krellor

Hey, sorry it took so long to see your question. Here is a paper (PDF) on the subject with diagrams.

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/42365/eth-4572-01.pdf

The link is composed of two parts, the emitter and the receiver. The emitter captures the LF signal and up-converts it to 2.5 GHz. The obtained 2.5 GHz signal is then amplified and transmitted over the air. The receiver part of the link receives this signal and down-converts it to obtain the original LF signal. This LF signal is then amplified again and sent to a loop LF antenna which reproduces the signal that was emitted by the car in its integrity.

Edit: and here is a times article that covers the problem in one area. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/24/world/canada/toronto-car-theft-epidemic.html

Yeah. Shockingly people store things where it is convenient to have them. :) I’m glad I didn’t have a keyless system to with about.

I did read the article. I’m unfamiliar with the “hacking” tools or methods they mention given they use terms like emulator. I was simply sharing one wireless attack that is common in certain areas and why.

I think most of the wireless attacks aren’t trying to be so sophisticated. They target cars parked at home and use a relay attack that uses a repeater antenna to rebroadcast the signal from the car to the fob inside and vice versa, tricking the car into thinking the fob is nearby. Canada has seen a large spike in this kind of attack. Faraday pouches that you put the fob inside of at home mitigates the attack.

I’m not sure about what the article is referencing, which is probably a little more exotic, but relay attacks are very common against keyless cars. Keyless cars are constantly pinging for their matching fob. A relay attack just involves a repeater antenna held outside the car that repeats the signal between the car and the fob inside the house. Since many people leave the fob near the front of the house, it works and allows thieves to enter and start the car. Canada has has a big problem with car thieves using relay attacks to then drive cars into shipping containers and then sell them overseas.

Thanks for the article, it was a fun read. I’ll have to go back and re-read the majority opinion because I do remember some interesting analysis on it even if I disagree with the outcome.

While not related from a legal standpoint, the use of iPhones and intermediate devices reminds me of a supreme Court case that I wrote a brief about. The crux of it was a steaming service that operated large arrays of micro antenna to pick up over the air content and offer it as streaming services to customers. They uniquely associated individual customers with streams from individual antenna so they could argue that they were not copying the material but merely transmitting it.

I forget the details, but ultimately I believe they lost. It was an interesting case.

Since everyone else gave a joke answer I’ll take a stab in the dark and say the upper limits would be the availability of hydrogen and physical limitations in transforming heat output into electricity. The hydrogen is the most common element but 96% of it is currently produced from fossil fuels. After that, it would be how well you can scale up turbines to efficiently convert heat to electricity.

Part of that is the racket that is software licensing for mainframes. Many vendors like CA7 charge based on the machines computational capacity. You can introduce soft limits or send usage reports, but not all vendors accept that to lower your price. Super expensive software costs, at least back when I worked on zOS.

Right, Google isn’t one to trust. So paid services and clear data handling practices.

I would say don’t trust free services in general. There are plenty of paid service providers that handle your data well.

Just because they don’t issue a bill doesn’t mean they don’t track costs. They track labor, labor rates, and consumables.

That said, this particular treatment is very involved. They harvest cells over multiple periods, send them to a lab to be modified, and when they are ready they do chemotherapy to kill your immune system, then do a bone marrow transplant to introduce the modified cells, and then you have to be in isolation in a hospital until your immune system comes back. Even the best facilities are saying they can only do 5-10 of these per year.

Pretty crazy.

Because they are referring to engineering disciplines that predate all of the stuff you mention. When mechanical, structural, civic, etc engineers sign off on a design (stamp it) the incur personal liability if there is a defect in the design that kills someone or causes damage. There are certifications for telecom design and processes that require them to stamp designs, but otherwise most of what is lumped together as technology doesn’t constitute engineering from a legal or historical perspective. However the titles sort of took off and created two sets of meanings.

If software engineering was treated as engineering in the way that mechanical or others forms are, you would get a degree, get an entry level job at a firm as a junior, and after a few years, study and get certified to stamp designs/code systems, etc.

Now, outside of places like code for flight systems, medical devices, power plants, etc there isn’t a need for that kind of rigor, but those are the areas that would require licensing if it was available.

Good example. There’s some domains that do carry some liability and weight to the title. Flight systems, medical devices, etc. Domains where failure can kill people and can’t easily be rectified.

As of 2013 I believe, but it was discontinued in 2019. Fairly rare to see in the wild outside of specific domains like medical device coding or other areas where failure isn’t acceptable.

You do have stamping engineers for telecom design. As far as I know that’s the only real engineering title from the perspective that the sign off of the work carries well defined legal liability. I was director of engineering for a large org and the only stamping engineers in the org were telecom designers, not the security, software, systems, cloud, network, etc folks. Nothing against then either, but historically engineer meant something very specific prior to the rise of information technology.

Edit: actually in 2013 NCEES added a PE cert for software engineering, but it was discontinued on 2019.