Middle_Man

There wasn't a TL;DR so I didn't. Walls of text are intimidating.

[quote=Matt]What the.....why is that only your first post, Master Jedi?[/quote]
It's a long story. Short version is I came across a link to the old middle_man site while perusing the Big-O-Software forums that linked me back here. I used to browse the mm forums back in the day but never posted anything (I was a die-hard AIM+ fan back in the day )


[quote]The real reason for my post... Master Jedi.... member for 9 years... just made first post. Now, my question: Did you remember your password or have to have it reset?[/quote]
Yes I remembered my password...why wouldn't I?

[quote="Master Jedi"]Yes I remembered my password...why wouldn't I?[/quote]

I just find that amazing... I have to reset passwords on every site I haven't visited in over a month.

keepass ftw

using a cipher+identifier combination is more secure than a password safe. e.g., crA2y34LLs-FCBOOK or crA2y34LLs-AD or crA2y34LLs-youporn


Phase: "It's off by a tiny bit, but I suspect if I was outside or moving it would pinpoint me exactly."
--> ಠ_ಠ GPS ain't like WiFi

[quote=Wotcher]using a cipher+identifier combination is more secure than a password safe. e.g., crA2y34LLs-FCBOOK or crA2y34LLs-AD or crA2y34LLs-youporn[/quote]

not if you use the same password part on every site

huh? you mean the cipher? the whole point is to use the same cipher for every site. the security team at my company actually recommends it, as long as you use different ciphers for less-secure accounts.

if someone were to figure out my cipher, they'd only have the "password" part of my password, in your words, but step two is to guess the identifier part. if i just had a regular password, they'd be done at step 1. yes, this is a simplification of the exact advantages.

perhaps you're saying that it's unwise to use the same cipher for secure and insecure accounts (e.g. company email account versus your reddit or steam account) and you're right about that. if someone saw your plaintext cipher they'd have no trouble bruteforcing the identifiers for each site.

[quote=Wotcher]Phase: "It's off by a tiny bit, but I suspect if I was outside or moving it would pinpoint me exactly."
--> ಠ_ಠ GPS ain't like WiFi[/quote]

What in the world are you talking about? Line of sight improves it.

[quote=PhaseDMA][quote=Wotcher]Phase: "It's off by a tiny bit, but I suspect if I was outside or moving it would pinpoint me exactly."
--> ಠ_ಠ GPS ain't like WiFi[/quote]

What in the world are you talking about? Line of sight improves it.[/quote]

Global positioning satellites are actually not in the world, they're above the world, floating in space. but i guess i'll let the expression slide. (kekekeke)

GPS requires a direct line of sight... otherwise it literally doesn't work. if you are under only a tarp, GPS will likely get a shitty lock. on the other hand, a wifi signal can travel through walls, animals, furniture, terrible pent-up household emotions... and still have strength to go through the tarp that gave GPS a hard time.

all i meant was, jokingly, "why the hell would you ever test the GPS of a device indoors? (unless the product very specifically said that it was a new GPS technology meant to penetrate walls)" it's like testing out your sunglasses indoors. =P

[quote=Wotcher]GPS requires a direct line of sight... otherwise it literally doesn't work. if you are under only a tarp, GPS will likely get a shitty lock. on the other hand, a wifi signal can travel through walls, animals, furniture, terrible pent-up household emotions... and still have strength to go through the tarp that gave GPS a hard time.

all i meant was, jokingly, "why the hell would you ever test the GPS of a device indoors? (unless the product very specifically said that it was a new GPS technology meant to penetrate walls)" it's like testing out your sunglasses indoors. =P[/quote]This is true to an extent. Standard GPS antennas (those in phones, tablets, navigational devices, etc.) are small because we don't want to carry around bulky items in our pockets or bags. Because of this, the gain (or amount of energy it can transmit) is low, something ranging from -5dBi to +5dBi. This is really quite impressive for such a small device. Does it require line of sight to the GPS? In most cases yes, as long as an object doesn't "block" it. Now, what would "block" a GPS antenna's line of sight? I'll answer that in a second...

Materials are made up of electromagnetic properties. Things like plastics, styrofoam, and wood are fairly "transparent". Metal, on the other hand, is something that blocks radar. Take a look here. This lists various types of materials and their dielectric properties. You'll see at the very top that air is 1. Styrofoam is about 1.03. To radar, foam is basically transparant. The min and max values on that site range throughout the electromagnetic spectrum and the exact properties of a material and how it will affect GPS varies as a function of wavelength. To accurately determine this, you'd need to do a test of the material at 1.575 GHz (the frequency of GPS) and see what the dielectric property is of that material.

So, will the GPS signal be lost if you're under a tarp? Considering tarps are generally plastic and the dielectric property of plastic is anywhere from 1.5 to about 3 (even higher depending on the plastic), then no it won't block it much. But if you're in your car and under your metal roof...well that's why it may take time to acquire. Protip: If your GPS is having trouble, pull over and stick it outside your window. You'll be amazed how fast it connects.

Source: I'm an antenna engineer and have been working with radar and antennas since 2005.