes. All I am saying is that they really should perform a jamming attack if they are serious about this threat. To do so, they will need to find a solution that is acceptable to the public in question (i.e., the local fishermen).
The problem is that if you try to manually shut down GPS receivers, you might well forget a few. There was an exercise where they tested how a ship would react to GPS jamming. The expected, of course, the main navigation unit to fail, as it was based on GPS, and then the inertial navigation unit to take over. However, the inertial navigation unit also failed, as it used a time reference based on GPS. Similarly, a whole lot of other systems (if I remember correctly, radar) also failed for similar reasons. In my opinion, if they are serious about this exercise, they will need to jam GPS.
How about switching to the new technology? Some sites have already native IPv6 support, and for others you can use public IPv6->IPv4 proxies. See for instance: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/gateway/
Wind can stop almost immediately. Most wind turbines will continue to produce energy for approximately one minute. This is not enough for conventional power plants to power up, hence currently a high base load is needed. If you can, lets say, power up a conventional power plant within one hour (and maybe wind resumes by then as well), then if you charge your car over night the car will still be charged in the morning. The system will simply optimize the exact times when the car is being charged.
Additional option: Most people don't need 100% of the charge for most days. A user can choose what kind of guarantee is needed. For a normal trip to work (e.g., 50km) 50% would be enough. So the user goes for a cheaper charge for e.g., 70%. The system guarantees only 70%, but if energy is available, the battery will actually be charged more. If the user needs a higher charge (e.g., for a business trip or vacation), the user can choose a guaranteed higher charge but will have to pay more (as the system has less flexibility).
Wind energy and EVs each pose important problems when seen individually. Together they extend each other nicely to solve the individual problems.
There are lots of comments about increasing the load of the electric grid due to more electrical vehicles, etc. and that green energy sources, such as wind, cause problems with the base load. Well, this development can actually help! For instance, the Edison project (http://www.edison-net.dk/) aims at installing an intelligent charging network. Wind or solar power fails due to changing weather conditions, and the charging of batteries for EVs is simply interrupted for a while.
Because his truth is inconvenient?