Adversary Based Design - Revision history

Eric: Added some more information

2022-01-23T06:08:58Z

Added some more information

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:08, 23 January 2022
Line 19:		Line 19:
	*They then sent off a version of the device to the YouTube Channel "LockPickingLawyer" (With [https://youtu.be/2A2NY29iQdI This Video] detailing a second improved version made pre-testing as well that mainly improved reliability of the mechanism / reduced jamming)		*They then sent off a version of the device to the YouTube Channel "LockPickingLawyer" (With [https://youtu.be/2A2NY29iQdI This Video] detailing a second improved version made pre-testing as well that mainly improved reliability of the mechanism / reduced jamming)
	*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecy1FBdCRbQ It was tested by the LockPickingLawyer in This Video]		*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecy1FBdCRbQ It was tested by the LockPickingLawyer in This Video]

			== MihaiDesigns's Constructive Criticism of the [[PrusaXL]] ==
			*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnjyELCE83g A Video by the YouTube Channel "MihaiDesigns" Titled "Original Prusa XL in depth impressions" ] '''(~22 Minute Watch)'''
			*If they created Mods for it with their ideas, or simply a fork / different printer, this would be a great example, especially since Prusa Research tends to cross communicate community wise

	=Past OSE Examples=		=Past OSE Examples=

Eric: Added some more links under the "External Links" section

2021-12-11T01:48:04Z

Added some more links under the "External Links" section

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:48, 11 December 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:

	=External Links=		=External Links=
	*		*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversary_evaluation The Wikipedia Page on Adversary Evaluation] (A Related Concept, More Related to Policy Decisions)

	[[Category: Constructive Criticism]] [[Category: Design]] [[Category: Incomplete Pages]]		[[Category: Constructive Criticism]] [[Category: Design]] [[Category: Incomplete Pages]]

Eric: Marked this Page for Later Work

2021-12-11T01:12:38Z

Marked this Page for Later Work

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, 11 December 2021
Line 37:		Line 37:
	*		*

	[[Category: Constructive Criticism]] [[Category: Design]]		[[Category: Constructive Criticism]] [[Category: Design]] [[Category: Incomplete Pages]]

Eric: Added some more information

2021-12-11T01:12:22Z

Added some more information

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, 11 December 2021
Line 24:		Line 24:

	== [[CEB Press]] (Need to grab what version was used) and the [[Belize Build]] ==		== [[CEB Press]] (Need to grab what version was used) and the [[Belize Build]] ==
			*(Need to grab the video link, but some of the valve switching failed (if i remember correctly)

	=Internal Links=		=Internal Links=

Eric: Added some more information

2021-12-11T01:11:47Z

Added some more information

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 11 December 2021
Line 21:		Line 21:

	=Past OSE Examples=		=Past OSE Examples=
	*		This may fit better as some sort of "Real World Use Test" / "Demo Usage" concept/page, as it was less intentional / adversarial*, but still fulfills the same goal to an extent

			== [[CEB Press]] (Need to grab what version was used) and the [[Belize Build]] ==

	=Internal Links=		=Internal Links=
	*[[Competition Based Design]]		*[[Competition Based Design]]

Eric: Added some more links under the "Internal Links" section

2021-12-11T01:09:54Z

Added some more links under the "Internal Links" section

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 11 December 2021
Line 28:		Line 28:
	*[[Evidence Based Charity]] / [[Evidence Based Philanthropy]]		*[[Evidence Based Charity]] / [[Evidence Based Philanthropy]]
	*[[Peer Review]]		*[[Peer Review]]
			*[[Review]]

	=External Links=		=External Links=

Eric: Added some more information

2021-12-11T00:56:47Z

Added some more information

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:56, 11 December 2021
Line 13:		Line 13:
	*ie rather that "We are finished with the design, off to testing"; from day one the design team is thinking "How can i break this / how could someone break it" thus it can also be more of a [[Design Philosophy]] at times rather than purely a testing protocol		*ie rather that "We are finished with the design, off to testing"; from day one the design team is thinking "How can i break this / how could someone break it" thus it can also be more of a [[Design Philosophy]] at times rather than purely a testing protocol

			=Well Documented Examples=
			== [[Stuff Made Here (YouTube Channel) ]] + [[LockPickingLawyer (YouTube Channel) ]] 's "Unpickable Lock" Project Collaboration==
			*"Stuff Made Here", a channel known for various goofy, yet intricately designed, contraptions released [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7vPNcnYWQ4 This Video] in which they designed a lock that should not be "pickable" (At least via conventional means)
			*They then got a commercial locksmith to attempt to pick it, which they were unsuccessful in doing (albeit in real world conditions; it was in a door, and no knowledge beforehand of it's inner workings/special self build tools were used)
			*They then sent off a version of the device to the YouTube Channel "LockPickingLawyer" (With [https://youtu.be/2A2NY29iQdI This Video] detailing a second improved version made pre-testing as well that mainly improved reliability of the mechanism / reduced jamming)
			*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecy1FBdCRbQ It was tested by the LockPickingLawyer in This Video]

			=Past OSE Examples=
			*
	=Internal Links=		=Internal Links=
	*[[Competition Based Design]]		*[[Competition Based Design]]

Eric: Minor Typo Fix

2021-12-11T00:40:41Z

Minor Typo Fix

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 11 December 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:
	**It can also be done for [[Physical Security]] (Ie sneak into / break into this building)		**It can also be done for [[Physical Security]] (Ie sneak into / break into this building)
	*Another good example is [[Lockpicking]] / [[Safecracking]] (See [[Lock Picking Lawyer (YouTube Channel]] ), which, at least in the case of safes, is done by the company to determining how long it would take to destructively "cut into" a safe etc		*Another good example is [[Lockpicking]] / [[Safecracking]] (See [[Lock Picking Lawyer (YouTube Channel]] ), which, at least in the case of safes, is done by the company to determining how long it would take to destructively "cut into" a safe etc
	* '''It Does Differ to Existing ~~Implimentations~~ in so far that''' the adversary Based Testing / Destructive Testing plays a far more active role in the design process		* '''It Does Differ to Existing Implementations in so far that''' the adversary Based Testing / Destructive Testing plays a far more active role in the design process
	*ie rather that "We are finished with the design, off to testing"; from day one the design team is thinking "How can i break this / how could someone break it" thus it can also be more of a [[Design Philosophy]] at times rather than purely a testing protocol		*ie rather that "We are finished with the design, off to testing"; from day one the design team is thinking "How can i break this / how could someone break it" thus it can also be more of a [[Design Philosophy]] at times rather than purely a testing protocol

Eric: Minor Clarification

2021-12-11T00:40:06Z

Minor Clarification

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 11 December 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:
	**It can also be done for [[Physical Security]] (Ie sneak into / break into this building)		**It can also be done for [[Physical Security]] (Ie sneak into / break into this building)
	*Another good example is [[Lockpicking]] / [[Safecracking]] (See [[Lock Picking Lawyer (YouTube Channel]] ), which, at least in the case of safes, is done by the company to determining how long it would take to destructively "cut into" a safe etc		*Another good example is [[Lockpicking]] / [[Safecracking]] (See [[Lock Picking Lawyer (YouTube Channel]] ), which, at least in the case of safes, is done by the company to determining how long it would take to destructively "cut into" a safe etc
			* '''It Does Differ to Existing Implimentations in so far that''' the adversary Based Testing / Destructive Testing plays a far more active role in the design process
			*ie rather that "We are finished with the design, off to testing"; from day one the design team is thinking "How can i break this / how could someone break it" thus it can also be more of a [[Design Philosophy]] at times rather than purely a testing protocol

	=Internal Links=		=Internal Links=

Eric: Added some more links under the "Internal Links" section

2021-12-11T00:31:23Z

Added some more links under the "Internal Links" section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, 11 December 2021
Line 13:		Line 13:
	=Internal Links=		=Internal Links=
	*[[Competition Based Design]]		*[[Competition Based Design]]
			*[[Rapid Iteration]] / [[RITE Method]]
	*[[Destructive Testing]]		*[[Destructive Testing]]
	*[[Evidence Based Charity]] / [[Evidence Based Philanthropy]]		*[[Evidence Based Charity]] / [[Evidence Based Philanthropy]]