Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday August 21 2014, @01:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the man-behind-the-curtain dept.

phys.org reports that Researchers have found security flaws in backscatter X-ray scanners.

In laboratory tests, the team was able to successfully conceal firearms and plastic explosive simulants from the Rapiscan Secure 1000 scanner. The team was also able to modify the scanner operating software so it presents an "all-clear" image to the operator even when contraband was detected. "Frankly, we were shocked by what we found," said J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan. "A clever attacker can smuggle contraband past the machines using surprisingly low-tech techniques."

It seems these machines suffer from security by obscurity:

"The system's designers seem to have assumed that attackers would not have access to a Secure 1000 to test and refine their attacks," said Hovav Shacham, a professor of computer science at UC San Diego. However, the researchers were able to purchase a government-surplus machine found on eBay and subject it to laboratory testing.

An expensive security product that's not all it's cracked up to be? Shock Horror!

I'm reminded of the fake bomb detectors that were being sold to security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for a mere $60,000 each.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @01:57AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @01:57AM (#83793)

    Backscatter scanners are here to stay, flaws or no flaws. If you disagree, you're a terrorist.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:00AM (#83795)

      I think YOU are a faggot.

      What's that, you say you aren't ?

      That's not what my videos show.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:05AM (#83797)

        Suck my enormous ebony shaft. I have some twinkie cream just for you!

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Tork on Thursday August 21 2014, @04:42AM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 21 2014, @04:42AM (#83826)

        I've seen the videos and until you mentioned it, I didn't realize your mom's a dude!

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Rune of Doom on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:22AM

      by Rune of Doom (1392) on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:22AM (#83798)

      Don't be ridiculous. Obviously the backscatter scanners are all going to have to be replaced by some other new system, at a cost of billions of dollars. Through sheer coincidence, the new system will be bought from a company that employs, or is owned by, former high-ranking government officials.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @07:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @07:00PM (#84046)

        Through sheer coincidence, the new system will be bought from a company that employs, or is owned by, former high-ranking government officials, or will have a current government official on the board of directors in the near future.

         

        Minor addition. :)

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @06:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @06:08AM (#83841)

    I am puzzled by how enthusiastically technology is adopted ( and paid for ) by people ignorant of its operation.

    I have seen way too much stuff implemented because of salesmanship, not performance or need. In damn near every case, the people implementing the technology had some trick up their sleeve to coerce someone else to pay for it. Mostly taxpayers.

    Right now, I am facing one inventor cozying up to my boss, claiming to have a special way of winding a transformer to pull extra energy from the ether by using special windings to recover energy. Its based off this. [affs.org]
     
    The guy claims to have implemented the work of the author of this paper ( now deceased ). The guy is doing a pretty good sales job and I am now looked on like a ignorant dummy who cannot see the potential of all the savings. I am up against claims of all sorts of savings by name-dropped corporations in multiple nations, with claims that the technology is developed by Nobel Prize winners and the like. Lots of PhD seems to have been involved. I am getting madder and madder just thinking of it.

    Executive pens are beginning to wag, and if I want to keep my job, I better not diss it, however I have made it known as clear as I can that I think its nothing more than a lossy way of making an autotransformer that does little more to effect savings than reduce the line voltage.

    Any of you want to look at this link and tell me if I am going crazy by failing to see the merit in it?

    I lost my last job in Aerospace by failing to "go with the flow" and not "being a team player" when I stood up for what I thought was hogwash. It has been shown very clearly to me that investors honor salesmanship above things like the laws of physics, which are obviously old, outdated, and no longer relevant, and I am too much of an old dozer to see it. It looks to me this kind of thing is all set to do me in again, as why would they want the negativity of an old engineer when a young energetic salesman has an outstretched hand for shaking and paper signings?

    I am not going to sign this because I do not want this coming back on me - knowing how the leadership-trained mind works, it will just be evidence to fire me.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday August 21 2014, @07:48AM

      by sjames (2882) on Thursday August 21 2014, @07:48AM (#83860) Journal

      Unless it accidentally corrects the power factor (not likely though it would be a great way to cheat a test with a well chosen load), I can't see it doing any good. In fact, I would expect it to typically increase consumption due to losses in the device itself.

    • (Score: 2) by TK on Thursday August 21 2014, @06:26PM

      by TK (2760) on Thursday August 21 2014, @06:26PM (#84029)

      Persuade your bosses to include a performance guarantee in the contract. If the salesman is confident that his produce will improve $something, then there should be a measurable way to determine if it's working. This is SOP for my line of work (industrial machinery).

      If there's an improvement, great, everybody wins. If it is indeed snake oil, then by sjames' comment, you should see decreased performance via losses. If the trick is that it only works at a given load, then make sure that possibility is covered in the performance guarantee.

      --
      The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @06:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @06:39PM (#84035)

      Unless the claim is that this will be produced specifically for your use case (your load impedance) and that (somehow) this thing is creating the equivalent of a capacitive load by putting that reversed inductor on the core (which I doubt works, but have no proof that it would not) I don't think there is a way to improve the efficiency of a transformer without improved materials.

      The best that can be done is to cancel out your inductance with capacitance (making your load purely capacitive), this is typically done with capacitor banks as I understand it.

      I would guess that if it could easily be done with a matched transistor in this fashion, they would do it already, as capacitor banks are big and spendy.

      Then again, IANAPEE (not a power EE).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @11:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @11:16PM (#84141)

      Consider contacting Mr. Bill Whitlock [jensen-transformers.com] He is a transformer expert for more than 2 decades, and has been leading the way on some electrical standards for IEC and AES (Audio Engineering Society). He is a very practical engineer, and is very capable of separating transformer snake oil from reality.

      DMc

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @06:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @06:35AM (#83844)

    No electricity bill, no maintenance, no training required, easy setup and configuration. Satisfies or exceeds all current industry standards for security products. Order now while supplies last!