Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • January 4, 2020 10:00 AM

@ Thoth, maqp,

You and the TFC have been mentioned

You missed menthioning “cwtch.im” the design is an apparant filch of the “Fleet Broadcast” methodology.

Which means one or both of two things,

1, They read the idea here, liked it and incorporated it.

2, They came up with the idea independently, liked it and incorporated it.

Either way it’s a vote of confidence in the methodology 😉

Oh and another idea of XORing a number of messages together from two different servers and then XORing the two privatelyvto get the actual message you want, is not new at all. I’ve discussed it here in the past some time ago. The basic idea behind it is an extention to what used to be an extention to a “book code”

Put simply it’s a stream cipher not any diferent to an OTP but how you make the pad is based on a shared book collection. To make the keystream / pad you have a method by which you agree a subset of atleast four books in the shared collection. As well as for each book in that subset a page, paragraph, sentance and offset charecter to get the start of the text-stream to use. You then apply a simple stastistics flatening / compression algorithm to each of the text-streams then XOR the resulting compressed-texts together to make the keystream / Pad.

It has been hypothoesized in the past that as long as the shared book collection remains secret the system is effectively unbreakable in any meaningfull time frame.

What the method proposed in the talk is instead of using books you use messages and send the keystream as a combined cipher text. You pick a group of messages from one server and a slightly different group from abother server, the difference being the unknown message you wabt to download.

What the talk did not mention is that as you have previous messages stored localy you can use those as canceling texts. That is if you already have message 1024 you can request it again as one of the messages to include in one of the streams from one of the servers. Thus if someonr gets to see the messages you select from each server (say admin collusion) rather than there being just one difference between the two streams you could have as many differenses as you have already downloaded messages. Thus you and the person you are communicating with can use multiple sets of servers which can have diferent owners, admins and locations thus making colusion very dificult if not impossible.

Clive Robinson • January 5, 2020 10:40 AM

@ RUSure,

An idea that you didn’t claim to come up with? Do they exist?

If you were a regular reader not a sniper then you would know the answer to that without needing to ask.

We are after all discussing things we’ve previously discussed on this blog some time before and you can search for if you wish, as we are open about our thoughts quite often.

As for the answer to your specific questions I’m sure there are. After all I did not come up with the “book code” idea, that happened long before any of us were alive. But somebody else is trying to claim a variation on it as an apparently original idea, which I’ve bern able to say it clearly is not.

Thus the question arises as to if the idea is usefull or not, most times it’s a matter of timing. The book code had it’s moment in history and technology found a way to surpass it’s then usage. Now someone has come up with a different use for what is essentially the same idea now we have “idiot savants” so cheaply available in the form of computers to take out the drudge and make old ways practical for all again. So while the use is new the method is not, which as I’ve experiance with ways to use the book code and similar I can add other knowledge to. That would make the new usage rather more secure. That as they say is how the cookie crumbles.

Several times I’ve come up with new to me ideas, then done research and found that others had started in down the same idea route. Some went different ways or in different problem domains, others not as far, others went further. It’s the luck of the draw, as technology reaches a certain point somethings become obvious, at first to a few then to many, and the world moves on as new ideas improve on old methods.

As I’ve pointed out on a number of occasions one of the problems with high tech is we are realy bad with our history. We forget things we have discovered or learnt as new technology finds better ways to do some subset of things. Thus we end up rediscovering them or reminded of them as new uses of old methods are thought up.

Other than a good memory and having lived through quite a bit of tech history, and having researched other tech history and having a little of what our host @Bruce calls “thinking hinky” I don’t realy have any other special advantages on others including you.

So you too could be the same if you put the work in, in the right places, but please don’t ask me what they are, because I’ve no idea, other than be broadly interested in everything.

Clive Robinson • January 5, 2020 1:35 PM

@ Gamgee of the large furry foot.

It’s actualy a heirarchy of time events.

If you know of the idea being put on the Internet or in a publication or public recomendation for a standard prior to that, then sing out, but I suspect you won’t as we’ve been here before.

Intetestingly the article you point to expressly mentions problems with the research,

A vast majority of the literature on illusory superiority originates from studies on participants in the United States. However, research that only investigates the effects in one specific population is severely limited as this may not be a true representation of human psychology. More recent research investigating self-esteem in other countries suggests that illusory superiority depends on culture.

Put simpl it was found, that the issue you refere to is mainly American and due to their social customs / conditions…

Neither myself or @Thoth live in America or it’s social customs.

Which reminds me your outsised furry foot is that natural or because of an outsized sock needed to alow for something else to be shoved in like a ham fist?

Clive Robinson • January 5, 2020 3:20 PM

@ Gamgee the hamfisted sock puppet,

It’s a simple cognitive bias to assume…

As normall your entire lack of ability to do research in favour of just blurting out irrelevance has come to the fore.

Do you know who William of Ockham (a small village in Surrey England) was?

I suspect not, you don’t seem the type to understand basic principles, research or history. So perhaps I had better tell you to save you the effort of failing to google correctly as you have in the past.

He was a quite thoughtfull Franciscan friar, credited with being a scholastic philosopher, and theologian. Historians, scientists and philosophers considered him to be one of the most important figures of medieval thought in the 14th century. However most important to your education is he is now mostly known for being the principle of “Occam’s razor”.

What say you is “Occam’s razor”? As you obviously do not know.

Well it’s the methodological principle of “lex parsimoniae” (law of parsimony). There are various ways you can word it but usually it’s given as,

Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.

Or informally “The simplest hypothesis is most likely correct”.

Thus “time ordered” is the simplest hypothesis and there for considered the most likely when considered against your evidence less argument.

People who would consider otherwise as you appear to do might have caused others to miss judge you by giving you more credit than you are actually due. Thus be advised to give thought to how the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to you as seen by others who atleast know how to form an evidence based argument.

What you have done though is confirm who you are and no doubt others will check. I would have thought the Ratio of your failures (all) to successes (none) would have stopped you trying by now, but obviously not you just repeat the same sad process hoping for a different out come. Perhaps you should also look at Einstein’s definition of madness as well.

So as you have taken on the pseudonym of a Hobbit as your latest sock puppet, I guess the best thing to say to you is “go back in your hole”.

Clive Robinson • January 5, 2020 5:58 PM

@ Electro,

The key paragraph in the EMP article is,

Without making relatively inexpensive fixes to the electric grid and military bases to protect against an EMP attack, Pry said that the end could come fast.

I’ve been going on about putting in place these supposadly “relatively inexpensive fixes” for quite some time now as a search back through this blog will show. Not just for man made EMP attacks that might or might not happen, but also solar Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) that do happen and eventually one will at some point create another Carrington Event[1]. If that were to happen today the costs would be enormous, but probably would not be spent ever in our life times… Because our modern “Just in Time” First World would be thrown back to at best the early 1800’s with a little non electrical technology from even upto the 1980’s surviving. Needless to say Stalin’s maxim of “One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic” would apply hundreds of times over in major cities and surounding conurbations. Third world agrarian based countries and economies however might not even be significantly effected.

There is going to also be a major difference between continental America and Continental Europe. Put simply Europe puts much of it’s cables underground and still has stricter regulations about preventative maintainance etc as part of National Security policy.

But don’t think “fiber optics” will be uneffected, whilst the data does indeed travell down a very fine glass filiment, it is protected in armourd cables that are usually armourd with metal thus conductive wire, which will melt if sufficient current flows throigh it just like any fuse does.

Why are these supposadly “relatively inexpensive fixes” not in place? Blaim the “Free Market” mantra where “Profit is king, and ruthless short term cost cutting essential” to meet “shareholder expectations”. Thus the only solution is “Regulation in the name of National Security” that way all energy companies including PG&E will be forced to do the maintenance required for long term survivability.

If you want to know what is likely to happen with an EMP or Carrington event[2] you could ask people in California who found out very recently. Or you could ask people in New Zeland or parts of Canada. In all cases they only survived because the power outages were “localised” and help could be “brought in” relatively easily. If you believe the report about nuclear EMP[3] or the evidence of the Carrington Event you will know that “localised” will not be the case. Therefor help will not be on the way any time soon, and driving 20miles round trip to the next town where they still have power to get a Mucky D’s takeaway –because you can not cook the food now spoiling in your fridge and freezer and your local stores are either closed or sold out– won’t be happening either. If you are lucky the event might happen in late winter early spring maximising your short term survival chances.

[1] As far as we know the first natural EMP effect to noticeably effect mankind was in 1859. Although solar storms and direct coronal mass ejection hits had almost certainly happened befor that and probably quite frequently, mankinds level of technical development that could be effected by such an event was at that time less than thirty years old. It’s called a Carrington Event after London based English amateur astronomer Richard Carrington, who on the morning of September the first did a solar observation and started recording a very large cluster of black sun spots, during which he observed two massive white flashes. Within a few minutes the fireballs he observed had fadded away. But not so the charged particles that were now racing through space to strike the earth. That night most telegrephers discoverd that their simple equipment made of brass, coils of wire and pirces of iron failed, sometimes dramatically so causing not just the equipment to spark melt and catch fire but also the cables outside strung off of poles to briefly glow like the filiments of a light bulb before bursting into flames. All with the night sky lit up with briliant multi coloured Northern Lights that were visable in places like Boston and Rome and most other places in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere,

https://www.history.com/news/a-perfect-solar-superstorm-the-1859-carrington-event

[2] EMP events happen all the time, even a spark from a “back EMF” of a coil that causes a spark or arc is a nano or micro EMP event, so is lightning. Usually both the energy in the arc or corona discharge and it’s rise time are insufficient to be of much more than an annoying Radio Frequency Interferance (RFI) source. Even though local some EMP events can be heard hundreds of miles away due to their low frequency radiation from slow rise times. Ham and maratime radio operators refer to man made interferance as QRM and natural interferance as QRN, with lightning from tropical storms being heard on low frequencies as “crashes” as far as a thousand miles away depending on the relative times of day. If you are unlucky a local lightning strike will take out all the electronic equipment in your home. If very close without it even being plugged in with 50-100meters taking out equipment that is pluged into the house wiring, even though it might be an off grid house. Likrwise if you are grid connrcted and it earths out on your side of the substation which in rural US areas can be very long runs of overhead cables, if the local “transformer on a pole” has not been installed correctly or has failed in some way. A Carrington event has very large amounts of energy over a very wide area and for very long periods of time, which creates a lot of low frequency signals that can be filtered out in various ways. It is however a very different profile to a nuclear EMP where the rise time and energy is very high but the duration very short. This gives very high energies not just at low frequencies but right through th microwave and centrimetric bands. As I’ve mentioned before slots in metal plates act like resonant antennas, thus equipment ventilation slots and case edges become microwave antennas funneling very high E fields inside equipment. It’s the E field that does the damage to semiconductors as it blows out PN diode junctions in traditional transistors and burns out gate insulation in Field Effect transistors (FETs) which are now the most common found in integratrd circuits or microelectronic chips.

[3] The way the report was portrayed in the article gives me pause, because based on publically available information it rather sounds like “the pudding is being over egged” somewhere. For instance to get an effective EMP a nuclear device needs to be of a particular type and up in the stratosphere, as well as be effectively line of sight to electronic devices thus “Radio Horizon Distance” comes into play. I’m not sure how terrorists even if they had a suitable nuclear device, could get it not just up that high but also in the right position geographically. Whilst all nuclear devices will by radiation transport produce some form of EMP signal, the “yield varies considerably” with the way the physics package is designed to work, and in theory that information is still clasified by the US Government and some others, but as we know “information leaks” especially when governments effectively collapse.

Clive Robinson • January 5, 2020 6:40 PM

@ Electron 007,

Slow down and less forcefull.

Your writing comes across sometimes as both aggressive and angry, whilst I can understand why, it’s obscuring your message and it’s not going to win you friends that a lighter touch will.

Not being funny but try to have a happy smile on your face when you write your posts, daft as it might sound, experiments have shown it will probably lighten up your writting style. Which in turn will encorage people to read more of what you have to say.

Also try to find an occasional ICT story that is daft or silly, to post as that will make people smile or laugh and they will lighten up a bit in the drudge of the daily grind (the mod even lets sort of on topic jokes get through occasionally).

Clive Robinson • January 6, 2020 3:43 PM

@ MarkH,

It’s claimed to be the largest all-wood structure in existence.

I wonder if they could get the “Spruce Goose” in 😉

I was aware of the tests ans some of the technical details, but not the site.

What I also know is that thr USAF have effectively made “no changes” to their aircraft with regards E1 EMP events even though their test results were uniformly bad even on quite recent aircraft (apparently performance and stealth are higher priority for reasons I suspect are entirely rational).

One of the issues with people talking about E1 EMP results is “the aircraft will fall out of the sky” claims.

As you know untill recently most civilian aircraft would have been uneffected, it was elrctronic engine managment and full fly by wire that changed that. Even so civilian aircraft would be put in a glide slope “not drop out of yhe sky” because the airframe design was basically “flight stable”. Military aircraft like fighters etc are not “flight stable” by design because you get higher performance, the problem is all the control surfaces twitch under computer control at around two hundred twitches a second. When their computers stop gliding is likely not to be an option, which is why ejector seats that are seriously prejudical to your long term health are generally fitted as standard, though I’m told some have “electronic firing” circuits (it’s not an area I get into these days as my interests are more geared to “one way unmand” vehicles).

Clive Robinson • January 6, 2020 7:55 PM

@ Sed Contra,

A over half a decade ago I had reason to look into “Imagination Technologies”, it was far larger and apparently thriving back then and included “Pure”. For various reasons I decided not to move forward as little alarm bells rang in the back of my head. Something was going on, and it looked like someone was taking hostile action against them. Thus being somewhere else appeared the sensible option to me.

Part of this unease was Apple setting up an office in St Albans (north west of London) UK. This office was “odd” at first then effectively indicated it was going into chip design, which as it was figuratively speaking “just around the corner” from Imagination Technologies headquarters caused concern in some parts of the UK industry. Esspecially when it became clear to a number of people that Apple were doing a hostile technology grab by poaching Imagination Technologies staff, specificaly select and key members of both the design and managment teams…

In the US people would have been screaming “technology/IP theft” and reaching for high payed lawyers and “begger thy neighbor court cases” (which Apple had a taste for if people think back). The civil legal system is somewhat different in the UK so other methods would have to be used. Unfortunately the problems for Imagination had become stacked against them. Firstly they had “sleep walked” into a dangerous position of being overly dependent on the licencing deal with Apple. Secondly somebody was successfully shorting their stock (which I’m told upset Intel). Apple continued with the brain drain and around 2016 it appeared that Apple were going to buy Imagination. This did not happen Apple continued the brain drain and Imagination had to down size, evebtually putting themselves up for sale at a “fire sale” price. Due to the stupidity of a policy set by the then political encumbrant George “gidiot / White lines” Osbourn when he was UK Chancellor, the sale of Imagination to a “Chinese preditory organisation” of a “hostile foreign power”[1] was “green lighted” in the UK.

However it had also became clear Apple had at the very least significantly encroached on Imagination’s patented technologies and thus Apple were in a quite awkward position legaly speaking. Which should have given the Chinese owners sufficient leverage to get equitable compensation for Apple’s infringment.

Then US President Trump realy kicked his “anti-China campaign” up several notches… This gave Apple a counterweight argument, in that Imagination would loose every thing if Apple persuaded certain US government entities to “investigate” Imaginations new owners etc. In effect Apple had been awarded a successful “Hail Mary pass” to their problems from the White House.

In effect Imaginations new owners had a choice loose everything including their aquired patented technology. Or take a “whipped dog offer”, which it looks like they have decided to accept. Apple gets off the hook for potentially gross IP infringement, they also get more access to the patented IP of Imagination, and the Chinese owners become even more dependent thus vulnerable to Apple’s whims down the line. So Apple have been able to “whip them to heal”, getting two significant gains for just a handfull of floor sweeping from under their banquet table tossed towards the Chinese owners rice bowls.

As the old song has it,

Nice work if you can get it… And if you get it… Won’t you tell me how?

[1] Just a couple of names that get bandied about for Chinese Investors, technology firms etc etc, irrespective of any relationship they have or more importantly have not to the Chinese Government. Obviously it’s just as ludicrous as calling CISCO and Juniper the same thing, especially as there is public evidence their products were subverted to the benifit of their national government…

Clive Robinson • January 6, 2020 8:39 PM

@ MarkH,

Or something a little more high-tech? 😉

Lets just say to go on the top of “An Engineers” design on steroids and quite a bit smaller than “a Musky smelling cherry red Tesla doing a grand tour” 😉

You know the scary thing about that Tesla? It will have Musk DNA in it that might well out live the rest of the human race, now that is one heck of an immortality statment to beat even Pharaoh Ramesses II, memorialized in Percy Bysshe Shelley’s “Ozymandias, King of Kings”…

Clive Robinson • January 7, 2020 11:49 PM

@ SpaceLifeForm,

So, just asking for a friend…

😉

The answer is actually very dull.

In the real physical world nothing is perfect. In the information world we have imperfect knowledge of attacks at any given point in time. That is proofs of security are based on the known not the unknown. The classic example is the multiplication of two primes is fairly trivial but factoring the product back is “assumed to be hard” curently. That is nobody has come up with a way to do it, but likewise nobody has come up with a proof that says there is no easy way to do it in either the specific case of two primes or the more general case of any two natural numbers. But it’s also posible that whilst the general case of factoring the product of two natural numbers is not possible, there may be paterns relating to the special case of two primes that might make factoring a product of just two primes easier.

The point is we generally are happy to use things that are “hard” rather than “impossible” because proving impossible may not be possible in any acceptable time frame.

Thus there is actually no reason in some cases to stop using the hash even though most would now consider it broken (admittedly I can’t think of any off the top of my head right now as it’s “oh my god it’s morning” in the UK and I’ve not yet slept[1] 🙁

But, with respect to,

Why can’t the signature be based upon the ‘payload’ ?

They can be depending on what you mean by payload and signiture

The normal use is you mark a block of plaintext, run it through the hash function and then append the signiture at the end. Because this is a fairly easy thing todo.

You can also fairly easily take a marked block of plaintext and run it through a hash and check the result matches some position in the marked block of plaintext. However making that block of plaintext would be quite time consuming, unless their was some kind of trap door you could exploit, and if there was it would not be considered a secure hash

[1] It’s @Wael’s “harsh mistress” having a go at me as well, due to the equivalent of time zone shifting.

Clive Robinson • January 9, 2020 9:42 AM

@ All,

I know it’s not yet Friday, but this little snipit on Intel productesters having to use AMD chips to do the testing for some reason made my smile,

https://www.techspot.com/amp/news/83402-intel-prototyping-pcie-40-ssds-but-needs-amd.html

Clive Robinson • January 9, 2020 10:02 AM

@ ALL,

For some time now, some longer than others I’ve warned against alowing JavaScript, HTML5 and WebASM to be active in your web browser.

With regards Web ASM it appears it’s now more rather than less beong used for malware,

https://www.zdnet.com/article/half-of-the-websites-using-webassembly-use-it-for-malicious-purposes/

As the article notes certain entities who shall we say realy do not have your best interests at heart, especially you Privacy interests, came up with the Web ASM idea, specification and complrate security disaster area to replace another now much depreciated security disaster arra Adobe’s Flash.

Clive Robinson • January 9, 2020 5:22 PM

@ SpaceLifeForm,

Which is why I’m thinking E(S(E(S(payload))).

As you know the outer encryption layer offers little other than hiding of it’s plaintext. With most blockciphers you do get a little assurance that the plaintext has not been messed with but not enough. With PubKey and Stream Ciphers there are a whole bunch of nasties in the woodpile waiting for the incautious.

If I’m following on correctly you want some way to make the payload coming from the first party (Alice) only readable by one individual (Bob) and secondly for that second party not to be able to forward it onto a third party (Charlie) as though it had come directly from the first party (Alice)?

The only way you can do this is by doing the seamingly impossible. Which is tightly couple the message routing into the payload such that tampering with the payload or resending it is guarenteed to fail hard.

Well have a think on,

S_PubKyA(E_Bnonce(plaintext)+E_Rnonce(route))

Where,

S_PubKyA = Signiture verifiable via Alice’s Public Key.

E_Bnonce = Encryption to Bob from Alice under a key that is unique.

E_Rnonce = Encryption to the Routing system from Alice under a key that is unique.

If either the plaintext or routing information is changed then the signiture becomes invalid. If Bob trys to forward the plaintext to Charlie the routing information will be incorrect and thus flag up what he is trying to do before the system even trys to send the message.

For this to work the system needs to be able to “know” Alices PubKey (which is not an issue) as a fundemental step, likewise there must be a way for Alice and the system to generate a valid unique key. There are known ways to build such a system.

Clive Robinson • January 9, 2020 5:41 PM

@ vas pup,

How technology related evidence vulnerable for accidents/tempering

This is where Occam’s Razor can be interesting. Because what it might say on small parts of things it may not say on the whole thing.

On the small part it would say that the hypothesis that an “error” was made is more probable than it was “deliberate action”.

However when you look at the whole system the number of “errors” become improbable to say the least thus the razor would indicate “deliberate action” was the root cause in all the supposed “errors”.

Because the level of “incompetence” required for all those “errors” to happen must have been clearly visable long long before, and if the system was working the way “it is said to do” such shortcomings would have been addressed long ago.

So bureaucratic “coverup” rather than “f**kup” is the more likly hypothesis when viewed in the macro.

Clive Robinson • January 9, 2020 10:48 PM

@ SpaceLifeForm,

Trying to bury the inner signature.

Which signiture? They are both inner to the finall encryption.

It would appear from other comments nobody but you know what it is you are trying to do, which makes “making suggestions” either “pot luck”, “frustrating”, or “wrong”.

Do you want to start again from the top?

For instance why do you want short messages? The shorter they are the less entropy they have thus the lower work factor an attacker faces which means that any protection of meaning by encryption will be reduced dramatically.

Clive Robinson • January 10, 2020 6:07 AM

@ MarkH, ALL,

The Boeing MAX story grinds on…

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51058929

Remember the documents seen by the public are redacted (though it’s not been said how), but even so comments made by staff are a bit of an eye-opener.

It would appear that managment at all levels not just senior were not upto doing the job in what is essentially a “hard engineering” organisation. With what are essentially high risk products that demand exacting design, manufacture, operating and maintenance.

Looks like people have forgotten the maxim of “Remember surgeons are not butchers even though the both cut flesh”.

Clive Robinson • January 11, 2020 2:56 AM

@ Orly,

You divided “errors” and “deliberate action” from eachother, which is a non-starter logically.

You might want to rethink that. Because most logic requires something to be in one state or another. That is a piece of equipment ‘is’ functional to it’s specified purpose or it ‘is not’ functional to it’s specified purpose. A simple Yes/No or True/False result from a question.

If the question allows any other answer, then the question is wrong, or the person reading the question does not understand it for some reason.

If you don’t like the chosen labels of how something became ‘non functional for it’s specified purpose’ of “errors” and “deliberate action”, then pick two you think are more relevant, for when you are presented with a nolonger functioning to specification item or process. But remember they have to be “binary options”. That is “something is” or “something is not”. This has to be true at each point in your hypothesis otherwise you can not test it, and it is thus just an assumption of some form that has to be valid if the hypothesis on which it is made is to be valid[1].

As for “incompetence” again it is a label. But the point is, ‘if you get repeated “non functional for specified purpose” items’ then the specification should have a calculated fail rate by which the failure rate you are observing can be tested. If the actual rate of failure is wrong, and you are not investigating why, them there is something wrong with the system the item is used in. What you chose to label it is upto you.

You then say,

There are deliberate errors (like strongly opinioned people in positions to assert their authority despite being mistaken) and there is incompetence that stacks, compounds and goes unexposed for various real-world reasons indefinitely without provable, demomnstrable malice.

You are leaping in with your own implicit but unstated lables such as a Duning-Kruger manager which a specified system should have checks for.

All you are realy saying is that the “system” is not fit for purpose, thus the system is failing for some reason, the implication of which from your arguments is the specification is incorrect or incorrectly implemented. Thus the question arises as to why those incharge of setting the specification or ensuring the system works to specification have not been monitoring the system and taking remedial action for some reason[2].

I’ll leave the conversation about how people come up with at best partly specified “specifications” and meaningless “tests” for another day, even though it’s one of mankinds biggest failings.

[1] You see assumptions in many industries usually the are “it has a linear response” which usually is only demonstrably true in a limited range. One such is the “plastic behaviour” of materials, another is the equivalence of animal and human models in the testing of drugs. In both cases you can find examples of the harm of such assumptions. In the case of the former “metal fatigue” that caused an aircraft to fail in flight.

[2] Look into the history of the Ford Pinto, or the tobacco industry, or any one of hundreds of others. It’s highly likely the Boeing 737 MAX will in due time become another example for the history books.