|
|
Posted by dorayme on 12/19/07 00:40
In article
<8c49b6c0-0f41-4fc3-9784-ad8f7938f7e7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.co
m>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> I don't object to "extreme", so much as it's use to qualify
> "obfuscation".
>
> You appear to be using obfuscation to imply "camouflage" (potentially
> discoverable, with effort)
Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.
I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
verification procedure for finding it:
Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!
No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.
Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
starter motor is *not* disabled.
Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
to show good faith.)
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|