Ranking 2K 40-49 Hwts

Not sure where you should be posting? Put it here.
RST
Paddler
Posts: 5
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 7:22 pm

Post by RST » March 20th, 2006, 5:16 pm

let's face it, even if this is serious or not, it's a compelling thread......(better than the PATT b o l l o c k s at least)

..go on Chad, let us know all the details...

Cheers
RichardT
36/Hwt/6'2"

User avatar
PaulS
10k Poster
Posts: 1212
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 12:07 pm
Location: Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by PaulS » March 20th, 2006, 5:17 pm

Daren wrote:
PaulS wrote:It looks like he started fast, held in there and then had some fade. Plus his CTC Rugby Test ain't exactly shabby.
What do you know that we don't? There's no 'Chad' listed on the CTC web site for this month's rugby test. Do you perhaps know who the real person behind the alias is?
Inside FB info only, nothing all that secret, or it won't be from how this thread started. If you "deal with" one FB you will have to "deal with" us all. Do you have some reason to justify this "dealing with"? :roll:
Erg on,
Paul Smith
www.ps-sport.net Your source for Useful Rowing Accessories and Training Assistance.
"If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask me the question."

User avatar
Citroen
SpamTeam
Posts: 8049
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:28 pm
Location: A small cave in deepest darkest Basingstoke, UK

Post by Citroen » March 20th, 2006, 5:20 pm

Spectre wrote:Just to stir the pot I have two theories about this latest thread:
1. Chad has found a way to cheat the C2 verification system and is testing the C2 folks to see if he can get away with it only to laugh at as all when he does or
I discussed the possibility for Scott (and others at C2) making the C/C++ headers for their *.LCB (LogCard Backup) file open source. Scott told me that he didn't want to do that as it might give the hackers a chance at fiddling with the ranking system.

There is a possibility that Chad reverse engineered the logcard file, then built a valid but false file that he could use to generate the verification code. But since we don't even know what "encryption" method is being used by C2 for that it's, probably, impossible to do.

Encryption is an interesting subject and two of my PCs are currently running the M4 code breaking stuff. This is working on German Naval Messages from 1942-1944. The outlook is another 26 days to process the current message. It's not something that runs in microseconds unless you have both the public and private key.

If the verification code is encrypted with DES, there's an awful lot of keyspace to search and I doubt Chad has any access to the kind of supercomputer to crack it quickly. Make it triple-DES and it becomes many orders of magnitude harder. If the verification code is hashed with MD5 that's still a major computing task to crack that one.

We know that the 16 hex chars of the verification code holds date, distance and workout time. So we have the cleartext.

03/18/2006 2000m 5:44.9

Chad clearly has the verification key generated by the PM3 (which I'll assume is the ciphertext encrypted with a public key). If he's smart he probably has the *.LCB file from the LogCard Utility. Assuming he has a logcard to record the workout on. [I've sent those in to Scott when I was having troubles with V61, V88, V90 and V92 firmware causing logcard corruption. I even sent one to Godfried to get a verification code generated using his PM3.]

What we don't have is the private key (which must be held by C2 for their website and must be stored in the PM3 firmware). If the private key is compromised all bets are off. C2 will have a definite problem changing their private key if it's held in firmware (which is unlikely). They'd have a job - but less of a job if the public key is compromised - you can generate a new public key - you can publish public keys without compromising the system.

So your suggestion doesn't really hold water. I doubt the verification system has been cracked.



PS. If anyone wants to donate spare machine power on WinXX or Linux (and a few others) to the M4 project please take a look at http://www.bytereef.org/ the project has around 3000 unique IP addresses accessing the server for workunits.

User avatar
hjs
Marathon Poster
Posts: 10076
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:18 pm
Location: Amstelveen the netherlands

Post by hjs » March 20th, 2006, 5:37 pm

Ben Rea wrote:o, im an idiot, sorry
I don,t think so. Don,t overreact if someone thinks differantly

DavidA
10k Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 4:35 pm
Location: Amberley Village, OH
Contact:

Post by DavidA » March 20th, 2006, 5:42 pm

Daren wrote: It is, but "Chad" is not honourable.
I had hoped that now that the forum was starting fresh we might all have a fresh start as well on some of the inflamatory discussions. Wishful thinking I guess :cry:
At the moment Chad has only posted about an excellent time he has done, and I don't think we should assume that he is being anything other than truthful about it, as with anyone else who posts a time here.

David
63 y / 70 kg / 172 cm / 5 kids / 17 grandkids :)
Received my model C erg 18-Dec-1994
my log

User avatar
Citroen
SpamTeam
Posts: 8049
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:28 pm
Location: A small cave in deepest darkest Basingstoke, UK

Post by Citroen » March 20th, 2006, 5:48 pm

DavidA wrote:
Daren wrote: It is, but "Chad" is not honourable.
I had hoped that now that the forum was starting fresh we might all have a fresh start as well on some of the inflamatory discussions. Wishful thinking I guess :cry:
At the moment Chad has only posted about an excellent time he has done, and I don't think we should assume that he is being anything other than truthful about it, as with anyone else who posts a time here.

David
Exactly.

Although we could ask him to produce the same evidence that he asked of Dwayne (after Dwayne's oustanding row).

Daren
1k Poster
Posts: 144
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:49 pm

Post by Daren » March 21st, 2006, 4:50 am

Citroen wrote:There is a possibility that Chad reverse engineered the logcard file, then built a valid but false file that he could use to generate the verification code.
There's a higher probability that "Chad" has engaged the services of more than one person, with the explicit purpose of producing a fake time. He thinks that if he shows it can be done by someone that wants to, then it's necessarily the case that it has been done by others. Or, rather, one other in particular.

Of course, any sensible person can see that proof of concept doesn't lend weight to the argument. No one's disputing the online rankings can be played.

I view Chad's claim with suspicion. I'm not much one for conspiracy theories in general, but in this case I think it's warranted.

Daren
1k Poster
Posts: 144
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:49 pm

Post by Daren » March 21st, 2006, 5:01 am

PaulS wrote:Do you have some reason to justify this "dealing with"?
Yes. :roll:

mumbles
1k Poster
Posts: 111
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 6:59 pm

Hmmmmmm?

Post by mumbles » March 21st, 2006, 6:44 am

Chad, are you really Mathew Pinsent? Just wondering as you are in the right age group and pull an incredible time, just wondering maybe you were announcing your comeback at BIRC 2006 (you said you are going), whoever you are, the time is amazing, congratulations, hope to see you at BIRC 2006, WR?

Owen

Chad Williams
2k Poster
Posts: 307
Joined: March 20th, 2006, 4:22 am

Post by Chad Williams » March 21st, 2006, 7:47 am

Let’s start with Daren’s comments.
I don’t mind him questioning me; I think he should, if you have doubts then ask. The thing is that Daren has now become what he accused me of being. When I doubted Dwayne’s times I gave examples of what caused my doubt, Daren just makes silly accusations without any foundation to them.

If you want to remove my CTC time then do so, I won’t lose any sleep over it. If you did remove it you would then be creating a double standard system. When I did my rugby test row I posted a whole breakdown of the row with stroke rate and splits etc on the training thread of the old forum, certain people just post an overall time yet you do not question them. On what grounds to you have to doubt me? If you doubt any one then you can easily find information that shows contradictions and inconsistencies in their rows, there are people out there that you can do this easily with, but you do not pick that up.

Someone asked if this 2K was planned, yes it was. You can not just jump on and row a 2K without some sort of physical and mental preparation, no matter how good you are.

I have covered by bases by getting as much information on the 2K as I could. Dwayne said he would get information on his row but never produced it. What he did give us as evidence was just the IND_V code.
I have the IND_V, Splits, watts, stroke rate, copy of the log card & photos, that is far more information than Dwayne provided.

I still have not got my code from Denah yet. However I will post the splits for you all and a screen shot, not a very clear one as it was from the cell phone camera, I will post a better one when I get on to my other PC.

2000m in 5.44.9 - 1.26.2 – 35 – 546w
500m - 1.24.1 – 36 – 588w
1000m - 1.26.2 – 36 – 546w
1500m - 1.26.6 – 35 – 539w
2000m - 1.28.0 – 33 – 514w

Image

So if I am a fake, I am a better fake than Dwayne.

Ben Rea
2k Poster
Posts: 390
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 9:22 pm

Post by Ben Rea » March 21st, 2006, 7:49 am

hey nice job chad, do you think you could have rowed harder for the first 500m? maybe higher stroke rate? or was that just to save up energy for the other 1500m?

User avatar
hjs
Marathon Poster
Posts: 10076
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:18 pm
Location: Amstelveen the netherlands

Post by hjs » March 21st, 2006, 8:05 am

Ben Rea wrote:hey nice job chad, do you think you could have rowed harder for the first 500m? maybe higher stroke rate? or was that just to save up energy for the other 1500m?
Harder on the first 500? It was already an fly and die row as discribed. The first 500 m was at WR record level.

My question now is:

Dares D to enter a faster time? :D :D :D

Daren
1k Poster
Posts: 144
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:49 pm

Post by Daren » March 21st, 2006, 8:17 am

Chad Williams wrote:On what grounds to you have to doubt me?
The grounds that you have a bee in your bonnet and a clear agenda. How many others were in the relay team?

FB1
500m Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 11:24 pm
Location: Destin FL

Post by FB1 » March 21st, 2006, 8:49 am

Chad Williams wrote:Let’s start with Daren’s comments.


If you want to remove my CTC time then do so, I won’t lose any sleep over it. If you did remove it you would then be creating a double standard system. When I did my rugby test row I posted a whole breakdown of the row with stroke rate and splits etc on the training thread of the old forum, certain people just post an overall time yet you do not question them. On what grounds to you have to doubt me? If you doubt any one then you can easily find information that shows contradictions and inconsistencies in their rows, there are people out there that you can do this easily with, but you do not pick that up.

Someone asked if this 2K was planned, yes it was. You can not just jump on and row a 2K without some sort of physical and mental preparation, no matter how good you are.

I have covered by bases by getting as much information on the 2K as I could.
I have the IND_V, Splits, watts, stroke rate, copy of the log card & photos, that is far more information than Dwayne provided.

I still have not got my code from Denah yet. However I will post the splits for you all and a screen shot, not a very clear one as it was from the cell phone camera, I will post a better one when I get on to my other PC.

2000m in 5.44.9 - 1.26.2 – 35 – 546w
500m - 1.24.1 – 36 – 588w
1000m - 1.26.2 – 36 – 546w
1500m - 1.26.6 – 35 – 539w
2000m - 1.28.0 – 33 – 514w

Image

So if I am a fake, I am a better fake than Dwayne.
Great stuff Chad!! Said as i slip further into mediocrity! :(

FB
Live well, play hard

Convicts by heritage, guilty by choice.

User avatar
ancho
6k Poster
Posts: 772
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 11:25 am
Location: castelldefels - barcelona

Post by ancho » March 21st, 2006, 10:26 am

Chad Williams wrote: ...

2000m in 5.44.9 - 1.26.2 – 35 – 546w
500m - 1.24.1 – 36 – 588w
1000m - 1.26.2 – 36 – 546w
1500m - 1.26.6 – 35 – 539w
2000m - 1.28.0 – 33 – 514w

Image

So if I am a fake, I am a better fake than Dwayne.
A better fake, and more tired in the last 500! :lol:
Amazing row, tremendous 2nd 500!!

I'll be happy when I can hold your last split for 500 m

BTW, I won't doubt on your time, but still don't understand your whole "DA" obsession.
yr 1966, 1,87 m, 8? kg
[img]http://www.c2ctc.com/sigs/img1201739576.png[/img]
Be Water, My Friend!

Post Reply