[CQ-Contest] Kudos to CQ WW for Busting Packet Cheaters!

[Bill Turner]

For someone who wants to cheat, it's even easier and safer than that.
Just put your Kantronics TNC into the MONITOR mode and set the MCOM
and MCON parameters to "on".  You'll then see all the packets going
back and forth, including DX spots, without even being logged in.  No
one will ever know you're there.  Bummer, huh?

73, Bill W7TI


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty Tippin" <martyt at pobox.com

Simply log in to the packet cluster using some
callsign other than your own. And don't post any spots.


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Sun Jul 22 06:01:28 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:01:28 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Kudos to CQ WW for Busting Packet Cheaters!
References: <4.2.0.58.20010721205534.00a9b970 at pop-server.kc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <2ba601c1126b$5efb1b40$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


Re: Marty NW0L's comments on CQWW Packet Cheaters:

I can understand your concerns that some packet cheaters may be able
to hide their packet use from the sysop's logs.  In fact, it's quite a
bit easier to do than you've mentioned: you can monitor packet spots
on 2 meter spotting nets without ever logging into the network.

Hiding packet use from computerized log analysis by the CQWW Committee
would be considerably more difficult.  I could imagine that the
process would work like this: a record of spotting information
provided throughout the contest would pinpoint exactly when each
station/frequency spot appeared on the network for comparison with
each entrant's logs -- the correlation between spots and contacts
would be clear.  Just how clear?  Compare the average number of
minutes between the appearance of the spot and the appearance of the
contact in the log for the entry categories "assisted" and
"unassisted".

It's not a flawless system.  I can imagine a number of situations
where a correlation may exist without any real cheating.  For
instance, an unassisted single operator station may be located very
close to a packet assisted station, the unassisted station may follow
the packet assisted station around the band (refine this technique
through the use of a spectrum analyzer to help follow the loud signal
around the bands) resulting in a strong correlation between the packet
spots and his unassisted contacts.

When I've operated single op unassisted at a number of stations in the
past, they've often had packet connections that have remained logged
in throughout the contest period.  There have often been very sound
reasons for this separate from my contest operation -- for instance,
N6UR was the callsign I've used in a number of CQWW CW contests in the
past decade, and for some of those contests N6UR was simultaneously
the callsign used by the 2 meter repeater of the local DX club's
spotting network.  Certainly, merely being logged into the packet
spotting network throughout the contest does not necessarily mean that
the spotting network was used to aid in generating contest contacts.

I've got a high degree of confidence in the actions of the CQWW
Committee nonetheless.  Many of those on the committee are old friends
who have demonstrated to me their good judgement and high degrees of
competence in matters of contesting and computers over the many years
of our associations.  They can make mistakes, but they know as well as
you do that if people want badly enough to cheat, they'll cheat. And
though most of the cheaters will get away with it, I believe that the
present Committee members are very strong choices with the capability
to optimally detect cheating.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty Tippin" <martyt at pobox.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Kudos to CQ WW for Busting Packet Cheaters!


>
> At 09:38 AM 7/21/2001 , Bill Tippett wrote:
>
> >         Just got my August CQ and read the following in the
section titled
> >"Packet":
> >
> >"The CQ WW Contest Committee has developed the means of extracting
> >information supplied to us by sysops from around the world and
applying it
> >to a questionable log.  By these means we found several operators
in the SSB
> >contest who did not claim the assisted category but used packet.
Their
> >calls do not appear in the score listings."
> >
> >         VERY BIG KUDOS AND THANK YOU to the CQ WW Committee!
>
> This sounds pretty fishy to me. What "means" did they use to figure
out who
> was using packet? The only possible information packet sysops could
> maintain would be login history, showing that XY1PDQ logged in at
some
> certain time. And even then, just by virtue of being logged into a
packet
> cluster, there's no guarantee that the operator *used* the packet
cluster
> in such a way that it would put him in the assisted category. One
can login
> and post spots without ever seeing an incoming spot from someone
else,
> which isn't a violation of the rules.
>
>
> But, now that we know they're looking for this kind of behavior, it
only
> takes a tiny bit of creative energy to get around their system
completely
> (assuming, as I believe to be the case, that the vast majority of
packet
> cluster users are now using the Internet to access the cluster
rather than
> those "old-fashioned" TNCs): Simply log in to the packet cluster
using some
> callsign other than your own. And don't post any spots. Completely
> untraceable. All they've really done is catch the idiots who weren't
smart
> enough to do this in the first place.
>
> If people want to cheat, they'll cheat. And most of them will get
away with
> it and nobody will ever know. I'd much rather see them find a way to
crack
> down on those who run 2, 3 or more kilowatts in the contest. Don't
tell me
> they don't exist, because I know they do.  And the high power
stations who
> claim low power.
>
> And now I've gotten too consumed with writing this e-mail and lost
my run
> frequency in the NAQP RTTY contest. Doggone it.
>
> 73,
>
> -Marty NW0L
>   martyt at pobox.com
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>
>


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com