|
|
Posted by Ben C on 12/19/07 08:35
On 2007-12-19, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[...]
> 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.)
A scheme I used to use was encryption of the firing order. Swap a few of
the HT leads around after you park, making sure you remember the inverse
obfuscation. The car won't start but nothing obvious will be wrong or
look recently unplugged or tampered with and you don't have to go around
with a rotor arm or anything else in your pocket.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|