Tips on getting back in:
- did you use mneumonics of some sort to get at the combination?
- is there a limitation on the string that can be entered (any side intelligence is useful)?
- is there a time lock involved?
- does changing particular variables make it easier to get back in non-descructively?
- keep a log on the combinations that you have tried to ensure you don't re-cover the same territory
In this case, things were a bit odd. It had rubber buttons which when removed exposed membrane type switches which could be interfaced via an environmental sensor acquisition and interface device (something like an Arduino)(if you're curious this was designed and produced by a well known international security firm proving that brand doesn't always equate to quality). Once you program it and wire things up correctly, it's simply a case of letting your robot and program run until you open the safe. Another option is a more robust robot where it pushes buttons but obviously this takes quite a bit more hardware (which can make the project pretty expensive and potentially unworthwhile) to get working.
As I covered in my book on 'Cloud and Internet Security' please use proper locks with adequate countemeasures (time locks, variable string lengths, abnormal characters, shim proof, relatively unbreakable, etc...) and have a backup in case something goes wrong.
Been thinking about stealth design and counter measures a bit more.
- when you look at the the 2D thrust vectoring configuration of the F-22 Raptor you think why didn't they go 3D at times. One possible reason may be the 'letterbox effect'. It was designed as an air superiority fighter predominantly that relies heavily on BVR capabilities. From front on the plume effect is diminished (think about particle/energy weapon implementation problems) making it more difficult to detect. Obviously, this potentially reduces sideward movement (paricularly in comparison with 3D TVT options. Pure turn is more difficult but combined bank and turn isn't). Obvious tactic is to force the F-22 into sideward movements if it is ever on your tail (unlikely, due to apparently better sensor technology though)
- the above is a null point if you factor in variable thrust (one engine fires at a higher rate of thrust relative to the other) but it may result in feedback issues. People who have experience with fly by wire systems or high performance race cars which are undertuned will better understand this
- people keep on harping on about how 5th gen fighters can rely more heavily on BVR capabilities. Something which is often little spoken of is the relatively low performance of AAM (Air to Air Missile) systems (Morever, there is a difference between seeing, achieving RADAR lock, and achieving a kill). There must be upgrades along the way/in the pipeline to make 5th gen fighters a viable/economic option into the future
- the fact that several allied nations (Japan, Korea, and Turkey are among them currently)(India, Indonesia, and Russia are among those who are developing their own based on non-Western design) are developing their own indiginous 5th gen fighters which have characteristics more similar to the F-22 Raptor (the notable exception may be Israel who are maintaining and upgrading their F-15 fleet) and have air superiority in mind tells us that the F-35 is a much poorer brother to the F-22 Raptor in spite of what is being publicly said
Warplanes: No Tears For The T-50
- it's clear that the US and several allied nations believe that current stealth may have limited utility in the future. In fact, the Israeli's have said that within 5-10 years the JSF may lost any significant advantage that it currently has without upgrades
- everyone knows of the limited utility of AAM (Air to Air Missile) systems. It will be interesting to see whether particle/energy weapons are retrofitted to the JSF or whether they will be reserved entirely for 6th gen fighters. I'd be curious to know how much progress they've made with regards to this particularly with regards to energy consumption
- even if there have been/are intelligence breaches in the design of new fighter jets there's still the problem of production. The Soviets basically had the complete blue prints for NASA's Space Shuttle but ultimately decided against using it on a regular basis/producing more because like the Americans they discovered that it was extremely uneconomical. For a long time, the Soviets have trailed the West with regards to semiconductor technology which means that their sensor technology may not have caught up. This mightn't be the case with the Chinese. Ironically, should the Chinese fund the Russians and they work together they may achieve greater progress then working too independently
- some of the passive IRST systems out have current ranges of about 100-150km mark (that is publicly acknowledged)
- disoriention of gyroscopes has been used as a strategy against UCAV/UAVs. I'd be curious about how such technology would work against modern fighters which often go into failsafe mode (nobody wants to lose a fighter jet worth 8 or more figures. Hence, the technology) when the pilot blacks out... The other interesting thing would be how on field technologies such as temporal sensory deprivation (blinding, deafening, dis-orirentation, etc...) could be used in unison from longer range. All technologies which have been tested and used against ground based troops before)
- I've been thinking/theorising about some light based detection technologies to aircraft in general. One option I've been considering is somewhat like a sperical ball. The spherical ball is composed of lenses which focus in on a centre which is composed of sensors which would be a hybrid based technology based on the photoelectric effect and spectrascopic theory. The light would automatically trigger a voltage (much like a solar cell) while use of diffraction/spectrascopic theory would enable identification of aircraft from long range using light. The theory behind this is based on the way engine plumes work and the way jet fuels differ. Think about this carefully. Russian rocket fuel is very different from Western rocket fuel. I suspect it's much the same for jet fuel. We currently identify star/planet composition on roughly the same theory. Why not fighter aircraft? Moreover, there are other distinguishing aspects of the jet fighter nozzle exhausts (see my previous post and the section on LOAN systems, http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2015/07/joint-strike-fighter-f-35-notes.html). Think about the length and shape of each one based on their current flight mode (full afterburner, cruising, etc...) and the way most engine exhausts are unique (due to a number of different reasons including engine design, fuel, etc...). Clearly, the F-22, F-35, B-2, and other stealth have very unique nozzle shapes when compared to current 4th gen fighter options and among one another. The other thing is that given sufficient research (and I suspect a lot of time) I believe that the benefits of night or day flight will/could be largely mitigated. Think about the way in which light and camera filters (and night vision) work. They basically screen out based on frequency/wavelength to make things more visible. You should be able achieve the same thing during daylight. The other bonus of such technology is that it is entirely passive giving the advantage back to the party in defense and intelligence is relatively easy to collect. Just show up at a demonstration or near an airfield...
- such technology may be a moot point as we have already made progress on cloaking (effectively invisible to the naked eye) technology (though exact details are classified as is a lot of other details regarding particle/energy weapons and shielding technologies)... There's also the problem of straight lines. For practical purposes, light travels in straight lines... OTH type capabilities are beyond such technology (for the time being. Who knows what will happen in the future?)
- someone may contest that I seem to be focusing in on exhaust only but as as you aware this style of detection should also work against standard objects as well (though it's practicallity would be somewhat limited). Just like RADAR though you give up on being able to power through weather and other physical anomalies because you can't use a conventional LASER. For me, this represents a balance between being detected from an attackers perspective and being able to track them from afar... If you've ever been involved in a security/bug sweep you will know that a LASER even of modest power can be seen from quite a distance away
- everybody knows how dependent allied forces are upon integrated systems (sensors, re-fuelling, etc...)
- never fly straight and level against a 5th gen fighter. Weave up and down and side to side even on patrols to maximise the chances of detection earlier in the game because all of them don't have genuine all aspect stealth
- I've been thinking of other ways of defending against low observability aircraft. The first is based on 'loitering' weapons. Namely, weapons which move at low velocity/loiter until they come within targeting range of aicraft. Then they 'activate' and chase their target much like a 'moving mine' (a technology often seen in cartoons?). Another is essentially turning off all of your sensors once they become within targeting range. Once they end up in passive detection range, then you fire in massive, independent volleys knowing full well that low observability aircraft have low payload capability owing to comprimises in their design
- as stated previously, I very much doubt that the JSF is as bad some people are portraying
- it's clear that defense has become more integrated with economics now by virtue of the fact that most of our current defense theory is based on the notion of deterrence. I beleive that the only true way forward is reform of the United Nations, increased use of un-manned technologies, and perhaps people coming to terms with their circumstances more differently (unlikely given how long humanity has been around), etc... There is a strong possibility that the defense estabilshment's belief that future defense programs could be unaffordable could become true within the context of deterence and our need to want to control affairs around the word. We need cheaper options with the ability to 'push up' when required...
All of this is a moot point though because genuine 5th gen fighters should be able to see you from a mile off and most countries who have entered into the stealth technology arena are struggling to build 5th gen options (including Russia who have a long history in defense research and manufacturing). For the most part, they're opting for a combination of direct confrontation and damage limitation through reduction of defensive projection capability through long range weapons such as aicraft carrier destroying missiles, targeting of AWACS/refuelling systems, etc... and like for like battle options...
I've been working on more Apple based technolgy of late (I've been curious about the software development side for a while). It's been intriguing taking a closer look at their hardware. Most people I've come across have been impressed by the Apple ecosystem. To be honest, the more I look at the technology borne from this company the more 'generic' them seem. Much of the technology is simply repackaged but in a better way. They've had more than their fair share of problems.
How to identify MacBook models
How to identify MacBook Pro models
A whole heap of companies including graphic card, game console, and computer manufacturers were caught out with BGA implementation problems (basically, people tried to save money by reducing the quality of solder. These problems have largely been fixed much like the earlier capacitor saga). Apple weren't immune
Lines on a screen of an Apple iMac. Can be due to software settings, firmware, or hardware
Apparently, Macbooks get noisy headjacks from time to time. Can be due to software settings or hardware failure
One of the strangest things I've found is that in spite of a core failure of primary storage device people still try to sell hardware for almost what the current market value of a perfectly functional machine is. Some people still go for it but I'm guessing they have spare hardware lying around
There are some interesting aspects to their MagSafe power adapters. Some aspects are similar to authentication protocols used by manufacturers such as HP to ensure that that everthing is safe and that only original OEM equipment is used. Something tells me they don't do enough testing though. They seem to have a continuous stream of anomalous problems. It could be similar to the Microsoft Windows security problem though. Do you want an OS delivered in a timely fashion or one that is deprecated but secure at a later date (delivered in a lecture by a Microsoft spokesman a while back). You can't predict everything that happens when things move into mass scale production but I would have thought that the 'torquing' problem would have been obvious from a consumer engineering/design perspective from the outset...
Macbook power adapter compatibility
Overheating problems on Macbooks quite common
Upgrading Apple laptop hard drives is similar in complexity to that of PC based laptops
One thing has to be said of Apple hardware construction. It's radically different to that of PC based systems. I'd rather deal with a business class laptop that is designed to be upgraded and probably exhibits greater reliability to be honest. Opening a lot of their devices has told me that form takes too much in the ratio between form and function
One frustrating aspect of the Apple ecosystem is that they gradually phase out support of old hardware by inserting pre-requisite checking. Thankfully, as others (and I) have discovered bypassing some of their checks can be trivial at times