Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Harnessing Subatomic Effects for Product Authentication

Posted by timothy on from the how-about-a-laundry-pen dept.

Anon writes: "Israeli company Microtag claims to have come up with a way to avoid counterfits, and they mean everything from CDs to clothes to cash to vegetable seeds. Mix several micrograms of their 'magic powder' - which is engineered with a unique identification using the matter's spin - into your product - and later you can verify its authenticity with a relatively low-cost reader. Although their presumption is that no-one else will be able to create this 'magic powder' (which is probably only a matter of time and enough money), an Israeli article claims that Motorola and even the Bank of England are interested in the technology."

50 comments

  1. Karma Suicide!!! by jeffy124 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    After 600+ posts and 20 articles, my karma has been peaked at 50 for what seems like forever now. My new campaign: Karma Suicide!! Every post from now until my karma's back at zero will be this short crapflood posted with my +1 bonus. So moderators: Do your worst! Mod me troll/flame/OT/Overrated/Whatever to get my karma back to where it began. Do this ASAP! And as for the rest of you, commit karma suicide today!

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  2. I'm sorry sir... by topside420 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but you can't cook that bean in this pot. You can use that pot but that pot wont work with your stove. You may want to call the manufacturer to get that other pot activated for your new stove.

    1. Re:I'm sorry sir... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Not* funny. Scary. This is probably a valid prediction, once everything has computers in it.

  3. Authentication, hell: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    After I take "several micrograms of their 'magic powder,'" everything seems pretty damn real.

    ~~~

  4. It's a neat idea by gartogg · · Score: 1

    There is no reason not to try it. I can be duplicated (probably) but so can any other system used, including credit cards, money, etc. If it's not worth it, it won't happen.

    It's a neat idea. It doesn't say on the page, but it seems to imply that it is ready to deploy. WOW! Motorola is manufacturing, and seems to be supplying capital. This could be a huge deal in 1-2 years, since the product is unique and supposedly cheap. Too bad it's not public...

    --
    I'm a concientious .sig objector.
  5. A couple example applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    o tagging of paper, so thoughts contrary to current political or corporate regimes can be traced back to their source
    o tagging of removable media, so cases of copyright infringment can be linked to the purchaser of the blank CDR
    o tagging of currency, eliminating that pesky tax evasion, drug trade, and prostitution problems often associated with anonymity

    Yes, this seems like wonderful technology. Really.

    ~~~

    1. Re:A couple example applications by gartogg · · Score: 1

      Breaking Law good. Accountability BAD.

      --
      I'm a concientious .sig objector.
    2. Re:A couple example applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So hunting down and killing people that publish contrary opinions to corporations or government is OK with you? Not all of those examples deal with breaking just laws.

      ~~~

    3. Re:A couple example applications by gartogg · · Score: 1

      The idea that all accountability is bad is as stupid as saying that all accountability is good.

      In the US, and other 1st world, democratic countries there are rights that prevent this. The problem with tracking down dissidents is that they do it, not how good the government is at tracking them.

      --
      I'm a concientious .sig objector.
  6. Mod him up for humor. by andaru · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mod him up for humor, just to throw a monkey wrench into his plans.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Mod him up for humor. by gartogg · · Score: 1

      Whatever makes you happy, right?

      Mi Sh'nichnas Adar Marbim B'Simcha

      --
      I'm a concientious .sig objector.
    2. Re:Mod him up for humor. by heliocentric · · Score: 2

      But the real interesting thing is what will come of those who moderate him up as funny, then the commen it moderated down for being offtopic (heh, it's kinda both really) and then it hits metamoderation?

      His Karma-Fire-Sale may call some moderators onto the floor.

      --
      Wheeeee
    3. Re:Mod him up for humor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      someone should shove twirling razor blades up your ass until you bleed out your shriveled little dick you misinformed, nut-sack chewing pole-smoker.

  7. Where are the details? by ka9dgx · · Score: 2
    The site is anemic on details, to say the least.

    A few buzzwords, the prefix NANO, and we're all supposed to swoon in awe of them...

    Well, I say BULLSHIT... Unless they cut the crap, put up some details and explain themselves, I'm just going to have to assume this is yet another adventure in security through obscurity. We all know how well that works.

    --Mike--

  8. chemical markers already in use? by Hadlock · · Score: 2

    i've heard (un-substanciated) that the feds have been using a system like this for years with the various gunpowders and the lead that goes into bullets in various manufacturer's plants. same for other high-value items such as a) currency and b)nuclear materials....they've just kept reeeeal quiet about it, making it harder to easily duplicate some items, while at the same time, easier to track the origin of certian materials (different chemical markers are used per batch). does anyone know anything more about this? is this why those "explosive chemical" sensor at the airport work so well (supposedly? i've never seen one go off before)

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:chemical markers already in use? by cperciva · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Each manufacturing plant, and each production run, is individually identifiable, but not because there is a conspiracy to tag products. They are identifiable because we're surrounded by trace elements, and smelting processes don't remove these trace impurities. Each ore deposit, and in fact each truckload of ore, will have slightly different proportions of these traces; with enough work, you can then track material back to its source.

      IIRC during the cold war the US monitored soviet nuclear tests by measuring the atmospheric proportion of a few carefully chosen isotopes, and could not only work out how many nuclear tests had been performed, but how powerful the explosions were.

      --
      Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
    2. Re:chemical markers already in use? by jfengel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was some talk about requiring manufacturers to use "taggants" back in 1996, in the wake of the McVeigh bombing. There's an article on it at CNN. It consisted of various-colored microscopic plastic bits.

      The goal was not to detect explosives at a distance, but to be able to identify it after the fact. The usual debates: the NRA, the ATF, etc. It was above board, at the congressional level, not a consipriacy. In the end, nothing came of it.

    3. Re:chemical markers already in use? by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      They are identifiable because we're surrounded by trace elements, and smelting processes don't remove these trace impurities.

      In addition, they keep samples of most every run of powder ever produced so that in the case that powder residue is found at a crime scene, they can run a spectographic analysis and figure out where the powder was manufactured.

      I have heard that most explosives and substances that could be used to produce explosives (certain fertilizers, etc) in the US are tagged with a with a chemical compound. Not sure if it's true, though.

  9. probably no magic here by markj02 · · Score: 2

    The whole description makes sense if you read "UV" or "light" instead of "RF". Most likely, they are tagging objects with mixtures of fluorescent dyes or pigments--easy to apply, mostly invisible, easy to discriminate using filters, and easy to detect using pulsed UV light sources (perhaps the new UV LEDs). Different mixtures identify different objects, in analogy to visible light taggants.

  10. This really seems like a non-digital PGP "key" by Ieshan · · Score: 2

    This whole scheme seems like a way to authenticate your data that's been stored on paper.

    For instance, a company can send out shipping and inventory forms with their "key" printed in the ink, which the buyer is wary of. That way, competitor can't falsify forms or orders or somesuch.

    Or, and I think a really interesting application, schools can verify that students have actually turned in their own work. Sure, you can still copy, but there's nothing worse than having Bart Simpson scrawl his name down on your test and get accepted into the special school. =P

  11. Motorola interested in the technology. by hkon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whenever I hear claims of some company being "interested in" some technology, I imagine the following scenario:

    (at trade show)

    salesman: "Hey, we've got a magic powder that we can mix into stuff and do cool stuff with it and stuff"

    joe schmoe:"Yeah, that would be kinda cool if you can make it work. Maybe then I'd even buy some of it for myself"

    salesman:"What company do you work for Sir?"

    joe schmoe:"Motorola. Why do you ask?"

  12. They already do this... by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

    With things like bulk petroleum and the like, the manufacturers/refiners insert trace amounts of certain chemical markers that are very easy to detect - iff you know what to look for. If you don't know what to look for, they might as well be tiny quantities of impurities.
    They also use mixtures of chemicals that have different quantities of isotopes to the naturally occuring versions that, once again, are easy to find, but only if you know what to search for and have the right equipment.
    -- kai

    --
    Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
  13. I'll bet it's not even that good. by Kibo · · Score: 3, Funny

    It seems like someone is planing another adventure in venture capital. Improbable + investment = angry_shareholders + carribian_vacation.

    --
    --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
  14. At last, practical application for quantum physics by Lord+Hugh+Toppingham · · Score: 1
    I've been waiting for this moment for a long time. Quantum physics has for too long been the realm of theoreticians. Those math-obsessed introverts who see the beauty in a differential equation, but cannot find out how to make a buck from it.

    Maybe if this quantum-entanglement authenticator takes off, it will lead naturally to quantum computers.

    Imagine how easy it would be to crack strong crypto if you had one of those quantum computers on the case!!!

  15. Submolecular not subatomic. by Bazzargh · · Score: 4, Informative
    The system is clearly based on resonant frequencies of bonds in the molecules of the taggant. They actually say 'submolecular' not subatomic on their site.

    Someone else mentioned that this makes sense if you say UV instead of RF - well that may be true but its hardly new. Here for example is a UV taggant that works on that principal.

    It may well be that their selling point is that they _are_ using RF taggants because its too easy to check if a UV taggant has been applied to something (one of the uses of UV powder tags is to check which employee has touched eg a secure terminal. You have been warned!)

    1. Re:Submolecular not subatomic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The use of RF probably means it is something involving nuclear (magnetic) resonance. Electronic states have too large energy differences for RF. Maybe they exploit chemical shifts in resonace spectra for encoding information. However NMR usually requires a large homogeneous magnetic field, something not easily provided by a handheld apparatus.

  16. It's not really a "new technology"... by bardencj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only thing that's new about this, as far as I can tell, is the low cost deployment. Consider what they do say about it:

    - The technology uses materials with "very unique physical and chemical properties" at the "sub-molecular level."

    - The reader is an RF "transceiver" which can detect the material in a manner analogous to "magnetic resonance imaging."

    Sounds to me like they've build themselves a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectrometer that doesn't have to be very powerful due to bulk effects -- fire some RF at it, stop, then listen.

    There's nothing keeping anyone from using a more powerful NMR spectrometer to isolate the material and reproduce it. So maybe they'd just lobby to have NMR spectroscopy outlawed as a "counterfeiting tool." Security through obscurity reigns...

    1. Re:It's not really a "new technology"... by sigwinch · · Score: 2
      There's nothing keeping anyone from using a more powerful NMR spectrometer to isolate the material and reproduce it.
      Nothing but time, skill, money, and luck. Security isn't about building in impregnable fortress, it's about building walls that stop a few people who would otherwise have just strolled right in. As long as a security measure produces more than it costs, it's a winner.
      Security through obscurity reigns...
      People, stop blindly applying this mantra to everything you come across! Much practical security comes directly from obscurity: passwords only known by a few people and protected against unintended disclosure, metal keys of unknown shapes, PINs that must be used in addition to account numbers, manufacturing processes that would-be attackers don't know how to duplicate, etc.
      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

    2. Re:It's not really a "new technology"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe, but where do you get the M for NMR ? it has to be large and homogenous over your sampling area.

    3. Re:It's not really a "new technology"... by Conare · · Score: 1

      The beauty of most encryption algorithms is that you can pretty much figure out how long it will take someone to crack your key. Because of this it is easy to decide what level of risk you are willing to accept.

      The problem with chemical "keys" as I see it is that there will be two few chemical compounds in any given ink (for the paper case). This makes a brute force attack to discover the key quite feasible using mass spectometry and similar inks.
      How would one calculate the resources necessary to conduct such a brute force attack? This uncertainty will make it difficult to assess what types of things you can logically protect with such a system. It is still pretty cool, and should provide a horrendous deterrant, but before going and protecting anything really valuable like an entire currency supply with it, the risk levels need to be better understood. If the company can't provide information on how easy their taggants are to crack, then they probably are just pulling the old "security by obscurity" trick, and since the compound is physically present, there is no way to prevent a determined attacker from discovering the secret (unlike a password) and once the secret is out, its out.

      --
      Stop Continental Drift! Reunite Gondwanaland!
    4. Re:It's not really a "new technology"... by mmontour · · Score: 1

      > Security through obscurity reigns...

      People, stop blindly applying this mantra to everything you come across! Much practical security comes directly from obscurity: passwords only known by a few people and protected against unintended disclosure, metal keys of unknown shapes, PINs that must be used in addition to account numbers,

      "Security through obscurity" refers to obscurity of the algorithm, not to the presence of unknown keys, passwords, or PINs. The whole point is that a strong security system is still secure when everything except the key is known, whereas a "security through obscurity" one is compromised (often for all keys) once its inner workings are discovered.

    5. Re:It's not really a "new technology"... by sigwinch · · Score: 2
      "Security through obscurity" refers to obscurity of the algorithm,...
      The original derisive sense referred to the belief that if a security flaw was not publicized, it was harmless and could be ignored. Unfortunately that idea has mutated into a meme that if the details of a technology aren't publicized, it is full of lurking flaws and is therefore worthless.

      My point was that all security comes from obscurity, and not just of digital cryptographic keys. Every enhancement to obscurity in any part of the system makes the system more secure.

      The whole point is that a strong security system is still secure when everything except the key is known,...
      1) True, but keeping the whole thing secret makes it even more secure. Various logistical issues make this expensive to do for practical ciphers, but it's true. 2) Not all security systems are based on symmetric numerical ciphers, and their obscurity equations can be significantly different. In particular, chemical security systems behave as a public key system where even looking at the "public key" (chemical structure) is extremely expensive, nevermind finding a "private key" (synthesis process) that goes with the "public key". Knowledge gained about numerical ciphers does not directly apply to other security methods.

      Moreover, different security systems have different goals. Classical numerical ciphers are intended to provide the highest possible secrecy for numerical data. Anti-counterfeiting systems, on the other hand, are intended to raise the cost of counterfeiting high enough that many potential counterfeiters are stopped.

      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

    6. Re:It's not really a "new technology"... by bardencj · · Score: 1

      I agree that it has to be large and homogeneous. It certainly can't rely on traditional high-resolution NMR because I saw no mention of the handy scanner unit arriving complete with 300-lb superconducting electromagnet! So it's not resolving J coupling like most NMR. In fact it probably doesn't rely on significant magnetic fields... whether the bulk effect tensor is both strong and isotropic enough presumably was the main problem affecting the company.

      My primary concern with this "security" is that I can't imagine such a low-resolution device would provide enough different keys for everyone who might be interested. And this is where the "obscurity" comes in... if they had published their algorithm ("Yeah, basically we have a material we change the ligands on, detected via low-field bulk NMR, and hopefully we can resell the same key to companies on different continents before we saturate the market") no one would be interested. It's not a matter of how much time it takes to crack... it's more the likelihood that when one gets cracked, they would all be compromised. Not particularly secure if you ask me.

      But then again, I might be way off base about what they're doing; they don't tell us much, do they? YMMV.

  17. This will work great... by MADCOWbeserk · · Score: 1

    "Call the CDC, there is white powder all over my new cell-phone...." People are scared of baby powder, I don't think anyone wants find out a product contains "Magic Powder" The Anthrax scared has made this unfeasable. Thankfully..

  18. Applications already exist. by douglips · · Score: 1
    Applications of quantum physics that are, or should be, important to you:
    • Lasers. Everything from CD players to laser surgery.
    • MRI, which manipulates the spin of hydrogen nuclei.
    --
    My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
  19. Re:At last, practical application for quantum phys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There already some applications of quantum physics:
    • MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) or NMR (nuclear mangetic resonance), exploit quantized nuclear states
    • PET (positron emission tomography), exploits electron-positron annihilation which is a quantum effect. Positrons were discovered after they were predicted by Dirac, a quantum theorist
    • LASERs, esp. LASER diodes, the whole Laser theory is based on quantum states
    • GMR heads in harddisks (giant magneto resistance), the GMR effect is based on electron spin which is a quantum property
    • The pharma and chemistry industry heavily uses quantum mechanics for their molecular modelling
  20. Re:At last, practical application for quantum phys by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

    Where did you get that business about entanglement from? I can't find it on the website. The thing is...on paper at least I think you could put together a pretty cool quantum authentication protocol - but I very much doubt that it would work in practice. The word 'entanglement' doesn't appear on their web site according to google. I can only think that you've made this up and have stumbled upon a cool idea by accident!

    --
    -- SIGFPE
  21. Re:At last, practical application for quantum phys by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

    You'll enjoy reading this then!

    --
    -- SIGFPE
  22. Re:Never Be Rude to an Arab by kirbyman001 · · Score: 1

    thats a classic

    --
    To debunk the metaphysicist, one needs only to take him outside and throw a rock at his head. If he ducks, he's a liar.
  23. When are they... by Associate · · Score: 1

    When are they going to force us to eat this crap. I'd rather have one of those wildlife tags. At least then, I'll know the truth.

    --
    Someone hates these cans.
  24. Useful link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found this on Plastic
    tags

  25. will someone please remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why we [US taxpayers] send Israel money? Look at what we get in return - first we cop flak from the rest of the world at their treatment of Palestinians, and then we get the mysterious "it just works" CD audio copy protection, and now this?

    damn, i know how cartman feels about kyle now ;)

  26. reversible trust metric so -1 becomes +1 and vice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    versa - that way I can read the trolls and ignore the experts - just like real life!