Slashdot Mirror
Xerox Exploits Printer Flaws To Make Pseudo-Holograms
Red Wolf writes "A chance discovery by Xerox lets printers superimpose glossy images on regular printouts, creating the possibility for document authentication along the lines of holograms on credit cards. The new technology, called Glossmark, can use ordinary office printers to superimpose a glossy image on an ordinary printed document in a way that can't be photocopied or otherwise easily reproduced."
Who wants to let me borrow his credit cards?
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
If it's easily available on a commercially available printer, how does it provide great security?
Isn't running an already-printed page through a printer a violation of the DMCA or something?
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
way that can't be photocopied or otherwise easily reproduced
Uh, except for on another Xerox printer?
Any bug you can control is a feature! The big question in my mind would be... what would stop some enterprising individual from replicating this bug to forge the watermarks?
You couldn't copy the original image. You'd have to have to separate source images (the bg and the layover) to counterfeit successfully. It's just another wall, really.
And then Xerox gives up the technology, somebody else picks it up and makes a bundle.
Let's see... Mouse, GUI, Ethernet, Palm Graffiti, WYSIWYG word processors, and more
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
"Can be produced" isn't the same as "can be reproduced." Sure, I guess you could print out your own copies -- if you had access to the original images. If I understand correctly, most of the point is that you can't just scan the image and retain the glossmark effect.
From reading the article (yes I read actually read it), it would seem that only the "wax" type color laserjet printers have this ability. There was a Slashdot article a while back that dealt with color laser printers and alternatives to inkjets. The news.com.com article does specify the models or type of printers where this was discovered. Any other info on this?
I'm sure some hackers will try to do some mods on their printers to control this as well. {cough}fake holograms{/cough}
On another note, how cool a job do these "Xerox Scientists" have? I need to get a job where I can hardware hack like these guys.
MMORPG fan-boy? Prove your worth
I hope this gets used on currency too. It's already so easy to counterfit U.S. money, using Xerox printers. This would be an easily replicated security feature that would draw attention away from the flaws in the printing process.
So the ink is a little smudged, but look at the glossy square with JFK in it. It has to be real!
Companies are going to adopt this technology because they can create an "uncopyable" product (probably tickets, coupons, and other vouchers), and they already have the technology in their office.
In the mean time, some counterfeiter who has the same technology in their office or home will simply copy the main image and recreate the superimposed image in a graphics program. Then he will be able to print "authentic" tickets or whatever whenever he wants.
The number one blockade in stopping conterfeiters is the machine that produces the items they want to counterfeit, not the complexity of the artwork or image. Sure, the complex image and holograph help, but that is mainly because consumer level and most business level products can't produce images that complex. Give me a few months and I could make a damn good couterfeit $20 bill if I only had the paper and the press that makes them. It wouldn't be perfect, but the average cashier wouldn't notice.
If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
It doesn't look really useful for preventing professional counterfieting, but for "casual" things [retail reciepts, HR files, inter-company corrospandance, etc.] It could come in handy for quick verification.
I suppose the next step would be ATMs that print money???
How can this be legal under the DMCA? I mean they are obviously circumventing their own protection scheme. Has anyone notified SCO, the MPAA, the RIAA, or better yet the FBI?!?!
Yet another sad commentary on the rampant cover-ups of the true nature of the pseudo-hologram industry.
A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's an erection for?
Tickets to the Superbowl: $0
Credit card to charge up $9000 in stereo equipment: $0
Same credit card, Quad-CPU, 16 gigs RAM, 1 terrabyte machine with all the latest blings: $0
A lawyer that can use the "it was a bug in the printer" defense to successfully get you off: Priceless.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
What, like the ridiculously high licensing fees on your mouse, your GUI, your network... ;-)
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
From what I gathered reading the article... this *technology* is about controlling the glossyness of certain areas on a printed page. I don't think it involves running printed pages back through the printer... instead words/images would be differentiated by their gloss relative to the flat ink surrounding them. Looking straight at a matt photograph one would see nothing unusuall but looking at an angle one could make out shiny text, the degree of gloss is controlled, hence the "invisible to the eye" option.
just my 2c,
-ry
I'll take a stab at a guess how it works...and if this isn't how it works, I wonder if it would.
-You print the document as normal.
-On the repeat print, the "watermark" image color pattern matches the document you already printed. In essence, you double-up on the toner placed down in particular locations to make the Glossmark image. Viewed straight on, the extra-heavy toner pattern is indistinguishable from the rest of the printing as the color is the same, but the glossy surface is seen when viewed at an angle.
It's just a guess, but it seems to make sense.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
It's already so easy to counterfit U.S. money, using Xerox printers.
Ahem, where exactly are you going to get the paper to print it on? US currency paper has a special cotton content that you can't get in the states, even by special order. And what about the "security stripe"? Nope, sorry.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
No wonder Xerox is struggling. While other companies are busy developing new products Xerox techs are destracted by shiny objects.
"Oooh, shiny!!!"
If you don't have sufficient access to the source that produces the hard copy (for instance, a locked PDF), how are you going to get a hard copy without the Glossmark on it? 'Cause, if all you've got is the hard copy with the hologram thing which can't be effectively scanned or copied, you're a bit stuck. (Unless you wanted to re-create the document, or re-create the Glossmark and hope people will think anything with it on it is authentic.)
mrg
I don't live in america but if I remember correctly all your notes are the same size, wash a 1 dollar bill and print 100 on it... We can't do that in the UK cos 1,5 10, 20, 50... are all bigger than the lesser valued note. Umm... Not thatI'm condoning counterfeiting or was considering it ~*shifty eyes*~
While I don't think Xerox printers can handle such small pieces of papter without choking, based on PBS and Discovery channel educational shows on the subject, you can obtain the paper from already printed bills or from foreign currency. Counterfeiters used to chemically remove the ink from small denomination bills and reprint them.
It's why the US Gov added that metal strip into the 20+ bills with the denomination written into them.
Dalton paper is used around the world for government documents, so the stuff is probably easier to find than you might think. The big deal is that being in posession of blank Dalton paper is a treasonous act in many countries.
Considering that the USA is at war right now, does this make counterfeiting a potentially capitol offense?
A lawyer that can use the "it was a bug in the printer" defense to successfully get you off: Priceless.
Paying that lawyer with the same card: even more priceless.
You might get the paper by bleaching one-dollar bills, but you damn sure ain't getting the press.
Yes, but then if you re-read the post you're replying to, that's exactly what he said. It's not the artwork that's stopping him from making a good counterfeit, it's the lack of ability to obtain the machinery to do it.
Making something "authentic" is relatively easy when the machinery is in every store. The Xerox machine can't make anything not easily counterfeited because everybody could get one cheaply and affordably, and then simply print out their own Glossmark crap.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
But only because some morons didn't get that the SI-prefixes were Base 2 when it came to storage capacity and Base 10 when it came to bandwidth. I mean, of course we have subtle little secrets and speak in code words, we're computer geeks goddammit.
The kibi-, gibi-, and tebi- are the new abominations (imo) used to describe the old-school Base 2, thus a kibibyte is 1024 bytes (whereas a kilobyte was 1024 bytes in the "good old days"), and now a kilobyte it 1000 bytes.
cat