Hello, welcome to St. LeVoe's World Cinema. I'm your host, Betty St. LeVoe. On this show, we look at international cinema and tele, television. And I hope that you enjoy this particular genre. I certainly do, since I was little, very little, Ma was always throwing those foreign films at us. So I'm just going to point out a couple that are near and dear to my heart. In this first episode, we'll check out three very quickly. I'm not going to give so much the statistics, like I do on any other TV shows here at Orca. I'm just going to simply state the plots and why they're beautiful and why maybe you should check them out. Okay, so the first one is one of my all-time favorite foreign films, Ansela Dolce Vida, directed by the genius who is Federico Fellini, starring Marcello Mastro Antonio, Rosemary Rod, Jean Moreau, Anita Ekberg, and Lex Barca, the guy who played Tarzan, okay, and a whole bunch of other people. So this particular movie, I always felt, is a bit semi-autobiographical because Federico, from what I remember, grew up, I think, an outlying small town outside of Rome. And when he was young, he went to go make his fortune in the big city. Omicord is part of his childhood. But then Eve Deluni, I think, comes in between Omicord and this particular one, if I've got my facts straight. So basically, in this particular movie, Marcello, our journalist, through a series of several vignettes, grows up. Marcello is probably in his 20s when the movie starts, but our actor here, the very handsome Mr. Mastro Antonio, he looks a bit older for his age. So he might be in his 30s as he's still maturing. At any rate, the very scenes are him interviewing a famous Hollywood movie star and her jealous husband, going to an old castle, Italian family, centuries, they've had the castle, and the party is on time's decadence and poignant. He and one of his pals goes slumming one night, and in another vignette, his father comes to visit with disheartening and, again, maturing results on Marcello's paw. So there's something about Fellini movie that has a dreamlike quality. The first one I ever saw was Juliette of the Spirits. I saw that when I was about 14 or 15, and as a teenager, we're all used to American cinema. And when you watch a surrealistic movie in narrative form, you realize that there's other mediums out there, other ways to express the story. So Federico is just near and dear to my heart. If you haven't ever seen a Fellini movie, I suggest that La Dolce Vita should be your first one.  But if you can't get to this one, please check out Almaclod and Evidoloni. Evidoloni is very hard for me to find at the moment. Okay, so the next movie we're going to check out is Jules and Jim, directed by Francois Truffaut. It's a French movie. Almanacea and Oscar Bueno play two best friends, and Jean Moreau plays the enigmatic woman who makes up part of this very disturbing and very disturbing, upon disturbing love triangle. All right. So unfortunately, I don't have the author's name written down here, but it's a book. And Francois Truffaut, excellent, excellent director, French New Wave, and an excellent critic of film, read the book, made the movie. And when the author watched the movie, he said to Francois Truffaut, you captured all, you captured the time period, you captured our relationships, and you did a really good job. So what a treat if Francois had never made another movie again, what an homage.  So this movie's not for the squeamish. It unfortunately was one of those movies that, I'd overheard my parents talking about it over time, and then I think they went to do some drumming workshop, and we're in Versure, you know, I'm 12, and out of all the put dinner on then, and this and that was Watchills and Jim, and they said that we'd like the movie. So the family lore and the family myth is, of course you like the movie. It's like, no, there are parts of this movie I don't like. I don't. And it's not that romantic. I mean, come on, all right. Love triangle. That's not romantic. Okay. But the buddy part of it, just like in Casablanca, the relationship with men, it's wonderful. And Jean-Marie as Catherine, she's so beautiful, but what a hellcat, okay. I'm sorry, all right. So I like this movie, and if you want to watch a great classic, the first half of this movie is so wonderful. And the last half, yeah, okay, it's, I've got a friend of mine, I showed her Chinatown. To this day, she's like, I can't believe you showed me that movie. Just to let you know, she, I'll show her this movie, she'll be like, I can't believe it. All right. But in my family, you know, when you watch movies like this, you have this kind of toughen up. So sometimes not all movies have happy endings, and sometimes they do. And if they do, they can be disturbing. Just want to let you all know. Okay. So Jules & Jim, directed by Francois Truffaut, Henri Serre, Jean-Marie and Oscar Werner. Check it out if you want. All right. So our last entry is not a movie per se. It is a, what do you call that, mini-series. It's a British mini-series, and it is called Love in a Cold Climate, and it's based on the books by Nancy Mitford called Love in a Cold Climate and the Pursuit of Love. This eight-part mini-series, and I think it's filmed in 1974. I didn't put down the, I didn't put down when it was shot, but if you've grown up in a large family, you'll totally get everything that's going on here. And if you are British, you're totally going to get it, because you know about the Mitfords. And if you love a great story without explosions, and it's just about people, and about how they are relating with one another, you're going to love it, all right? So Nancy Mitford was the eldest of the famous Mitford sisters and son, and all of those women had extremely interesting lives in the time a little bit before and during the Second World War. Ms. Mitford became the French lady writer of the family and proceeded to sprout and begin what they call the Mitford industry. But I don't really see it as an industry or a firm or a college industry. I just see it as all those women, as sisters, were also very different. And I have five sisters, and we are all so very different. You can appreciate the fact that even though you come have the same genetic pool, you're going to take different stances on ideologies. So at any rate, as I watched this all last weekend, it's enjoyable. It's very funny. Some of the characters are characters. Please understand that. It is the British upper class. Please understand that. And yes, that mansion is a house. It's not a mansion that's what they call a house, okay? So the rack with children, which I remember that's their name fictionally, are indulged, but harmlessly so. They continually are testing their parents. All the petty jealousies and adorations which exist in a family are displayed here very realistically. And joy and tragedy are experienced by this family. So it's not only a story about family, a coming of age story. We see them all mature and progress, interact with one another, romance occurs, and so does anti-romance. All right, so I hope you all check that out. And please check out the books, too, if you do. And Mary S. Lovell's wonderful The Midford Sisters will also give you some insight about the relationships in the family. However, these fictional accounts, Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate, Pursuit of Love, I believe, is the first one. Please read that. Love in a Cold Climate. And I've been asking Kellogg Hubbard, Bless Their Hearts, for a copy on Interlibrary Loan of Don't Tell Alford, which is the third book by Nancy Midford, but I can't find it, but maybe I can hunt for it on Amazon. All right, that's it for me. This is the first episode of World Cinema St. LeVoe. I hope you've enjoyed this episode. I didn't really give a lot of statistics about the movies per se. I think if you all choose to rent or try and check these out on YouTube, please do. You can certainly find Love in a Cold Climate on YouTube.  And at any rate, take care of one another. Check out something outside our beautiful Republic here until next time. Don't watch any bad European or African or Asian or South American movies. Until I see you next time, bambinos. Ciao.


Welcome to NewsClick. Today, we are joined by Dr. Sumitre, who works at the Holy Family Hospital in Delhi as head of the critical care medicine and also as a medical superintendent. And of course, at the moment, he has many critical COVID patients under his care. And we want to ask him about his experience as a doctor in this unprecedented crisis and also about these medicines we are seeing which are being prescribed to deal with COVID, to cure COVID, which have not really been proven to be effective. So thank you, Dr. Sumitre, for joining us today in what must be a very distressing and hectic time for you. So to start with, can you tell us about what the situation is like in your hospital right now?  We see that the numbers are maybe slightly coming down in Delhi. So how has this been like, is there a somewhat reduction in the load you are seeing or, you know, is it still a situation where you have to turn patients away? So, what has happened in the last four days, there is a reduction in the number, three, four days is a reduction in the number in the casualty of the emergency room as we call it. But before that, it was beyond absolutely out of control, the number of patients coming in. We have 30 beds in the ER. I'll just take you through this 30 beds in the ER. At any point of time, we had 100 patients almost. There are patients sitting on chairs getting oxygen because there was no space to make them lie down. There was no physical space to put a stretch There are families, sometimes we had to ask the families who were with them, like one attendant was allowed. We had to ask them to step out because there was no space to breathe in the ER. It was that bad. He had no place in the wards or in the ICU for lots of patients. Even if we took people into the ER because we were trying to not refuse anybody at least to give primary care. We could give oxygen, etc. in the first shot of steroids, etc. There were lots of people who could not get a bed in the ICU, could not get a bed in the ward. We did not want to turn them away, but we did turn some of the patients away who came in ambulances, which were good quality ambulances, which could take them to the next hospital. We also received lots of patients who had been all around the city trying to get to a hospital and had died on the way. They had died in the ambulance. So there were lots of patients, people who were like that, unfortunately. There were patients who died in our emergency room because, as I said, we had no space in the hospital wards. We tried to do the best we could in the ER. I mean, no space means no space. We had extended our facilities by 40 percent more beds. We put beds wherever we could and in the ICU, we have trolleys between beds. Even now, there is no physical space in my ICU to walk between beds almost. So the quality of care obviously cannot be the same level as it would be in a normal circumstance in the ICU. So last three days, as I said, the ER has downed down, has become a little more towards normal, I would say. Still much more loaded than it usually is. In the 30 beds, we have 50 to 60 patients, which looks way better than what it was about three to four days back. Having said that, the timeline of COVID is such that patients who get hospitalized or are at home with oxygen or certain percentage will deteriorate. You can do the best amount of treatment, you can do the right thing. People don't realize that even if the doctors are doing the right thing, patients will deteriorate. A certain percentage do deteriorate. That's why even in the best healthcare systems, patients of COVID die because of that. So when they deteriorate, even 10 percent, 8-10 percent of them deteriorate on the wards. There are about 350 patients in the wards in our hospital. Even 8-10 percent deteriorate, you make, you know, calculate the number, about 30 to 45 patients will deteriorate. So they have to be moved to the ICU and the ICU is clogged. Once they come to the ICU, a patient who goes on the ventilator, if they start doing better, it's a three to four week battle on the ventilator. We have increased our bed capacity in the ICU from 48 bed ICU, which was usually had 40 patients at any given time, 38-40 patients. Now almost 66 to 68 patients because of the trolleys that we have put in and we have taken the coronary care unit into also the ICU, COVID ICU. So there is no coronary care unit anymore. It's 100 percent COVID hospital. So 68 patients now and of 50 of them on ventilators and we need even more ventilators. And this is 50 in the last surge, never where we require, did we require more than 30, 32 ventilators? We increased our number of ventilators. We bought ventilators as fast as we could. We rented them. We have reached 50 ventilators, but we will need even more ventilators soon because patients will, as I said, deteriorate in the next few weeks. That's how COVID goes, I mean, a certain percentage. So that's the situation we have. It is difficult, is a very mild word I would say. It is really, beyond difficult. Having said that, I would like to say something else. The poor in this country have to a certain extent faced this even before COVID. It has been triaging for them. I have trained in a public hospital in a public medical college in the 80s and 90s. And even later we have seen the poor lie in the emergency two to three to a bed in government hospitals because they have no access to private hospitals. They are triaged to which patient you can accommodate in the ICU because there is always more patients than beds than ventilators. So this time, yes, the scale is even more. The poor are also dying, but it's also people like us. It has affected people like us. And that's why even more, you know, we get to see this more across the world and in the media. And I think if this is not a wake up call to improve our healthcare infrastructure, then I don't know what will be. Right. And oxygen seems to be amongst the most critical of this, of what we need right now, which is, you know, the most crucial treatment, which I think COVID patients need at the moment. So what we see is that the Delhi government is saying it needs 700 metric tons of oxygen daily. But it's just been reported that at least last week it was only an average of around 530 metric tons, which was supplied. So can you tell us about this? What is the need and how have you been managing in this in the shortage? To tell you honestly, last week, last four or five days onwards, the oxygen supply has improved to all the larger hospitals. We haven't been in trouble. The reserves that we now consider safe is about six, eight hours of reserve. We consider safe now. It's a new normal. You know, earlier we would feel safe if there was a reserve of at least two days in our options. And now we feel safe if there is six to eight hours reserve because it was being cut so fine that we were sometimes down to half an hour reserves, two hours. I mean, so from there, it has improved. Actually, the worst days were when in Delhi was supplied only a liquid medical oxygen of about 300 metric tons or three to 350. Those were terrible days. Everybody was running helter-skeletal every hospital. Right now, the bigger hospitals are much better off. The problem is with the smaller hospitals and basically those hospitals which depend on cylinders, oxygen cylinders, which have a lag time to fill them up and get them back into the system. So those are the hospitals which are facing a problem even now, but much less than before because I can see it in the, there are WhatsApp groups for oxygen management started by the government. I can see that there is almost no panic anymore. I mean, there was few days back, so that has surely improved even with more than 500 metric tons coming in. I think the situation is much more stable. Probably, we will need some more. 700 probably is a number which they want so that they can escalate, I mean, build surge capacity and increase the number of beds in Delhi. So oxygen, but what has happened in the whole oxygen conversation or narrative is that people seem to have forgotten that oxygen is only one element of the therapy. We need ventilators, we need ICU beds, we need more beds, we need more staff. Staffing, everybody is stretched beyond their capacity there. The people, I mean, the doctors, the nurses, the cleaning staff, the maintenance people, the people maintaining the oxygen plant, etc. They are working way beyond the biomedical, the cleaning staff, the people moving oxygen cylinders from one place to another. They are working beyond almost physical capacity and endurance almost without complaining. There will always be some people who will complain, but mostly people are volunteering, volunteering for more. That is the incredible part that I've seen. Right. And before we move on to the part of discussing the medicines and how effective they are and all of that, I want to ask you about another aspect which I feel has not really been looked at enough. You of course just talked about the people running around to get us our oxygen and how they have been enduring all of this great amount of stress, working countless hours to do this for us. At the same time, of course, we want to ask you about the situation in hospitals in terms of doctors, nurses, attendants and workers, you know, we have cleaners and sappai karam chai in all of them. So how has this been affecting them in terms of their health, mental health and also are they vaccinated? So a fair number of people are vaccinated. How it is affecting their mental, it depends on what kind of work they're doing. So many of the residents and nurses are very, I mean, they almost are being affected to the point that they feel that we could have done better if we had the resources, if we didn't have such patient flow. They have seen young people die because of lack of resources dying in the ER. There have been resident doctors and nurses who have called me up just to say we have no complaints. We just want to cry because they have seen us do a very good job in the previous surge and they know that we could save a lot of people even in the ICU, even on the ventilators. Our outcomes were as good as the Western world as good. I'm not trying to brag, but it was as good as the Western world. We keep working on the evidence, looking at the evidence, looking at our clinical outcomes et cetera. It was as good as anywhere else. And this time, obviously the outcomes are bad because as not as good because we could not provide ventilators to those who needed them. We could not provide isopads to those who needed them. Obviously the outcome is going not going to be good. And that's what they lament that we know that we could have done better, sir, if there were these. And that is going to affect them for a long, long time. And they are younger. They're starting off their careers in many ways. And for them, it's a difficult thing. For people like me who are much older and have gone, you know, experienced a little more in many ways. Yes, it's an absolutely new situation in scale. It does affect us because we also feel that we could do better. But as I said, we have seen this to a lesser extent probably in the public health systems when we were young and when we were training. So maybe we are a little better prepared, but you can never be well prepared for this. It is, it is having said all this, I think it is. It is very painful. It is very in sometimes the battle to keep all our hopes up. Losing hope is something we can't do. And battling that is important. And that's what we are fighting. But at least now in Delhi, different parts will get affected differently. Now we see some light at the end of the tunnel in terms of the numbers. We know that the numbers will come down. If the numbers outside come down, a few days down the line, a few weeks down the line, the numbers in the ice use will also come down. And until then, I mean, at least there is some hope that if you work hard now, you can pull through this crisis and reach a point where you can do even better. So you're talking about, you know, hopefully we'll be doing better. But again, looking at the situation right now, coming back to the point of medicines, you know, we have, we see patients, families running around, you know, desperately trying to find medicines like rendersware, then there's Ivermectin, Pabitu, I think these are some of the common ones. How effective are these medicines? So I'll go about the evidence. Okay. So what is the evidence for remdesivir? Remdesivir is not a life saving problem. It's a drug which has been, the studies have shown that it is a small subset of patients who are on low requirements of oxygen. If a patient does not require oxygen or requires very high oxygen or isn't the ventilator, it is does not save lives or reduce length of stay. But those on low amounts of oxygen, if started early, you know, if started within the first seven to 10 days, it reduces the length of stay in the hospital. That is all it has been proven to do. Well, is that beneficial? Yes, it's beneficial to the system, because if you get a bed three days earlier than you would get, that puts that we can place another patient there, right? So that's the role. And I've said it in the news channels, etc. that do not, if you are not getting it, don't run around, particularly patients in the ICU. It is not going to be a life saving drug. If your loved one is in the ICU requires and the doctor has prescribed remdesivir. If you find it, okay, if you don't find it, it is not going to probably change the course of illness. In terms of medications like Fabiplu, zero evidence, zero evidence to support it, it's useless, it causes gastritis, you know, and it makes life miserable for the persons taking it, most of them in terms of, you know, nausea, etc. And without any benefit. Ivermectin, again, the evidence is weak. There have been some studies, there is a group in the US, which of doctors who promote inexpensive therapies, they have been pushing for it. The evidence is not very strong, some from Bangladesh and some from Romania and some other papers have come in to reduce the, they suggest that it would reduce the need for hospitalization if started early. To tell you honestly, you know, it's equivocal. Have I used it in this surge? I have used it for patients not in the hospital, those pre-hospital because we are desperately trying to reduce the number of patients coming into the hospital because there was no space. And I had no mind space to tell you honestly, to argue with anybody, because when I, when I don't prescribe, I wasn't prescribing it, there were people saying, okay, that doctor prescribed it. So I said, look here, the evidence is weak.  I did not have the mind space to argue that you take or not take. Fabiplu, I flatly said there was no benefit. There's no evidence to suggest these are benefits. So that's the steroids. I would like to talk about steroids now. Steroids are very useful, but timing is most important. It is being overused. Some people are overusing it in the outpatient department practice, they are starting it too early. Too early when the phase of viremia is there, when the virus is still in the bloodstream, still in the body, if you start using steroids, it can be counterproductive because your immune system is necessary to throw out the virus of the body. It's a necessary evil. What the steroid does is tone down your immune system so that your immune response, which causes the harm. So, so it's complicated that your, the viral infection triggers an immune response for most people, which is balanced, but for some people, it is dysregulated. Those who have a dysregulated immune response, that dysregulated immune response causes the more damage to the lungs, etc. It's not just the direct effect of the virus. So in those who have a dysregulated immune response, starting steroids may be necessary, but that should be after the phase of viremia or towards the end of the phase of viremia, usually after seven days. And not for everyone. In only those who have a hyper inflammatory response, who's, who require oxygen or are having persistent fever, their inflammatory markers, the CRP, etc., not for everyone, getting steroids is dangerous. It actually can cause more harm. And that has to be emphasized. Do not start steroids early. People we know have started steroids on the second, third day of fever. They actually have a fever may come down for a few days. And then when it comes back, it is a worse, it's a more dangerous fever. And we also have hydroxychloroquine again, which is has not been proven to be effective, but we see that even the ICMR is recommending it. So why is that? Yeah. So the AIMS ICMR recommendation, the new one suggests that you could use Fabiflu and ivermectin. As I said, the evidence for that is not much there. And that also makes, if somebody prescribes it, it's difficult to stop people from prescribing it. HCQ also, the evidence is almost not there. I mean, most of the studies have not real good studies. Randomized control trials have not shown benefit. So I don't see any reason to prescribe it at all. And how about plasma therapy? Does it work? Plasma therapy is another one, which actually there is again no evidence for its use in even the ICMR's own study with AIMS showed no benefit of the called the Placid trial. The trials from outside abroad also haven't shown randomized control trial, which are the real, you know, which are the kind of what we can call as the gold standards of research haven't shown any benefit. There is some indication in a trial, an observational trial that if it's the elderly, a small subset of elderly with low antibody levels, they are the ones who may benefit. But actually the problem with convalescent plasma, people don't realize it can be harmful for two reasons in COVID. It's not without side effects. The two reasons is one, COVID predominantly is also a pro-thrombotic state. That means there is increased clotting and plasma is used for promoting clotting. Second, if most of the patients who are worsening are worsening because of a hyperimmune response, a more aggressive immune response, and you are giving antibodies of the plasma to increase that response. So it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make logical sense. It is only in the subset who have low antibody levels for persistent viremia, particularly in the small subset of the elderly, it may benefit. For sure, in the others, it does not benefit. And it is a very interesting way of keeping the family occupied, making them run around, helter, skelter. And it's also part of our, I think, socio-cultural being, the Indian socio-cultural being that So that works very well. And it is pretty useless, I think. And it has been promoted by a couple of centers, repeatedly come on television because promoted by a couple of centers. But there is no evidence to suggest. And I don't use it. I'll be, I do not use it at all. But there have been some of our doctors who have prescribed it also because of the fact that the families insist on it. So sometimes it becomes difficult in spite of yourself to convince them that this is going maybe harmful. So they say, my patient is not doing well, what is your problem? So in spite, so in the last search, I don't know the data for this search because we haven't had time to collect the data. 3000 patients we had in the hospital, 6 more than 600 in the ICU. And we use plasma in five patients. And this was under family pressure, not because we wanted. So that's the number we have. So, you know, why do you think families are pressuring doctors this way despite the advice doctors are giving, why is there such a lack of trust? There has always been a lack of trust with the healthcare system and understandably and justifiably so. Our healthcare system and our has not represented itself, you know, very well in the past. So there is a lack of trust, but this is more than lack of trust. This is not, it's actually reason is different. This time the reason to do it is probably information and infodemic on COVID and people do not understand the contextualization of medical knowledge, right? You have to contextualize. I keep this giving this example when we were in third year MBBS and we joined third year MBBS and we started going to the clinics and looking at clinical subjects. We used to when we read something we thought that we had that disease. Every disease we read about we had that we used to call it the third year syndrome. Okay, so for people who cannot contextualize so just reading numbers or reading data, you cannot contextualize to the disease process. It is very complex. The human body is very complex. It takes years of knowledge and understanding to get to it. Even then we understand only some part of it. So no disrespect to people's intelligence. It is that it's a width and depth of information and knowledge which has its context. And if you do not understand to contextualize it, you will start trying to do therapies just because somebody has build it or somebody has your some friends, brother, sister has used it and they got better. They may have got better in spite of it actually. Right. And I also wanted to ask you about vaccinations. So of course, on the one hand, we don't have enough doses and so people are facing shortages and they are not able to get vaccinated. On the other hand, there are people who don't want to get vaccinated because of all the misinformation that there is. Why do you think that is and what needs to be done about this? So I wouldn't say misinformation. There is vaccine hesitancy to a certain extent because there was a lack of data transparency about both the vaccines. If you see the adverse events post immunization for AstraZeneca vaccine, there is data from across the world that there is certain problems. One has to be aware of it. One has to not hide it. The tendency in India was to hide that data. The 1600 patients who were vaccinated in the study in India, the phase three clinical trial that data hasn't come out yet. So these are the reasons that and if you see the other vaccine, the co-vaccine, the safety data is there, but the efficacy data is still not out. I mean the real public is not been published. So there is a lack of transparency in the process of giving approval to these vaccines. The other example has been just look at the FDA giving approval to Pfizer and Moderna. It was an absolutely public process. Anybody could go in and watch it, the process of giving approval to these vaccines. The evidence was very strong, the evidence was out there. So all this helped vaccination much more. There will always be vaccine skeptics, but most people would take the vaccine if they are fairly sure that the data that they get is transparent. Right. And finally, Dr. Sumit to conclude, I just want to ask you about looking at the situation right now, situation of the health care system, which is still under immense pressure cases, which are even a Kundalini maybe will seem some reduction, but in other states they are rising, situation of oxygen, all of these crises which are still there. Right. What do you think about future ways because we're seeing that experts are saying even a third wave is inevitable. Will we be prepared then? Yes and no. We'll be better prepared than this one probably, but if our basic health infrastructural facilities do not improve, do not strengthen, do not widen, do not numbers increase in terms of beds, ice use, primary care, secondary care, staffing, nursing, doctors, technicians, etc., it is going to be again very, very difficult. We have to invest in health. I mean, everybody says that. I mean, everybody was there in the medical profession knows that 1% or 1.2% of the GDP for public health is totally inadequate. There are so many expert groups which had said that 2.5 to 3% of the GDP into public health by 2025. We've seen no sign of sound of that being invested in any way. So one is investment in infrastructure and in people, but also the other thing which we need to know and that should come from us from the medical profession is accountability. A combination of investment and accountability, good public health systems run on the basis of these two. Investment, accountability and the third is equity and all these three things are probably missing in this country. All these three things in terms of investment, our accountability to people as healthcare workers and third is equity of distribution of health. Even in the vaccination, you see, why would we be separate vaccination for, you know, you have an advantage in a private hospital, you go and pay money and get it earlier and better. This is not public health. That is inequitable public health. Vaccination is a small example. I mean, in every way it is inequitable. So we have to improve upon all these things. So there has to be short-term targets, mid-term targets and long-term targets, absolutely. And the third wave also is going to hit us hard, but probably we will be better prepared than this one because in terms of oxygen, et cetera, I think we produce enough. It's the logistics of distribution that I think will be taken care of soon. That is probably, I think the least difficult of, I'm not saying it's not difficult, but the least difficult of the problems. But the other problems are going to be actually people, even if you have oxygen, if you don't have ventilators and ICU beds, et cetera, people will die. Finally, people die in the ICU or they survive in the ICU, right? Because if you get really sick, you can either make it because you go to the ICU and survive out of the ICU and you get a ventilator or other life support systems or you do not make it in the ICU. And if you need an ICU and you do not get an ICU bed, you are going to not make it. So all these things have to be built up. Thank you, Dr. Sumit, for joining us today. I wish you all the best for the work that you do and thank you for the work that you do. And that's all the time we have. Keep watching. It's a job I have to do. There's no need to thank. It absolutely don't need to thank.


Hello and welcome to the Grand Line Review, your source for everything one piece, and today I'd like to bring some renewed focus onto the topic of the Will of D, specifically as it pertains to Monkey D, Luffy, and Trafalgar D, Water Law. And I want to zero in on these two in particular, because the Will of D often gets discussed in a much broader sense, but it really does kind of set these two characters on an unstoppable path of fate, which we'll see them intrinsically linked until their destinies have come to a conclusion, and almost certainly tragic conclusion, that is, for either or even both of these characters. But before we get knee-deep into tragedy, it's time for some fun with a quick round of Guess That D, a very simple minigame, the rules of which are as follows. I am going to present you with the silhouette of a D-clan member, and it is simply your job to guess who it is.  So good. And if you do guess correctly, then you will be immediately initiated into the D-clan and told the secrets of the void sentry. Excellent. So here is our mysterious silhouette, and it's time for you to guess that D. Make your choice now, and the answer will be revealed in three, two, one, and it's Blackbeard, a very sneaky Blackbeard, but a Blackbeard nonetheless. And if you guessed incorrectly, then you know the thing it is in which you need to do, and don't forget to say hi in the comments below if you are indeed a new member of the Grand Fleet. Welcome. Now to get into things that are important to recognise, both Luffy and Lore are the latest generation in what seems to be an awfully long running line of D-wielding individuals. And they have a very special connection as well, because those labelled with the D very rarely come into any form of alliance. In fact, the established interactions of One Piece tend to quite polarise the meetings of 2D figures. And a classical example of that would be Goldie Roger and Monkey D. Garp, the pirate king and the hero of the marines, the two most profound figureheads of their generation within their respective groups, with them being both fierce enemies and rivals. And we can of course see this with Luffy, because he has his own polar opposite in Martial D. Teach, who isn't a factional rival, but more of a philosophical rival, as well as pirate king contender. Or we could look to Luffy's father, Monkey D. Dragon, who also presents himself as an antithesis of not only Luffy, but also his father Garp. And then of course Garp also stands in stark contrast to Luffy in terms of both age and beliefs. And you know, even a friendlier figure like poor Cass D. Ace was something of an antagonist to Luffy as children, then going on later to become rivals. And then while we're thinking about Ace, he despises his father Roger, his factually opposed to Garp, and a direct enemy of Blackbeard. And then when it comes to Blackbeard, he is of course the enemy of everyone in everything, including Ace for obvious reasons. Luffy is a pirate king rival, Garp is an agent of the world government, and also for no adequately explored reason yet, even Dragon and the Revolutionary Army, because Blackbeard attacked their base on Baltigo. And all of that is essentially to say that Dees just generally do not play nicely together. In fact, even lore effectively started out as Luffy's enemy and all rival, with the only potential exception to this we have being of Roger and Rouge, given that they clearly had some sort of D-related intercourse. But then again, we don't even know the specifics of their relationship, and they might have hated each other when they first met. But I go to the troubled sale of this to highlight the incredible rarity that is the Alliance of Luffy and Lore, which is quite understated in the series primarily because Lore himself is a very understated person, I suppose. Plus after Dressrosa, he has been more of a background figure. However, these two together are probably one of the most formidable alliances ever formed. And if the world government were indeed aware that lore was a D, then I think that they would be sweating far, far harder than hearing of an alliance between Kaido and Big Ma. Because more so than anyone else in the world, they are aware of the danger of the D. In fact, according to Rosinante, young world nobles are even told that if they don't behave, then they'll be quote, gobbled up by a D. And as for the adult world nobles, well to them, the people of D are known as the enemies of the gods. Which would imply that as much as Luffy's goal really has nothing to do with the world government, he is still a sworn force against them, less sworn by Luffy himself and more by his inherited will and fate. And the same goes for Lore, he's a man who was a bit more lost in life than Luffy. Most of it was spent on a quest for revenge, which you know just so happened to be against a former member of world nobility, funny little coincidence of destiny there. But having accomplished that, Lore is now faced with a bigger picture to come to terms with, given that his personal mission is over. And in this, Lore will face one of two options, either he continues the trend of D and perhaps betrays Luffy, or he continues with this alliance, and perhaps that becomes symbolic of the D clan reforming in the modern age. I for one am more partial to the second idea, I know there are a lot of people out there who enjoy the Lore betrayal idea because mmm the drama. But I'll just say that if he isn't going to do it on Wano whilst facing off against the strongest pirate in the world, then it's highly unlikely to ever happen. And therefore going into the final saga, I think that Luffy and Lore will become a centerpiece along with the rest of the D's such as Blackbeard, Dragon and Garp, as the greatest war this planet has ever seen breaks out with each of them causing a part of the metaphorical storm. Or perhaps even a literal storm in the case of Dragon. But then the question of ultimate fate pops up. To say that those with the middle initial D are favored in this world would be… it's kind of true, but also kind of a lie. Because in fact most of them suffer tragic early deaths with a smile on their face and for good reason, but tragic nonetheless. And currently the only one to really stand against that trend would be Garp but he is a special boy for special reasons that we'll get into another time. Because the point here is that I don't think that Luffy and Lore are quite as fortunate. There's a fair few death fags surrounding both of them and all signs would indicate that both are well on their way to a very smiley demise in the future. In terms of Luffy, he has the honor I suppose of following in the direct path of Goldie Roger, the very first pirate king who was executed shortly after his ground achievement. Roger having suffered from a fatal and incurable disease whilst Luffy is mimicking that by consistently destroying his own body in combat. Specifically through the use of gears, which was flagged very early on, as a technique that just chips and chips away at Luffy's life with each subsequent use. And then there are also very monumentally event specific instances of lifespan cost, such as the paramount war saga where in order to recover from Magellan's poison, Ivankov just flat out stated that Luffy would lose 10 years of his life. And these things are going to add up and at this point I don't think we have a great chance of seeing an elderly Luffy. With the sole exception of these drawings that Oda did in an SPS where an age 40 Luffy looks startlingly like shanks and an age 60 Luffy looks like a full conversion into garbhood. But unfortunately he will probably have no real reason to make it that far even if he did have the lifespan remaining. When it comes to Roger, he lived until the age of 53 because his journey was much, much slower of a burn than Luffy's. And the very moment it was completed, his life was over. Meanwhile, Luffy is basically speed running one piece and is likely to reach Laugh Tale very, very soon in terms of in-world time, thus potentially signaling the beginning of the end for Mr. Rubberlad. Very important word potentially because as much as Luffy has destroyed his body to the point of no return, there is an option in existence to at the very least, let's say, halt that idea, which takes us to the death flags of Trafalgar lore. And this starts off with the idea that lore is already kind of operating on borrowed time. As a youngling, he incurred amber-led poisoning and really should have died long ago. But fate plonked in Opiopinomene, his lap allowing him to live on. The problem there being that the use of the Opiopinomene puts lore on an almost parallel path to Luffy because overexertion of that fruit's ability also has the effect of life force reduction. And its crowning ultimate super ability, the perpetual youth surgery, would cost lore's life just to perform. Which to be fair is only an issue if he actually does it. And for most people, that just wouldn't be a problem at all.  However, a big problem with one piece is that it's a story and introducing a concept like this only for it to be ignored is not quite how this series would usually operate. I mean, maybe if we were talking about something like Hunter Hunter then sure, introduce and not pay off as many things as you'd like, but this is one piece. And such a massive ability was more than likely flagged in order to be used at some point. Now of course I will say just briefly that this may not be lore's use. Like the concept may have been used to introduce a story point where it may have already been used on certain characters like perhaps the five older stars. But lore still has command over it right now and there are situations in which it may rather tragically need to be used. One fun example would be the idea that say Luffy is caught by Big Mom in combat and she's about to drain all of the years of his life away. So at the last second, lore performs the operation and gives Luffy eternal youth, which theoretically should be a hard counter to Big Mom's life force-related business. And that's just one of many potential examples, but very importantly it's always good to note that this operation does not make the target immortal. Lore's ultimate ability grants a target eternal youth, kind of like Sugar's hobby hobby to me. The target can still die though, which is a bit confusing in the Viz translation because they did flat out call it the immortality operation, which also brings a whole ton of other connotations of unkillability to it. I do think there might be a problem with lore using the operation on Luffy though because that would negate all of the sacrifices that Luffy has made up until this point.  Whereas the Luffy we have now currently has a very clean path to leaving this planet after becoming the Pirate King and performing whatever grand destined event comes either before or after that. And Luffy does tend to be a bit of a key focus, but what is there to say that lore wouldn't use this operation on someone else? Like in a moment of desperation he uses the ability on one of Luffy's allies which would go on to be integral to Luffy's success. And of course fulfill a lore's rather tragic destiny in this world. I quite like the idea, but it can be hard to imagine what such a thing would be. I mean for example if someone were to be poisoned and was about to die then that would be a pretty good prompt for lore to use the operation, except that he's a doctor with the Opioppinomy and could probably just remove such poisoning with his more basic skills. It really does take an extreme situation to warrant the Opioppinomy like the Big Mom example, but I do like the idea of using it on someone else more than the thought of using the operation on Luffy because then that allows both Luffy and lore to come full circle with the fate of D, both of whom going on to die would smile on their faces and to be remembered forever or at least for a long while. And as for a situation where either one of them live I actually find that to be a much tougher thought than having both of them die. Lore would probably be the stronger candidate to linger on though, but fate really has not been kind to the decline thus far, so it is quite difficult to look at lore and see anything other than these gigantic ominous death clouds above him. But however things play out this dynamic of Luffy and lore is going to be essential. It is a key interaction that's been somewhat on the back burner since the end of Dressrosa, but here we have two generational figures, each on a mission to complete whatever the grand decree of fate has planned for them. But what do you guys think? Please do leave your thoughts in the comments below or even join my discord server. And if you'd like to see more videos like this then please do go and check out some of my other content or even subscribe to the channel for more glorious one piece business uploaded straight into your YouTube feeds. But for now this has been the Grand Line Review and I'll see you next time.


Item number SCP-123 Object Class Euclid Special Containment Procedures SCP-123 is to be held in a secured facility and is to be securely fastened to the top of a sturdy table by use of straps, chains, a net, or similar device. Absolutely no hooks shall be fastened to the device. The object and table should be centrally located in a room no smaller than 5 meters by 5 meters by 5 meters. No sensitive measuring devices should be used within 100 meters of SCP-123 as their measurements will be noticeably affected. More significantly, absolutely no objects should be inserted into SCP-123 except under experimental conditions. Transfer of SCP-123 shall be made with care and effort made to prevent the object from being shaken or jerked with notable force. SCP-123 shall not, under any circumstances, be transported over large bodies of water by any method. No personnel below level 2 must be allowed in the containment chamber with SCP-123. Any person interacting with the object should wear tight-fitting clothing that has absolutely no straps, laces, or other dangling components. Objects with long hair shall be requested to tie their hair back or wear a hair net. Description Object is a gray geodesic sphere, 65 centimeters in diameter consisting of 60 triangles. The areas between these triangles are empty, allowing the center of the sphere to be seen. The material the sphere is composed of is unknown, and upon the recommendation of Dr. R. R. Research into the material composition shall be limited to visual observation until further notice. SCP-123 appears to weigh about 3.62 kilograms, though its actual mass is believed to be much higher. The geodesic sphere is hollow, saved for the very center. At the center of SCP-123 is what appears to be a black sphere, approximately one millimeter in diameter. No light can be seen being reflected off or emitted from the black sphere. The core also appears to exhibit significant gravitational force, which massively increases within the confines of the outer geodesic sphere. This gravitational force can be measured using sensitive instruments several dozen meters away. Within approximately three meters, the gravitational pull is apparent to any observer, with dangling objects beginning to be pulled towards the sphere. At the surface of the outer sphere, the gravitational pull doubles the weight of any object placed onto the structure. The inner sphere's qualities are apparent when any small object is inserted within the outer sphere. Any such object quickly accelerates into the object and disappears. Any liquid poured into the object also is sucked into the central sphere. Analysis has shown that light that nears the black sphere is curved towards the center. The amount of gravity exhibited by the inner sphere at its surface suggests that its mass is approximately 1,029 kilograms, though the obvious gravity-reducing effect within the outer sphere means that its actual mass may actually far exceed even that. Note, that such a mass would ordinarily imply a swatch-gealed radius in the order of 200 meters, way in excess of the approximate 0.5 millimeters actually observed, which can be considered further testament to the outer sphere's gravity-dampening qualities. Gases are affected by the gravity of SCP-123, and the atmosphere pressure at its surface has been measured at 205 kilopascals. However, gases are unable to penetrate the area between the triangles of the outer geodesic sphere. The reason for this is currently unknown, and is currently being studied. It should be noted that the outer sphere and inner sphere appear to act as one. Whenever the outer sphere is moved, the inner sphere follows. Further research has suggested into the nature of this relationship. Addendum SCP-123-A SCP-123 has been suggested as a disposal unit. The researcher currently in charge of SCP-123, Dr. Rowe, is concerned about the structural integrity of the geodesic sphere. All requests for disposal must go through Dr. Rowe, or request a formal hearing with level 4 personnel. Until further notice, all interaction with SCP-123 is to be restricted to experimentation. Command personnel agree that further research is needed to understand the durability of the outer sphere. Lesson complete. If you missed the previous orientation, go watch SCP-122, No More Monsters, right now. Or for the complete course, watch this playlist.


First of all I'd like to thank you my incredible wife who just gave birth three months ago to two incredible twins. Without her and her support I wouldn't be here so I wouldn't be able to listen to my talk. She made it possible that I can have my or do my daddy do this while I'm also doing this talk over here. So catch her up after the talk. Talk to her. Don't only talk about baby stuff to her because she is in the industry as well. So you can definitely ask her questions about cars and security and data analysis actually. Yeah, a little disclaimer up front. I have to do this because I have several votes. Right now I don't represent anybody else than me. So I'm not representing my home company. I'm not representing any of the consortia that I'm working for. This is just me. I use some material which was published before or not has been published yet by the US DOT or CAMP. I got permission for that but that's all. I'm not representing them. I'm not speaking on their behalf. It's me purely in my views, my opinions. What is we to X? Anybody here in the room that hasn't or let's do it the other way around. Who has heard about V2X and knows what it is? Okay, there are a few that haven't heard about it. So maybe a quick introduction to that. It's about vehicles and infrastructure, exchanging messages in an unmanaged way. So there is a direct connection between those devices. There are several standards out there to do this. There's one Wi-Fi based. There's another one, cellular V2X or cellular internet based. And the idea is that without any infrastructure like cell towers or roadside units, they can exchange messages directly. There are some applications that go over infrastructure for sure, like especially when there's a backend involved but they don't have to for all the applications. So there are applications that actually require direct interaction because, for example, out of latency reasons. And I think the easiest way to kind of introduce it to this is just to go quickly through a couple of applications so they get a picture of what's done there. The first one I wanted to show here is forward collision warning. So there's a car in front of you which suddenly hits the brakes pretty hard and it's sending at the same time a message telling you where it is, where it's heading, what speed it has and that is breaking right now. And then regardless if the car is right in front of you so that other car sensors like LiDAR or radar could see this car, you still get this message and could react to that. Even if there are a couple of cars in between, you would still get this message and you would be able to react to that. So there are a couple of advantages to V2X communication over standard or classical car sensors that we have in cars nowadays. Another one is traffic light assistance. So there's a traffic light which sends out the information when the next screen shows up or when the next red comes up and based on that you could give a recommendation to the driver to slow down because it wouldn't make the green light or to start up your automatic stop system in time for the next green phase. Another one is intelligent traffic signal. So traffic signals that are looking at the current traffic situation because they are cars sending messages all the time and based on that they could just count how many cars are there and especially in the intersections they could decide to change the green light or the red light accordingly in order to optimize traffic flow. And now you think awesome, civil attack. I can get a green light. Right? And you're probably right if you're capable to do that. Another one, road condition reporting. So snow plows running around and they're reporting back to some central traffic management system, what the current road condition is and if that's too bad or the weather is pretty bad on the road and it's icy, based on that the traffic management system could decide to reroute traffic in order to avoid traffic congestion or in worst case crashes based on the ice out there. And now you think awesome, traffic rerouting. If I'm able to just manipulate those messages and tell everybody hey, you can't go through this street here because it's totally ice, it's blocked, whatever, suddenly all the traffic goes through other directions. How does this work? So just two examples that I brought in terms of message content. BSM is the basic safety message, what's in there, speed, position, heading, acceleration, time stamp, signature and a certificate. Based on that you can implement a whole bunch of V2V safety applications, crash avoidance applications. And another one is the SPAT. That's about traffic light phases, the signature and certificate. Why I'm showing this here is there are two similarities here or two items here in both of those messages and that is the signature and the certificate. So that's security. So much for a quick introduction to V2X. If you want to know more, Craig is here. You can buy his book in the vendor area. There is a pretty good introduction to V2X in there. Which I think is a pretty good starting point if you want to learn more about that. If you're already a little bit more advanced and you want to implement stuff, just a quick highlight to a project that was just published at Blackhead by Onward Security. It's the last point on the slide. Onward Security published a open source DSRC validation tool which generates messages that are compliant to the necessary standards. You could do this with the first hardware that listed there and GNU radio. There are also, there's also a Linux kernel which I think already is in the upstream, which is already in the upstream, which implements the necessary radio capabilities for HD9K based Wi-Fi cards. So if you want to play around with that, that might be good starting points for you. So now let's look a little bit into security. I did a talk here at the parking village two years ago. If you want to deep dive into how the system is built, how it works, just look up this talk. It's on YouTube I think. The important point I want to highlight here is pseudonym certificates. So those certificates that we saw in the messages before are so-called pseudonym certificates that are used to create signatures and enable the other side is a receiving end to verify those signatures. They're called pseudonym because cars have a whole bunch of them so they kind of can hide their identity behind them. They exchange them on a frequent basis so that nobody could use the certificate in order to track a car. If they would always use the same one, you just need to listen to one message at the starting point and then listen to another message at the endpoint of the traffic. And if the same certificate shows up in both sides, you know that this car was traveling from A to B. With pseudonym certs, there are some form of protection against that because they're changing those certificates so you can't use the certificate for that. And the idea goes through the whole communication stack. So all identifiers are exchanged on a regular basis at the same time so that there's no identification in there. I just wanted to highlight this because this pseudonymity concept is an important concept for privacy protections in the system. And later on if you look at misbehavior detection, what this talk is about, we kind of need to break this pseudonymity to a certain point because otherwise we're not able to identify bad actors. So the first line of defense for V2X security for sure is if you talk about signatures and certificates, the private key. If you just look at what was proposed or is proposed in upcoming or proposed regulations, especially in the US, there are certain standards that are required that you have to implement or certify for your devices. Over here in the US it's FIPS 140-2. In Europe there is the idea of a comments criteria based certification and the protection profile for that is about to be published within the next weeks. The point that I want to make here is this first line of defense might not be enough. Because if you look at, for example, FIPS 140-2, there are no protections against side channel attacks required in there. And we all know that this is kind of daily business for you guys. So that might not be enough. It doesn't mean that OEMs or other device manufacturers that are implementing V2X right now don't add to that. That they don't add side channel protections. But if you look at this from a regulation point of view, this is not enough. You need to go beyond that. And then if you're building walls, like the security causes that we oftentimes see on slides, don't forget that there might be miners that try to go around your walls, under your walls, over your walls. So side channel and the direct hardware, security hardware is not the only asset that you need to protect. In fact, if the device is generating a message and the applications built on that are depending on the position, for example, within this message, the question is, how does the vehicle that's sensitive, the message, generates this position? And then you come to GPS as one of the inputs. And you don't need to necessarily get access to the car keys in order to get a message into the system which doesn't reflect reality, which doesn't reflect an actual position of a car. You just need to kind of fake the GPS position or the input to the car and then the car itself generates the message for you, which is not reflecting reality because you just spoofed the GPS position for that car. And this is actually a recent publication where we were able, where it demonstrated with a device which is I think round about 225 bucks in hardware and some clever software where they were able to fake or where they were able to spoof the GPS position in a way that Google Maps actually rerouted the car to a different endpoint. So what it took into consideration with their software is the actually street network. They were able to spoof to a position in a way that Google Maps recalculated the route and then ended up in a different endpoint, which is C over here, instead of D where the original or the user originally wanted to go to. If you take this and would apply this to V2X, you see how easily or not how easily because nobody demonstrated yet, but a potential pitfall for V2X messages as well. This whole introduction is just about highlighting the importance of misbehavior detection. And especially the research on that. A quick definition, what is misbehavior when I say misbehavior? I mean the willful or inadvertent, in this case there was somebody spoofing the message, so the original device doesn't do anything willfully here. Transmission of incorrect data network. And incorrect means it doesn't reflect reality. It doesn't reflect your position, it doesn't reflect your speed, it doesn't reflect your heading. Misbehavior detection on the other side is the process of identifying this misbehavior. So actually figuring out there was somebody who sent a message that was not reflecting reality, so it included incorrect data. A couple of selected research approaches on this, and this work is heavily based on work from colleagues in Europe. One idea that came up in research was a verifiable path history. If there would be a way that you could figure out where a car was in the past, you could extrapolate to the current position and then figure out if this car is actually faking its position. This would be especially helpful against cyber attacks, because if a car has a whole bunch of certificates and an attacker is able to get access to the private keys and the certificates, they could simulate a whole bunch of cars. They wouldn't need to use those certificates for just one car. For example, in the US there were talks about having 20 certificates valid per week. In Europe we are talking about 100 certificates per week, so in Europe you could, if you get access to that, so that's always a big if, but if you are able to get around the first line of defense, you would be able to simulate 100 cars at the same time, and then you get a green light, right? So verifiable path history, the idea was that there are roadside units that send you a timestamp beacon, a signed timestamp actually beacon that you would then incorporate into your messages, and therefore there is a very small chance that a couple of cars get actually the very same timestamp from a couple of those roadside units and would be able to kind of show you a string that looks exactly the same. If that happens, if you see a whole bunch of cars that have exactly the same verifiable path, you actually have a high chance of seeing a civil attack going on right now. The issue with that is we need new protocols. So an issue not necessarily in terms of this won't work, but nobody took it further than that so far. It's a, I think, pretty good idea, but we don't have a protocol yet which reflects that. We would need a new roadside unit service for that that somebody has to develop, and actually we would require a high coverage of roadside units that we don't have nowadays. So there's a huge cost factor to that, and actually in this research that's not reflected, nobody is actually calculating what would it cost to deploy a system like that just for misbehavior detection. So the question is where do we go from there? Next one is plutonium linkability. So if you get all those plutonium sorts from those cars at a traffic light, same situation, intelligent traffic light, you're trying to decide if you change the green face for a certain direction. If you could just take all those plutonium sorts and get to know which ones belong to a single car and which ones belong to different cars, you would be able again to figure out if there's a civil attack going on. But this would break the privacy point. If there's a single entity in this whole system, and actually this would be a whole bunch of points, all the traffic lights that implement this intelligent traffic light application, if they would be able to break the plutoniumity in order to figure out which plutonium sorts belong to the same car, then an attacker just needs to break into an RSU and get this capability and then could start tracking vehicles with that. That's one point. The other point is again that right now we haven't really figured out how you could do this quickly because it doesn't help you if you get this information like 30 minutes later. Not to speak about days where the system is currently with this capability. So you would need to get this kind of immediately. And nobody actually calculated so far how much traffic we would see with that, what the performance requirements are for that and how we would implement that. So again, there's something to this idea, but nobody took it any step further so far. Then a couple more radio signal based. You could kind of do triangulation. You could look into power differences. Again, nobody really took this any further so far. There are other schemes that are building on the swarm type of this kind of network itself where you kind of vote if a situation that somebody is reporting on the V2X network right now is actually happening. So if there are a couple of devices that are having other capabilities like radar to verify if there's an obstacle or if there's actually somebody breaking, you could kind of vote on that and then let everybody know okay, you can trust this message or you can't. Again, there is something to this idea, but we need a new protocol for that. There is again an issue with pseudonym search change. What if the attacker just changed the pseudonym search in between? So you need to do this again and again and again with age change. And the question is what is the effect on automotive hardware for that? How much more computational power do you need for that? How much more communication will you have on the restricted channels that are available for V2X? Again, who's working on that? Reputation based is kind of similar. If over time other devices figured out that the messages that you sent are actually trustworthy, you get a kind of a higher reputation point or score and could use that in order to inform newly added devices to the system that you are actually trustworthy source. But then again, this could be used as an identifier or actually you need to have an identifier to do this over time because otherwise you wouldn't know where to add those numbers to or the score to. So this has again implications on the pseudonymity, on the privacy aspect of the system and nobody really looked into this so far. Then there is another interesting approach which I think was presented just recently. We kind of do multi-source fusion within the car itself, the receiving end. I think it's a logical step. If you have radar, if you have LiDAR, if you have other sensors and V2X is just another sensor, you could kind of fuse all of those information and see what the probabilities are that there actually is somebody breaking or that there actually is an obstacle somewhere. I think this is worthwhile looking into, but again the question is what are the requirements on the automotive side for that? And maybe I have to highlight this for people that are not working on the OEM side on the automotive industry, but computational power is restricted, energy levels are restricted, memory is restricted because we are trying to do things cheaply. And we are having special requirements on hardware because we need to accommodate way higher temperature ranges than consumer hardware does. So there are a couple of specialities to automotive hardware that you need to keep in mind when you design a system like that, that OEMs are sometimes fighting about cents. A couple of cents added to a car and you look at one of the big car companies, five million cars per year, a cent might make a difference there. So all of this is research. The question is where are we with actually implementations? Do we have anything implemented and tested out and have the data to see if this actually works performance wise in terms of detecting quickly misbehavior, but also in terms of automotive restrictions? And the only thing that I know of so far is actually work done by Kemp and by the U.S. DOT. And I just want to dip into this a little bit in the next couple of slides. They have a concept where they differentiate between local misbehavior detection and global misbehavior detection. Local misbehavior detection is the process that identifies locally in a device misbehavior or at least creates a suspicion that there is something wrong and then collects data. It's like a monitor in classical IT security speech, some data points, some note in the network that kind of reports back to you whenever there's anything kind of fishy. And then the global side is the backend that collects all of this data, all of this reports and then tries to figure out if there was actually something going on. Because on the device level you might not be able to actually make a hard binary decision. Yes, this was misbehavior, no this wasn't. So there's the idea here is that you have a backend which collects from a whole bunch of devices those reports and then somehow or hopefully makes a decision call to identify that this was misbehavior or not. How does this work? The two, I think two methods that were implemented so far on actual devices are proximity plausibility. So if you see a couple of cars driving around and their messages, they might start overlapping because of bad GPS reception or because there's an attack going on. And if this happens a couple of times, then you on the receiving end start being suspicious and saying there's something going on. So I buy the file report, collect all those messages that I got that looked like they were overlapping, sign them and send them off to the global side. Another one is false warnings. So I got messages that caused me to issue a warning to my driver, for example, for forward collision warning.  So I already made this decision in my device that there's something going on. I warn my driver or engage the brakes if I have an autonomous car in this way. But then nothing happens. Especially when I just put it out to the driver, there's no driver reaction. He's not engaging the brakes. He's not steering away and there wasn't a crash. So something with this data was wrong. I got clearly data that there's somebody in my lane breaking pretty hard and I'm only that far away so there has to be a driver reaction to that but there wasn't. So again I collect this data and send it off to the global site. This kind of process is called misbehaviour reporting, collecting the evidence and then sending it off to the global site. The only two algorithms that are implemented so far and some got some form of testing are device based and event based. Device based is a pure counter. How often do I see the same pseudonym search sending messages that led to the receiving end to actually create a misbehaviour report? It's just a counter. Whenever I see the same pseudonym search, I count up and when there's a threshold reach, like five times for example, I decide, okay, this device is misbehaving so I just put it on the C.I.L. or put its certificates on the C.I.L. and let everybody know to not trust this device anymore. The other one is a little bit more sophisticated. This one is location specific so I have a predefined area. I put all the misbehaviour reports that are coming from this area together. I look under the pseudonym search and actually I use the capabilities that I built into the system and here I'm referencing again to my talk before or to Craig's book how this actually works but there is some way that the misbehaviour authority within the system is able to check if those reports are actually about the same device or about different devices. It doesn't get the pseudonym search for that so it can't start tracking, it just gets the spider information, they belong together or it didn't. And if they belong together to the same device and again if there's a threshold reached, the misbehaviour detection authority puts the device or its certificates on the CRL. And this is the last step which is called device revocation or sometimes blacklisting because in Europe we don't revocation we just blacklist the device so it doesn't get new certificates. But there's some form of penalty to the device in order to exclude it from the network. So how does this work? An example, we have a misconfigured device or an actual attacker, doesn't matter in this case. There are three cars, A, C and D that are just regular V2X equipped cars and a suspicious device B. And B's position is slightly off. Could be programming error, could be that we are in New York City, downtown and we get bad GPS reception or it could be that there's actually an attacker spoofing the GPS inputs to this car. And therefore the device or the messages of this device look like that there's a B slash car in my lane, in the lane of A, C and D. This is this kind of ghost car on the bottom right. So we go further and then we see a first overlap. All the cars are recognizing this and seeing those messages overlap and therefore those cars had to overlap and they're starting collecting the evidence. They see one overlap, another overlap and a third overlap. And in this example the threshold is three for the local misbehavior detection so after three overlaps I decided okay this looks suspicious so I send off a report. And as this happened pretty quickly the chances that the sending device was changing is pseudom asserts is pretty low so it looks like three times overlap with the same pseudom assert. If the global misbehavior detection looks like those reports it can decide B is misbehaving and therefore it should be revoked. How could you trick this? And again this is conceptual level already. We didn't do a proof of concept for that but on the conceptual level already you could say I have three cars hacked. The chances are if you're capable of hacking one of the cars that you can hack the same model year, same brand and a different car is pretty high because of the reuse in the automotive industry. So let's assume you were able as an attacker to gain access to the private keys of three different cars same model type and so on. Those cars are labeled here A, B and C. And what you do now is you pick a victim which is V in this case the yellow car.  So you're sending messages that look like you were in this lane where actually not in this lane you're just one lane to the left in this case. If you send out those messages over the V2X network everybody will see them and the other cars, the green cars around there will noticing those overlaps of your cars with the victim. As you have hacked this system or the cars you can exchange pseudonym search for those cars. We have either 20 or 100 in Europe so you could use for each message that shows an overlap of different pseudonym search but you actually don't need to because once you overlapped three times with it it looks like V is always overlapping whereas the others are not. They're just overlapping with V. So with the currently implemented methods on the global side the misbehavior authority would actually revoke the victim's car. As an attacker you would have reached your goal in kind of getting this car out of the system because now it can't use or nobody is trusting their messages anymore and therefore in crash situations for example nobody will actually believe that the car is where it is reporting it that it is. So what do we do? And that's a big question mark because if you look at ongoing work right now what different stakeholders are doing? Nowadays I only found so far to stakeholders doing anything. First of all the U.S. DOT they took the work that they created together with camp and decided that the connected vehicle pilots that are being deployed here in the U.S. right now in New York City in Wyoming and in Tampa should implement some form of minimum viable misbehavior product in their devices. So the capability of doing local misbehavior detection in some form should be implemented so that we get a little bit of a larger scale test out in the real world which is good. And the other one is a sensor based approach to misbehavior detection. This is kind of the step where we go and start doing sensor fusion. We take lighter and radar information and add V2X information on top and see if there are anything any devices that report a position which doesn't reflect physical reality. And if so report again back up there. I think those are necessary steps and I can only appreciate the work that the U.S. DOT is doing there. But what else do we see right now? In France there's a project called Secure Cooperative Autonomous Systems and they're actually looking into viable misbehavior detection approaches right now and the idea is they implement the full chain. They're following the same approach, local and global misbehavior detection, creating reports and then finally revoking our black listing. But that's it. And the question is if you look into the news as of lately, the R industry is deploying the systems. We have OEMs that are putting this into their cars. We have roadside operators that are putting devices out there. So this is happening right now. But it looks like nobody is really solving this issue that whenever there was somebody able to get around the first line of defense, what happens next? So this is a big concern of mine. I don't know if you share this concern. The question that I'm asking myself and trying to ask you is why is that? Why is nobody taking this seriously enough? If you look at the applications and I just showed 5 out of I think 50 or 70 applications that are defined by now for V2X, I think this is critical infrastructure. And for critical infrastructure we need to look onto the additional lines of defense beyond the first line. Especially with systems like that that will operate for 30, 40, 50 years into the future. We have to anticipate that at some point somebody is able to get around this. So what do we do? Why is it that nobody actually takes this seriously? So any ideas in the audience? Nope. I have a couple of stomach feelings here. So this is kind of a hypothesis that I want to try out here. Maybe there is some misconception about the status of V2X security. Maybe, especially in the higher up ranks, people think that we have it covered. We already working on this, we are already spending so much money on secure hardware and figuring things out for protecting the private keys. So that's enough. That's all we can do. Is that the case? Or is it just that somebody did a risk analysis and said, yeah, we don't have that many cars yet on the road and that many roadside units yet on the road. So this is an issue which we need to handle and figure out down the road somewhere. Could be. What adds to this is in the last two years, I often time saw a couple of papers published in the car hacking area where respectful researchers and heads off to them were able to get, for example, into an entertainment system. And when you read their papers and you're pretty excited about it, especially when you work on automotive to see, hey, there was somebody able to go around my first line of defense. So what did they do with that? And then in the end, they kind of claim we would have been easily being able to control the car by that. And then nothing. And I often times think, okay, so you kind of made me excited about your research. I read the news because the media might get just this last line saying, oh, they do kind of remote steer the car or brake or whatever. And then it's just we might have been able or we were being able but no proof of concept. From a researcher's point of view, I think, yeah, I don't know. And the feedback that I often times get from the industry is then, yeah, you know, those researchers, they were able to get in there, but we have it covered. So there were no chance that they would get ever to the steering wheels or the brakes and whatnot out there. So this is just for highlighting their research in the press. I don't know. Maybe we need to get to the point where research takes this additional step. And I know it's hard work. I know it can be costly. I know it takes time. I know it doesn't make immediate news, especially if you are not able to create a proof of concept but maybe we should go there and say proof of concept or a GTFO. Would that help? Because I think on the researcher area and the security experts area, we all kind of have more or less knowledge on what they would be able to do. But just one or two steps up the chain, it's all now, we don't need to work on anything there because we have it covered. There was no proof of concept. Nobody demonstrated that. They're just claiming. So they don't do anything. They don't get the budget in place. They don't get the time in place. The people in place to work on that stuff. Maybe this adds to that. I don't know. Any other ideas? Yeah. So the question was why do we emphasize privacy so much or actually with two questions so much because everybody is carrying around a cell phone already and locations get sent wherever. And on the other hand, isn't there anything else in the stack that you could use as a fingerprint and therefore ID to track devices? Last question, my answer to this is the idea is there's none of this in there. So MAC addresses get changed. All of the IDs get changed and actually there's already work and I think there are chips available with radio chips that make it hard if not impossible to do a RF fingerprinting to use that as an identifier. Why do we do that? Because first of all, we are expecting a regulation and there are laws in place. I do understand in the market over here that they have to protect privacy or at least give the option for that. And second, I think the OM industry has to cater not only like the general public but also critical security and privacy concerned citizens. So there is an interest in the industry to protect your privacy because we are broadcasting this information. So it's not just Google or some app operator that collects your location information and maybe you have even a chance to configure your device in a way that it doesn't send those location information. No, we are broadcasting this. Everybody can collect those information. You just need to set up a passive listening device somewhere and nobody actually would know that you're tracking. So everybody could do this and that's the idea that you don't want to have your spouse looking for where you're going or maybe you are a higher level target that needs to be protected. So we want to protect as best as we can the privacy of our customers. Yeah. If you turn off VDV especially you use all the safety applications and that might be something that you don't want to. Okay, so where do we go from here? We certainly don't want to go back to those times, I hope. So just with all the online connectivity out of the cars because it doesn't work. Maybe for the last point I made about the proof of concept, maybe we in the industry should critically comment on publications that are coming out. Making statements about the probability that this actually works, how good the research was maybe this helps in order to get a public image on the work that is going on and a more realistic view in our organizations higher up. Maybe we have to kind of get in touch with the VTX application developers because they're way more than the security folks and tell them you have to define for each of your application what misbehavior is and where it could lead to and how you can detect it within your application. Because right now it's a very small group of developers doing this and as I said there are 70, 80 whatever applications out there. There's no way that we can ever catch up so we need to get applications developers to get at least a basic understanding of what the security issues are and what they could add to prevent that. Have a conversation within your company about VTX and raise the issue and tell them what the issues are and that we need to work on that. There's another idea. Yeah, that would be pretty awesome. I think the car hacking village actually discussed this two years ago to add a VTX module to their batch in order to start working on this. Unfortunately never managed to do it or I don't know what the issues were but there were only discussions so far. But maybe that's actually a good idea. Maybe we should have VTX CTF challenges next year in the car hacking village. Anything else? Yeah. No problem. I don't have an answer right now on this and that's actually my point. We don't have the answers yet. We need more research or we need more kind of industry-led applicable large scale testing of what research already did in order to figure out if this works. Because there are already all kinds of good ideas out there. The selected research approaches that I show today is just a small subset of the ideas that are out there and I showed them further and actually tested them out to see how do they perform in terms of how quickly and how often do they actually identify real misbehavior with all the environment conditions that we have in automotive. How much does it cost? That's always a question if it's too costly nobody will implement it. So all those there are tons of good ideas. My point is we need to work on that in order to get them implemented. Yeah. So there's an application. If you're in a distress situation it's called you don't change your pseudonym source. Couple of sources for this. I don't know how much time I still have but as long as nobody kicks me out today I'm happy to take more questions. Yeah. That's a pretty good idea. So what is implemented so far in the US is that there is a CL server which provides it in the car or the devices. It's in their responsibility to connect on a regular basis to get them. With DSRC there's an issue because you don't necessarily can anticipate that they have cellular based on that. So you need to have other approaches like roadside unit that provide connection to the CL server. Or there was another research approach where you have collaborative sharing so cars that already have a refresh CL could share it with other cars that don't have it. But as far as I know it was never really implemented. There might be some simulation work going on right now on this. But this is an issue. When you look at CV2X the new technology which is different from this Wi-Fi, this IC standard you already have a cellular modem in there. So the assumption is that you have way more regular connectivity to some backend and therefore could download this information. There's some margin of error which is built into the applications. Actually you are not supposed to send your... You're not supposed to send BSM messages if you're out of a certain threshold which is I think 1.4 meters or something like that. But there's some threshold built into that. But it depends on the device being able to tell that it's out of accuracy for GPS. So if you spoof there's a hard chance that the device is not able to tell. Especially if it doesn't have additional measures like deck reckoning for its positioning and then it wouldn't know and still would send this messages. And in terms of overlap again this is the reason why we don't send immediately any overlap that we see on a local basis but we wait until we saw like three overlaps or five overlaps and we figured out the real threshold for this yet. Again large scale deployments missing this so far in order to test this out. But the idea is you don't report immediately each and every overlap because there could be some weird GPS condition going on right now. So those are the hard tough questions for the overall system. I can only answer them as good as I can because that's not necessarily security governance and politics and whatsoever. I my personal view is we will see many CAs that are operated by the OEMs for example and they are independent of the country that the vehicle is operated in. There might be still restricted to a certain market like there's a very small chance that a car that is produced for the market which is Canada USA and Mexico at least gets ever shipped to Europe or China and operated there so they could be different CAs for North American region, for European region. But there are also discussions there that for example the U.S. DOT stands up, puts up ACA for that and then the Canadian government has to do one and the Mexican has to do one so there are a couple of different concepts as long as we don't have a regulation we don't know and it's up for industry to figure out and decide on that. That's especially a question of latency I think. I think that the overlap that we might see is an indication that you create a suspicion locally that there is something going on because especially on the receiving end for overlap you don't know which one is the wrong. You get two messages from different cars and they seem to overlap you don't know if car A or car B is wrong. This is the reason why this data is then sent off to a global misbehavior detection backend and the global backend will collect a couple of reports and if the same device shows up in different reports over and over again then there is a high probability that this device is somehow misbehaving that means. But in between the first detected overlap and the decision on the backend side to actually revoke this device and then getting the information out to all the other cars that this device is now revoked there could be actually crashes happening. Does anybody know if I'm running out of time? No? Yeah. So that's another good example for an example if you have multiple local misbehavior detection approaches implemented overlap and warning based then you have a higher probability to make a local decision which one not to trust but again especially with the warning based it might be too late for the driver because when you figured out oh there wasn't a crash then there's a suspicion that there was somebody doing it wrongly but in case there is a crash it's too late. You know everybody was right where the messages were right but it doesn't help you anymore. Okay I get a signal that we are over so if you like to continue the conversation just hit me up after the talk talk to my wife or just send me a message on Twitter. Thanks.