SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A security researcher who goes by the nickname of Plore has bypassed the security locks of the Armatix IP1 smart pistol by using only three magnets worth $15.
The researcher showed off his findings at this year's DEF CON security conference, held in Las Vegas last week.
The gun uses a simple locking system to prevent unauthorized firing. For someone to shoot the small pistol, he needs to wear a watch that sends an authorization token via radio signals to the gun and activates the trigger.
Armatix launched the IP1 smart gun in 2014 and marketed it as a way to prevent thieves or children from firing the gun. The IP1 is currently sold for prices varying from $1,400 to $1,800.
Source: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/smart-pistol-locking-system-foiled-by-15-magnets/
(Score: 1) by AlphaSnail on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:02AM (2 children)
Version 2.0 uses plastic pins - problem solved?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:06AM
So either a dense metal, or a ceramic most likely.
Assuming of course the pin isn't ferrous due to its method of actuation, in which case the gun design might require significant retooling in order to alleviate the ferrous pin issue.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday August 02 2017, @12:56PM
Problem is when you use a solenoid, you need a ferrous actuator. There are ways to build solenoids with a non magnetic metal by creating an opposing magnetic field in the metal using eddy currents from an oscillating electromagnet. You can repel non magnetic metal such as aluminum and perhaps even titanium, copper, non magnetic stainless steel, or brass.
They could go even further and use a mu-metal [wikipedia.org] to shield the solenoid to shunt any external magnetic fields to prevent this type of hack.
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:12AM
So assuming it worked as advertised, what would stop the thieve from stealing the watch together with the gun?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:23AM (3 children)
As for kids, smart gun or not, you shouldn't be leaving it around where they can play with it.
If you have children who are that stupid, they are about as likely to kill/maim themselves with the magnets alone. Don't even need the gun ;).
(Score: 3, Touché) by ledow on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:32AM (1 child)
New company slogan:
"Fixing poor parenting and lack of common sense since time immemorial."
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:05AM
It sounds like that problem could be solved by simply selling guns without any safety features and letting Darwin sort things out.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02 2017, @03:24PM
You don't have kids, do you?
Small children and even bigger ones have spectacularly bad judgement. Their brains are not fully developed--because they are still children!
(Score: 4, Funny) by rigrig on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:27AM (2 children)
FTFA:
People like this author are the reason we don't have more probes circling Mars.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:59AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02 2017, @12:47PM
Well, probably there were standing 10 people within that range, each of them having two feet. ;-)
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:29AM
feom wikipedia: 'In November 2014, John Jay Hoffman, the Attorney General of New Jersey, released a report to the governor and the legislature that said: "After careful consideration of the iP1′s design, we have determined that it does not satisfy the statutory definition because, as a matter of design, the pistol may be fired by a person who is not an authorized or recognized user. That is, as long as the pistol is situated within 10 inches of the enabling wristwatch, it may be fired by anyone – the authorized user or any other person who is able to pull the trigger."'
So it was already a partial failure, three years ago.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 02 2017, @10:30AM (6 children)
The reason it doesn't work like they want it to is irrelevant. It's a flawed concept from the start. Make a weapon safer and you reduce its utility as a weapon. I really don't see these ever being sold in quantity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02 2017, @01:45PM (1 child)
Nonsense. A gun that only shoots when you pull the trigger is both safer and more useful than a gun that may just trigger itself at random times.
No, the misguided thing here is not gun safety, it's gun security. Basically trying to enforce guns only to be fired by authorized people.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Wednesday August 02 2017, @04:06PM
I like your absurd pedantism, AC -- I really do! -- but it doesn't go quite far enough. Even putting aside guns that randomly shoot, safety and security can both be incrementally added to a gun without blocking the ability to fire. I don't have one, but I liked the design of the Zore X. [youtube.com] Compared to a gun with nothing chambered, the only issues I see are the standard privacy concerns of IoT devices. There's no reason a system like this couldn't be integrated, so long as the failure mode of the smart gun is still a working gun that fires when you need it to. Letting the owner know when a round gets chambered or the gun walks out of the house increases both safety and security.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 02 2017, @10:49PM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:17AM (2 children)
A weapon is neither offensive nor defensive, it's a tool that performs whatever function you choose to put it to. It is inherently dangerous but it has no volition of its own. You can leave a loaded gun pointed out your front window all day long and I guarantee it won't fire itself at a single passer-by.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:29AM (1 child)
A battle axe is a weapon. A lumberjack's axe is a tool. This is due to intent of design.
A weapon, by its design, is offensive, even when used in defence.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:43AM
Weapons are a subset of tools.
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Wednesday August 02 2017, @04:25PM
Obviously the solution here is to prohibit gun stores from selling magnets, at least at such low prices..
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anotherblackhat on Wednesday August 02 2017, @05:12PM
The big problem isn't that with the right equipment unauthorized people can shoot the gun, - anyone can do that by carrying their own gun.
The big problem is that with the right equipment, you can prevent the authorized user from shooting the gun.
(Score: 2) by captain_nifty on Wednesday August 02 2017, @06:54PM
This is actually a very common problem for any solenoid actuated device.
This same weakness also applies to a number of electronic gun safes, which also use a simple solenoid for the locking mechanism. In addition these safes can be opened by rapid acceleration moving the solenoid, like dropping the safe or hitting it against a table. Wouldn't be surprised if the gun had a similar flaw, hold down the trigger and slam the gun down onto a hard surface just right rapidly decelerating moving the solenoid.
Simple solenoids will always be prone to these kinds of failure modes, but the engineer is faced with size constraints and the need for a linear locking mechanism and rediscovers the solenoid and tries again. Never thinking about how could this fail, they should never be implemented in a system being designed for security without additional safeguards in place.