All Epeeists may now relax...

[pigeonmeister]

Will it be theoretically possible to jam a fencers signal? I take the point that if it is then any individual would be unlikely to use such sophisticated equipment to rig fencing matches. I just wondered.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by keith

Of course if the FIE had been incharge they would have mandated that you could only go to the moon after orbiting mars.

Unless, of course, you know someone, boast a blatent disregard for the rules, and have a sufficiently hard erection.

Then the sky is the limit!

[keith]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Will it be theoretically possible to jam a fencers signal? I take the point that if it is then any individual would be unlikely to use such sophisticated equipment to rig fencing matches. I just wondered.

this is the fear that has driven the FIE to ban any 'wireless' aspect of reeless systems.

So no the current Sabre system cannot be jammed since it relies on sensing physical contact between the fencers. Presumably the wireless epee system works in a similar way just more sensitive given the lack of a lame.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by Agent_V

Wait a second, are you attacking the idea that new systems should be *fully tested*, i.e. to make sure that they aren't any worse than the previous system? Didn't you learn anything from the new timings scandal?

The justification that "they are only trying to help the sport" is one of the lamest ever, on par with Bush et al majorly restricting civil liberties because "we're trying to help defeat the terrorists". I think most (top) fencers would like to use a system as close to secure as the current one we have as possible - so why don't we try and find out as well as we can just how secure it is?

Alexander

For a math major at Princeton you don't read so hot. The device has been submitted to the FIE for approval. They will decide rather or not it is secure enough for them. I am not against testing at all. I am against baseless negativity on a system that could offer a sensible alternative to the full body lames, etc.

You are confusing testing with cheating. Under the current epee system I can cheat very effectively with clear nail polish among many other things. You seem to be saying that the system was not fully tested cause, oh my god, someone figured a way to cheat. Have you even actually looked up the definition of cheating? Something along the lines of an action taken against the letter of the rules to obtain an unfair advantage? Sounds like if you had been on the board of the FIE back in the day we never would have had electric fencing... I will agree with you that the foil timings were not tested fully and were a bad idea. No doubles and full body lames are a worse one so we don't need to be doing Roach's job for him by coming up with unfounded ways that the proposed system should not be accepted. Most especially considering that we are just spitballing on how the hell the damn thing works...

Furthermore, how the hell you get from using Teflon spray on fencing kit to saying that my belief that simply because someone can cheat does not nullify a system is comparable to civil rights abuses under the bush administration is... Gosh I can't even think of the work. Idiotic, illogical, inane, incongruous, irrationally nonsensical, ludicrous, preposterous, primitive, puerile, nonsensical... Pick one or all of those. Democrats using "logical" arguments like yours is the reason we lost...

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

No doubles and full body lames are a worse one so we don't need to be doing Roach's job for him by coming up with unfounded ways that the proposed system should not be accepted.

I have read about the idea of full body lames, but this is the first I have heard of 'no doubles' I presume you mean no double hits in epee? While the idea of more expensive equipment is not a popular one with me, I can not say the same for an idea to discourage fencers from suicide attacks, just to get a point... I mean I thought the idea was to hit without being hit..

[fencerontheline]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

I mean I thought the idea was to hit without being hit..

Funny... I thought the idea was to win....

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by fencerontheline

Funny... I thought the idea was to win....

Ditto, to win. If you want to practice dueling go find and SCA or ARMA group and have a nut. It is a lot of fun. The FIE is in charge of the highest level sport fencing events around. They should remain squarely focused.

All that aside, only in the fantasies of classical fencers and Hollywood movies to people fall down and die right away. In a real fight, you may have to wound your opponent many times and part of the tactical decision may very well be to expose a less valuable target to counterattack for the sake of a killing blow. Also the duels to first blood would end, IIRC or at least pause if they were wounded on both sides from the same action. Of course, chances are you probably already know all this and are just trolling to reignite your favorite little pet debate...

[needle]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

I have read about the idea of full body lames, but this is the first I have heard of 'no doubles' I presume you mean no double hits in epee? While the idea of more expensive equipment is not a popular one with me, I can not say the same for an idea to discourage fencers from suicide attacks, just to get a point... I mean I thought the idea was to hit without being hit..

Well, scoring on double touches made perfect sense in the days when the score was kept in "touches against", not the current "points for". While it can be argued that the change was purely semantical, under that system double touch was interpreted as "you are both dead, so both of you have a touch against you". Under the current system it's "you killed your opponent, so you get a point and, oh, he killed you too, so he gets a point" - again, it's the same action, but semantic interpretation is different. I guess my point is that I too wouldn't be sorry if double touches went away.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by keith

this is the fear that has driven the FIE to ban any 'wireless' aspect of reeless systems.

So no the current Sabre system cannot be jammed since it relies on sensing physical contact between the fencers. Presumably the wireless epee system works in a similar way just more sensitive given the lack of a lame.

I agree. Security that prevents the lights from going off when a touch was not actually made is not the issue. I am posting this message over a $30 802.11g wireless router that has encryption that could not be easily broken without a Cray Supercomputer or several hours worth of catching and sniffing packets (the latter assumes that I don't change the key every hour or two.) WEP encryption is the “cheap” solution; there are even stronger algorithms out there. However, there is no way to prevent someone from jamming a signal, regardless of whether or not it's encrypted (short of making them fence inside a 3” thick lead box with no spectators watching.) Another dificulty involves a means to guarantee that all of the signals from the fencers reach the box intact. It might be rare, but I could see Fencer A’s touch reaching the box while Fencer B’s valid touch disappears into thin air (literally!) Granted, the latter problem might be solved by some type of error correction scheme.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

I agree. Security that prevents the lights from going off when a touch was not actually made is not the issue. I am posting this message over a $30 802.11g wireless router that has encryption that could not be easily broken without a Cray Supercomputer or several hours worth of catching and sniffing packets (the latter assumes that I don't change the key every hour or two.) WEP encryption is the “cheap” solution; there are even stronger algorithms out there. However, there is no way to prevent someone from jamming a signal, regardless of whether or not it's encrypted (short of making them fence inside a 3” thick lead box with no spectators watching.) Another dificulty involves a means to guarantee that all of the signals from the fencers reach the box intact. It might be rare, but I could see Fencer A’s touch reaching the box while Fencer B’s valid touch disappears into thin air (literally!) Granted, the latter problem might be solved by some type of error correction scheme.

well there is an easy way to eliminate or at least control jamming; you simply set the system so it is in constant contact - each fencer broadcasts a carrier signal (also encoded of course) to the box. Any jamming and you know immediately.

As to 'missing' signals - is this any more of an issue than a sudden resistance spike in a floor reel? It doesn't represent a real problem

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

I agree. Security that prevents the lights from going off when a touch was not actually made is not the issue. I am posting this message over a $30 802.11g wireless router that has encryption that could not be easily broken without a Cray Supercomputer or several hours worth of catching and sniffing packets (the latter assumes that I don't change the key every hour or two.) WEP encryption is the “cheap” solution; there are even stronger algorithms out there. However, there is no way to prevent someone from jamming a signal, regardless of whether or not it's encrypted (short of making them fence inside a 3” thick lead box with no spectators watching.) Another dificulty involves a means to guarantee that all of the signals from the fencers reach the box intact. It might be rare, but I could see Fencer A’s touch reaching the box while Fencer B’s valid touch disappears into thin air (literally!) Granted, the latter problem might be solved by some type of error correction scheme.

You keep telling yourself that, but off-the-shelf routers are hacked into surprisingly easily. WEP, WPA, even MAC filtering don't hold up that long against someone who wants to get in.

[keith]

Originally Posted by prototoast

You keep telling yourself that, but off-the-shelf routers are hacked into surprisingly easily. WEP, WPA, even MAC filtering don't hold up that long against someone who wants to get in.

however the type of fixed keys that could be used by the FIE would make this redundant - it would be easy enough to match up transmitter/reciever pairs for each fencer that would allow hardware encoding. This ain't that expensive and we've been there before remembering back to the good old days when you picked capteurs out of the bag.

[mrbiggs]

How about car key remotes? First, there is an individual code for however many millions of cars there are out there. Second, I assume it is very secure, as people trust everything in their cars to the security of these remotes. Could a similar technology be used for fencing boxes?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by keith

however the type of fixed keys that could be used by the FIE would make this redundant - it would be easy enough to match up transmitter/reciever pairs for each fencer that would allow hardware encoding.

Personally, I'd prefer some sort of signal transmitted wireless. I just don't want some guy to get a false sense of security about his wireless router.

This ain't that expensive and we've been there before remembering back to the good old days when you picked capteurs out of the bag

I wasn't around for those "good old days" and it was my understanding that everyone who was around has tried very hard to forget it.

[keith]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I wasn't around for those "good old days" and it was my understanding that everyone who was around has tried very hard to forget it.

ah they're just in denial. More the point that for senior comps the FIE could hold and issue the equipment for bouts and so prevent any offsite tampering. It would also allow them to put in some serious hardware security features.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by keith

well there is an easy way to eliminate or at least control jamming; you simply set the system so it is in constant contact - each fencer broadcasts a carrier signal (also encoded of course) to the box. Any jamming and you know immediately.

As to 'missing' signals - is this any more of an issue than a sudden resistance spike in a floor reel? It doesn't represent a real problem

Good point, I didn't think of that. However, if a jamming signal was detected, wouldn't it be detected at the moment of the missed touch or afterwards? In other words, the interfering signal could successfully prevent a touch, and there would be no way to determine if the touch was good once the jamming signal was discovered. You also run into the problem of finding the guy who's jamming the signal (or even if it's being intentionally jammed in the first place) Put another way, I could just unplug the box at the moment of my teammate's opponent’s touch. I would probably get caught, but no one could know whether or not the touch was valid.

I’m really playing devil’s advocate here (and trying to get into the heads of the SIMI Commission.) I think wireless transmissions should be allowed in FIE events. Keith had a good point; a wireless system constructed with modern technology be at least a reliable as a system with mechanical reels that always cause problems at some point or another. In a way, eliminating mechanical components actually increases reliability.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

How about car key remotes? First, there is an individual code for however many millions of cars there are out there. Second, I assume it is very secure, as people trust everything in their cars to the security of these remotes. Could a similar technology be used for fencing boxes?

They are really not that secure, and in my travels I have found at least two cars that are unlocked by my remote. Strangely enough they did not lock back, and one only unlocked when I locked my car, but I digress. When I am at the Richmond club, I have to be withing about a foot of my car for the fob to work. Why? Because the club is very neer a couple of tv/radio stations and there is a giant transmitte tower very near by. And it is not just me that has this problem. So the car remote thing would not be very good as it is very easy to jam. The idea that was mentioned with removable preprogramed "keys" that could be inserted is a much better idea. If the keys were wrightable media such as memory sticks so much the better as they could be easily changed every tourney. I rather like that idea a lot actually...

[shlepzig]

If I were running the Zoo I would have each fecners wireless box running a clock synched to the central processor.

It would broadcast a packet with a hit a box-identification a time-stamp and a current time, then receive an authentication return signal back.

It would re-send the packet until it had received the authentication packet in return from the central box.

The two time coded signals would be compared to turn the proper light on. If the signal were continuously jammed the two boxes could be synched manually at the central box, the touch awarded then the jammer could be hunted down. If the signal were intermittently jammed, the signal could be sent through during an opening. The box would appear to have latency problems but would still be valid.

Such a system could be built with off-the shelf wireless networking components, probably inexpensively if a proper generic package could be sourced which only needed code pushed to an eprom rather than a new hardware solution.

Shlep.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

Good point, I didn't think of that. However, if a jamming signal was detected, wouldn't it be detected at the moment of the missed touch or afterwards? In other words, the interfering signal could successfully prevent a touch, and there would be no way to determine if the touch was good once the jamming signal was discovered. You also run into the problem of finding the guy who's jamming the signal (or even if it's being intentionally jammed in the first place) Put another way, I could just unplug the box at the moment of my teammate's opponent’s touch. I would probably get caught, but no one could know whether or not the touch was valid.

well assuming that you set the frequency of the signal high enough that wouldn't be a problem - timing the jamming in the 1/25 of a second between hits would be a real trick. Although malicious interference (rather than cheating on behalf of one or other fencer) may be an issue - not sure hacking a fencing comp would count for many geek points though.

On the other hand I remember back when I was a foolish young foilist and I found it the height of hilarity to unplug spools on epee pistes and watch the epeeist struggle to work out where the problem was; swapping weapons, body cords etc etc. I like to think my sense of humor has matured.