Slashdot Mirror


E-Passport Cloned In Five Minutes

Last month a panel of EU experts warned that the e-Passport's security is "poorly conceived", and in fact a week later a British newspaper demonstrated a crack. Now another researcher has shown how to clone a European e-Passport in under 5 minutes. A UK Home Office spokesman dismissed it all, saying "It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip."

66 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Well then, by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip." I guess that's what they call a failure of imagination.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Well then, by l2718 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it's true that if you already possess a passport and want to copy it, it's essentially the same problem with and without an RFID. It's also true that the RFID chip does stop the basic hack of replacing the photo in the passport (since the data on the chip is persumably read-only, and the chip can't be replaced without mutilating the passport). I think what the esteemed spokesman missed is the privacy implications (I can now read your passport without your knowledge). In particular, you can clone these passports without actually holding the original. In the past to clone a passport you needed the co-operation of its owner (if you steal a passport it's known to be stolen). Now you can make your own sure-to-be valid passport by just stepping into the airport and choosing an appropriate victim (someone who looks like you, perhaps?).

    2. Re:Well then, by Zemran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip."

      Just like it is hard to see why anyone would want to blow up an aircraft? I think that people are still thinking within the sandbox and not realising that the real risk is what we have not yet thought of. There will be lots of reasons to want to access the information and to change it or learn to create false IDs that Joe Average security assumes to be valid because it is state of the art.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    3. Re:Well then, by nonlnear · · Score: 4, Insightful
      UYFB (Use Your F***ing Brain): Do you want all the info on your passport's personal details page readable by absolutely everyone you walk by?

      Passport cloning isn't even the primary security concern here. Cloning a passport has become no harder or easier thanks to RFID. But Identity theft will become much much easier.

      --
      argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
    4. Re:Well then, by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting
      A UK Home Office spokesman dismissed it all, saying "It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip."

      But isn't the whole point of a secure passport to secure the identity of an individual? If the identity is not secure, we may as well not waste the time or money.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    5. Re:Well then, by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also true that the RFID chip does stop the basic hack of replacing the photo in the passport (since the data on the chip is persumably read-only, and the chip can't be replaced without mutilating the passport).

      Stronger than that, the data on the chip is digitally signed, so even if you can tracelessly replace the chip in the passport with a different one that has the photo you want, you're not going to be able to generate the appropriate digital signature for the altered data. This technology makes the passports effectively unalterable, as long as the chip is intact.

      I think what the esteemed spokesman missed is the privacy implications (I can now read your passport without your knowledge). In particular, you can clone these passports without actually holding the original.

      Not exactly. To read the passport data you have to have the authentication key. To get the authentication key, you need to have the passport, because the data that the key is derived from is printed inside. Note, however, that it has been shown that a large enough portion of the printed data is guessable, given basic information like the passport holder's name and a guess at his or her age, that the rest can be brute-forced pretty quickly. So there *is* a possibility it could be read without the owner's knowledge, but it's not completely trivial and does require some additional information.

      The US has addressed this issue by putting a shielding mesh in the passport cover, which isolates the chip when the cover is closed.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Well then, by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it lousy security? Yes.

      I disagree. It's pretty good security. It does have one flaw, that there's not enough entropy in the MRID (the info printed on the inside that is needed to authenticate to the chip) which makes brute force searches too easy, but if that flaw were fixed, I would call it very good security.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Well then, by olman · · Score: 2, Funny

      UYFB and RTFA.

      I see you must be new here.

    8. Re:Well then, by JimBobJoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess that's what they call a failure of imagination.

      It's a common failure that occurs in these scenarios.

      As part of my research on driver's licensing issues, when states added photos to driver's licenses (starting in the late 60's) the word "fraud" never entered the picture. Driver's licenses were essentially fraud free documents before the photographs were added--so it really never entered anyone's mind that things would change once the document became more powerful/useful/trusted.

    9. Re:Well then, by tjcrowder · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The US has addressed this issue by putting a shielding mesh in the passport cover, which isolates the chip when the cover is closed.
      You're saying they've given U.S. passports.......their own built-in tin-foil hats. Clearly they've been reading /. on this issue.
    10. Re:Well then, by DaveCar · · Score: 2, Informative

      If someone walks by you while it is in your pocket, they can't read off the pertinent information physically written on it in order to decode the encrypted RFID data. I'm sure given enough CPU time it could eventually be cracked without that data, but there are other much easier ways of doing identity theft.

      I *believe* that the RFID chip won't actually respond with the encrypted data unless presented with a request which has (some function of) the key information. Which means you can't just get in the info and brute force it later - you have to brute force the key *live* whilst the passport is there to get it to respond. And the RFID tag (deliberately) takes some time respond, making it rather difficult to get the info in any reasonable timeframe.

      Anyway, that's the impression I got by doing some googling ... it may be wrong. And I'm no apologist for these passports - I made sure I got mine renewed a year or so ago so that I got an old style one.

  2. Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by Salvance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip." Hmmm... it's also hard to see why anyone would want my credit card information, SSN, address, etc. I'm sure nobody really wants to know any personal information about me at all, and I'm sure nobody would ever want to forge any of my identifying documentation.

    Something is just wrong with the UK's Home Office. Today I read that they will now classify panty theifs as sex offenders, receiving the same long-term classification on the sex offenders' registry as child abusers, rapists, and child pornographers.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    1. Re:Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      they will now classify panty theifs as sex offenders

            Thank God stealing a bra is still ok...I was worried for a second there.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Those are the longest leaps of logic I've seen since "I don't know where the universe came from" -> "God must have done it". Impressive.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    3. Re:Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what a fucking crock of shit. someone stealing a womens underwear off the line is a LONG jump to being a pedo. what possible connection can there be between a weirdo taking an adult womens underwear and them being sexually attracted to children? thats right there isn't. it's same bogus thinking that links homosexuals to pedo. and that crap has been debunked for decades. oh and as for your "it's about protection" argument, yeah they will take your liberty all the while softly whisphering in your ear "it's for your protection"

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Awesome. Let's book kids who sneak some booze when they're underage with the same charge as heroin dealers. They're probably just building up the courage to do something more serious. Of course, there's always the whacky notion that the punishment should fit the crime that was actually committed rather than what we think they might do in the future.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by oohshiny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because stealing panties is a classic sign of a real sex offender getting up the courage to do something more serious.

      Says who? You? Heck, why don't we start arresting people for thought crimes, then?

      In a nation of laws, people get punished for what they actually do, not for some prediction of what they might or might not do in the future. Apparently, you prefer to live in a totalitarian nation, in which the state can charge anybody with absolutely anything if they just so please.

    6. Re:Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Funny

      In related news, the number of women on the sex offender list has skyrocketed due in part to a crackdown on shoplifting at Victoria's Secret.

    7. Re:Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by RexRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is absolute bullshit. There has been absolutly no research to determine if an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old classmate, or a guy streaking as part of a college fraternity prank, or a guy who has consentual sex with other adult men in a public-park lavatory, or the couple who park up on "lovers lane" to have sex, or a married couple who has oral sex in Arkansas, or the 90% of "sex offenders" who never did anything that wouldn't be legal or a misdemeanor if they where only done in San Fransico or Amsterdam, are likely to do anything!

      Only a tiny fraction of the people who are being branded second class citizens for life, and being subjected to a lifetime of harrasment and violence at the hands of vigilantes, did anything remotely like rape or molestation. Most commited only voluntary, consentual sex acts with people their own age.

      Sex offender lists, and their sister paranoia law enforcement, Do Not Fly list, are part of our societies current irrational, paranoid, fear of boogie men - being afraid of sex offenders or terrorists depending on where you live and your political beliefs. Personally, I am far more disturbed by the people who believe their friends or neighbors are all devious sexual preditors lurking to rape their kids - If anything I would be far more worried about the guy who is constantly paranoid of sex offenders (ala Mark Foley), than I would the college football players who get arrested doing a panty raid on the girls sorority. Or I would be far more frightened of the people who think everyone named "Mohammed" may be a terrorist, than I would be of someone named "Mohammed" sitting next to me on a plane.

      Maybe read Author Miller's "The Crucible" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible ) to get a good idea of the sort of Moral Panic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic ) our society is in today.

    8. Re:Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, it's theft.. but how do you know they're getting a sexual thrill out of it? And that it's a sexual crime?
      Some people might just like to be steal people's underwear, because they think it's a funny thing to do. (Though of course, yes, there are some people who... really like underwear.)

    9. Re:Was the Home Office spokesman an idiot? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe we should start classifying adulterers as sex offenders too?

      So someone who steals a magazine (or an online porn account) for the purpose of getting a sexual thrill should be classified as a sex offender?

      Oh is it only because the victim felt violated? What if a mugger looks "strangely" at a lady after taking her purse and other valuables (ID, camera phone etc) but lets her go, and she feels violated? Should the mugger be classified as a sex offender too?

      Or what if the mugger got a sexual thrill out of her photos?

      Sure motive is important, but I think people should be a bit careful before they start creating the Ministry of Thoughtcrime.

      --
  3. and if your name is written on said panties by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Funny

    it is also identity theft.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:and if your name is written on said panties by prichardson · · Score: 5, Funny

      If my name is written on someone else's panties, I demand to know why!

      ob Simpsons:
      Skinner: Oh, it's a miracle no one was hurt.
      Otto: I stand on my record - fifteen crashes and not a single fatality!
      Lou: Let's see your license, pal.
      Otto: No can do. Never got one. But, if you need proof of my identity, I wrote my name on my underwear... Oh wait, these aren't mine!
      Skinner: Well that tears it! Until you get a license and wear your own underwear, mister, you are suspended without pay!

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
  4. In other news, bureaucrats develop sentience by zuki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As it may be, the people in charge of budgetary approval for the programs which put all of these RFID solutions
    into place will steadfastly deny that anything is wrong until they are forced to do so, as agreeing that those are
    potentially high security risks would otherwise equate it with having to backtrack on what they previously approved,
    even though they were amply forewarned by many in the security-related field.

    It's really about not losing face at any cost, lest people start questioning other methods they employ.

    Human nature, really. Look no further than the voting machines controversy for parallels here in the US.

    Z.

  5. At least they can publish this... by rrohbeck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now another researcher has shown how to clone a European e-Passport in under 5 minutes.

    Thanks to a software he himself has developed, called RFdump, he downloads the passport's data onto his computer and then onto a blank chip.


    How long would it take for some 3 letter agency to show up at their door in the US?

  6. Open Rights Group - Biometric passport by rimberg · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Open Rights Group(Think UK EFF) have a wiki page that provideds more information on this an othere issues with the British Biometric Passport The European version of the biometric passport is planned to have digital imaging and fingerprint scan biometrics placed on the Radio Frequency chip. The government of UK thinks that the public has a negative opinion of RFID chips so instead they call it a contactless chip.

    1. Re:Open Rights Group - Biometric passport by bigberk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a huge difference between "RFID chips" and "contactless smart cards"! They both use the same frequency band and similar communication protocols, but RFID chips have no crypto while contactless smart cards have all the AES, MAC, etc. stuff plus secure filesystem storage.

      There is a huge difference, I keep posting this but nobody seems to get the point: the walmart RFID chips have zero crypto, but the passport, payment cards have a ton of crypto. You can't just dump their contents

      The government calls them contactless smart cards because that is what they are, of course the media and everyone else uses the blanket term "RFID" to refer to all of it and works themselves up into a frenzy while not understanding the characteristics of the technology.

  7. huh? by jshackney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip.

    If no one would want to access that information, then why is it on the chip? Why even bother with the chip? Why even bother with the information?

    1. Re:huh? by hughk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most modern passports have an OCR section now on the ID page (and this is a condition of visa-less entry into the US now). All international passports cary the main data in Latin characters as well as the original Cyrillic, Arabic. Hebrew or whatever. Technically this is a French transliteration, which may actually be a slightly different to the English.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  8. Re:completely ignores the point by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a scary world when those who are old and have little clue about technology (the politicians) are told they need a high tech solution to a security issue.

          Careful. The hippies used to complain about how all the old farts in power didn't have a clue back then. Now they're running things, and look where we are. I shudder to think about what the world will be like when it's YOUR turn...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  9. Re:This is all FUD by rrohbeck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but then it's never been very hard to visually look at it and read the paper

    Not when it's in my pocket.

    I can't believe how juicy this is. Imagine being able to get your dirty fingers on the theft prevention system at the doors or a department store. Just a slight modification of the frequency and code, and let the harvesting begin.

  10. Re:completely ignores the point by humungusfungus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Plus, I bet they don't even know what STAT means.

    Of course they do, many of them are so old, latin was probably their mother-tongue.

    --
    No sig.
  11. And the problem is... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Interesting
    How is this different than Xeroxing a 2D barcode? Isn't that why there's biometric data on the passport and a digitally encoded photo - to render it useless even when cloned? Not to mention that the passport # *could* key to a database with the same data for verification purposes - the database should also contain records of passport #'s invalidated due to theft, cloning, or whatever. The data on the RFID chip is *meant* to be read. Rerecording the bitstream is a trivial exercise.

    Cheers,
    -b.

  12. and at best you'll end up with thousands by goldcd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of copies of the id pages of passports - much the same as you'd have if you'd taken a summer job working for Hertz.

  13. RFID is absolutely TERRIBLE for security by arete · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RFID IDs are TERRIBLE for personal security, because it adds RANGE to detection and forgery. Parent post has ABSOLUTELY missed the point.

    No one is claiming that magnetic stripes and/or bar codes are bad for security. In both cases they make it very marginally harder to copy and virtually eliminate data-entry errors. RFID has a BIG problem beyond that: It can be read without the knowledge of the holder.

    No one can read the inside of my paper passport without me giving it to them - nor my magstripe nor bar code. I have complete control over who sees it. Sure, I might be conned into showing someone, but they have to con me. RFID means that:

    1. They can copy my information without me ever showing it to them.
    2. They can READ my information without me ever showing them, allowing them to identify me from a distance.
    3. Even with a perfectly random RFID system, they can identify your nationality from afar, which obviously may make you a target in some circumstances.

    To be SAFE, an RFID system must have a) zero emissions in the closed state (eg a tested foil cover) AND b) No non-random information broadcast from the chip. (that is, a random passportID that is broadcast that has NO other information until you look it up in the appropriate database.)

    "b" is necessary because "a" alone still allows someone nearby you to snoop whenever you have to show your passport somewhere.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    1. Re:RFID is absolutely TERRIBLE for security by complete+loony · · Score: 3, Insightful
      RFID in general could have even worse implications. Just picture the following:

      - That person is carrying a passport
      - Someone with a passport is probably a tourist
      - A tourist would normally need to carry largish amounts of cash
      - So lets mug them or double our prices.

      If you're a tourist in another country, the LAST thing you would normally want to do is advertise that fact.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    2. Re:RFID is absolutely TERRIBLE for security by bigberk · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a serious misunderstanding of the technology, yes even among slashdot users. The problem is that the media and slashdot refer generically to 'rfid' when they talk about two different things:

      1) Simple RFID chips that can be scan and read by anyone
      2) Contactless smart cards (ISO 14443 etc), with crypto

      Both use the same frequency band and similar hardware, but they are different beasts: one has crypto and the other doth not.

      Identity information can be put on a contactless smart card but depending on how it is implemented (hopefully securely) you probably will NEED A KEY otherwise the crypto will prevent access. Take a wireless payment card or credit card (#2 category) for example. You can't just read/dump the bank account numbers on it. There is a crypto protecting the data.

      On the other hand, walmart uses the non-crypto rfid chips. Yes you can just read the info on them, there is no encryption.

      So when you say "RFID is terrible for personal security" you're right, RFID (#1 above) is completely inappropriate for privacy. But contactless smart cards (#2 above) is totally appropriate, and the passports use #2

    3. Re:RFID is absolutely TERRIBLE for security by Ecyrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that you can use #2 with no crypto or bad crypto as well. Which is exactly what the epassports are doing. They have such bad keys that it is easy to brute-force crack them open in a couple of minutes. Most well-designed systems using the same standard have non-trivial keys, which makes them a lot more secure than the ICAO epassport standard.

      The fun thing is that the moment the standard was created, everyone said that this is going to be a field day for the press when the first researcher figures out that the keys are so weak. The day has arrived :)

      In reality the issue is blown out of proportion: the epassport is not that much of a privacy issue. Tourists can be spotted by a mile away by simply the way that they look and walk, and the smart tourist will leave the passport in the hotel safe anyway, carrying only a photocopy with him. You are in far more trouble if your passport gets stolen than if it gets copied: if you do not have your passport, dealing with any authorities in a strange country is going to be a problem, whereas if your passport gets copied, you still have the original.

      Also, forging a passport is no easier than before - in fact, getting the digital and the physical passport data to match becomes a lot harder with the epassports. Reading something does not mean you can change it and write it back, as surely is well understood by anyone familiar with digital signatures.

    4. Re:RFID is absolutely TERRIBLE for security by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry, but you'd have to be a pretty pathetic mugger if you can't spot a foreign tourist without using a bunch of fancy electronic equipment. Why back in my day...

    5. Re:RFID is absolutely TERRIBLE for security by Sique · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You are in far more trouble if your passport gets stolen than if it gets copied: if you do not have your passport, dealing with any authorities in a strange country is going to be a problem, whereas if your passport gets copied, you still have the original.


      The problems with passports can be much more subtle, so I wouldn't count on the fact that adding the same data in RFID mode didn't do anything else than just have some redundancy to prevent reading errors.

      A little tale from my experience: We were flying to Brasil from Lisboa with a flight that was first landing in Natal, and then flying to Recife. For some reason we never spotted an immigration office. I don't know if we were supposed to step out in Natal, get immigration stamps in the passport and then go back to the plane (the flight from Natal to Recife was domestic, because new passengers were boarding to Recife), or if we were supposed to look for immigration at Recife Airport. We didn't, and nobody seemed to care. When we were trying to leave Brasil three weeks later, the officer at border control pointed out that we were missing the immigration stamps. We were argueing, telling the story, he was insisting on immigration stamps. In the end he just pointed us to the gate, telling us "Nao entrada, nao saida" (No entrance, no exit), meaning "You have never been here, and you have never left."

      A similar occurrence was when I was cycling with a group through the then still existing Czechoslovakia. We entered through the polish-slovakian border, and everyone got his passport stamped. We were leaving a week later through the czech-german border, and the officials were just stamping the list of all members of the group. A few weeks later I was again with the bicycle in Czechoslovakia, and I got controlled by the normal police about 30 km from the border, and the police got suspicious with me because I had two immigration stamps, but no exit stamp. So looking from the papers I had entered twice without leaving once. The patrol took me to the office, and then they phoned around for 1 1/2 hours, before just setting me free around midnight, when the train I was planning to take to Prague had just left.

      What I am trying to say: Whenever some inconsistencies come up with your passport, they aren't migitated by having RFID chips somewhere. No one actually cares about this type of redundancy. Immigration officers are humans only, and errors will occur, and most of them will not be solved by looking at RFID chips, but in the end by reluctance of the powers in charge to press any further because it is late, because they don't want hassle or because it's easier to pretend nothing had happened. Given U.S. immigration procedures it will probably solved by just handing persons like me to indefinite detention without access to legal counsel. Because Electronics is always right, and if not, lock up everyone not hiding fast enough.
      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:RFID is absolutely TERRIBLE for security by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you're a tourist in another country, the LAST thing you would normally want to do is advertise that fact.

      For whatever reason, this brought to mind part of one of Laurie Anderson's song/stories from her "The Ugly One with the Jewels" album:

      [...] I especially remember an interesting list of tips devised by the US embassy in Madrid, and these tips were designed for Americans who found themselves in war-time airports. The idea was not to call ourselves to the attention of the numerous foreign terrorists who were presumably lurking all the way to terminal, so the embassy tips were a list of mostly don'ts. Things like:
      • don't wear a baseball cap
      • don't wear a sweat shirt with the name of an American university on it
      • don't wear Timberlands with no socks
      • don't chew gum
      • don't yell "Ethel, our plane is leaving!"

      I mean it's weird when your entire culture can be summed up in eight giveaway characteristics.

      --Laurie Anderson, "The Cultural Ambassador"

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
  14. Re:RFID is not for security by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I see you buy your dictionaries from the same place as Alanis Morissette.

  15. The Solution is Obvious by serutan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Throw the researchers in jail for showing the weakness in the system. Problem solved!

  16. Re:completely ignores the point by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, the key needs to be printed somewhere on the passport.

    The big, huge security hole though, is that the key is made up of the passport number, the date of birth of the holder, and the expiry date, none of which are hard to come by. For example, the postman delivering your new passport can probably find your date of birth (when did you late get a birthday card?), and can make a pretty good guess as to when it expires (10 years plus or minus a few days), so if he can guess what the passport number is, then he can read and clone your passport without even opening the envelope!

    I don't know what idiot dreamed up using that particular data as the 'secret' key, they deserve to be shot. Why not make the key some random digit string, printed inside the passport in machine-readable text? Then it would at least be impossible to read the passport without opening it.

  17. why indeed? by dredson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip." If that's true, then why use a chip at all?
  18. a simple way to correct cluelessness by spasm · · Score: 2, Informative

    "It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip."

    I think it's time someone cloned his passport and got busted importing drugs or weaponry or child porn or similar while on that passport. Hell, he's probably got a diplomatic passport == no search. Pure gold to anyone wanting to move anything *really* profitable.

  19. Re:RFID is not for security by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Sure it makes things wildly insecure. You know lazy tired TSA workers will only glance at the passport and just trust what the display says. The usefulness works like this... I'm an evil terrorist, I know I can't get on planes.... I can remotely grab another passengers RFID tag in line at the boarding pass counter with a ticket on same flight I wish to perform evil deeds... even easier than pickpocketing!! Now I get THEIR pass info, forge my hacked RFID chip with their passport ID...it doesn't have to be a "real" ID chip, just report to the reader like one. remember, it will probably be in those little folders anyway... as long as the reader sees my hacked on first, and again the agent is too lazy to remove the document from it's case and inspect the passport for tampering, I'm in with their ticket and ID...


    Before the goons come to get me!! I'll say I know NOTHING about these new passports beyond what's on slashdot. I got no expertise in RFID beyond looking at it. A good security system should have something in place to prevent this sort of "cloning" attack... you'd hope like hell that somebody's thought about this!!! and they don't just send the goons to cover it up.. after all, that's the new policy for scientific reports now... and has been the policy for security reports since 9/11.

  20. Tinfoil by Shadyman · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can always get one of these or just wrap your passport in tinfoil.

    BRB, I'm making a tinfoil hat for my passport, so it matches mine.

  21. The proper response is... by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The proper response to that spokesman is "Well then, you won't mind lending us your passport for a minute, so we can copy it and put copies on sale in <district with notorious reputation>, will you?".

    Some politicians simply need the problem made their personal problem before they'll see it.

  22. Re:Or maybe there should be no database? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2
    Passports and other pieces of identification never bring a nation security or safety.

    Ok, but the fact is that we *already* have a lot of pissed-off people wanting to fuck the "West" in any way they can. We do want to prevent them from entering our countries and doing harm. Far better to stop them at the borders rather than enacting Draconian *internal* security measures to protect against terrorism. And, BTW, there's already a database of passport data (at least in the US) - even in the 80s when I was traveling with my family as a kid, I remember seeing the passport inspectors at JFK keying passport numbers into a terminal.

    From a privacy standpoint, a robust passport security system is at the very bottom of my list of worries, as long as the passport is only used as a legitimation for foreign travel.

    -b.

  23. Re:Then why put it on? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Simple: Now you can be blamed for crimes committed with a clone of your passport, because obviously such passports are impossible to clone.

  24. How about a switch by phlipped · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about having an electronic switch built in to the passport, so that the chip only works when someone holding it wants it to work. For example, you could set it up so that the chip only works when the passport is opened flat on the details page at the front.

    I can't imagine it being that hard in theory, although divising a reliable and rugged switch may be a bit more challenging.

    Still, I bet it could be done, and it pretty much eliminates all the concerns about people reading the chip without your permission.

  25. Re:completely ignores the point by Fastolfe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not make the key some random digit string, printed inside the passport in machine-readable text? Then it would at least be impossible to read the passport without opening it.

    Off the top of my head (might be missing something obvious), by forcing the key to be made up of useful data, it becomes impossible to divorce the key from the holder's identifying information, as printed on the passport. By requiring the operator to enter the user's data as part of the key to decode the electronic data, it sort of requires that the printed data match the electronic data. Without this check, the operator would have to visually compare the two, which might make it slightly easier to attempt low-tech forgeries where the information doesn't actually match.

    Of course, even if that were one of their reasons behind the design, that wouldn't excuse them from not mixing the passport holder's data with a random number in the manner you suggest.

  26. Tin foil hats, everyone by h2g2bob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ID cards themselves are just a distraction. The real agenda is the setting up of a big database with information on all citizens. While everyone debates ID cards, they get to do what they want with the database proposal. They can back down on ID cards later, and everyone is happy.

    1. Re:Tin foil hats, everyone by Tim+Browse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Duh. And why ID cards would avoid terrorism in any way? You can make a bomb regardless of having an ID card or not.

      My point was really that (here in the UK at least, so I don't expect you to realise it) the ID cards are always pushed by the government as the way to make us all more secure against terrorism. It will save us all, you see. It's the primary reason for introducing the scheme. Never mind that most experts (inc. the police and MI5, iirc) disagree - and you, as someone living in an ID card carrying country, seem to disagree too.

      I can tell however that not having an ID card was one of the reasons it took so many time to know the identity of all the victims of UK bombings.

      Oh yay, you certainly know how to sell me on the benefits of having an ID card! :-) I think I speak for many people when I say that being able to identify my charred body via an ID card is not top of my priorities.

      I can also tell that it was probably much easier for the police to find the terrorists that did the 11-M bombings

      Er, got a source for that assertion?

      (since they probably had to use their IDs for so many things, getting internet connextion requires filling in your ID number).

      Ah. So no, then.

      It also probably saves lots of money to the administration.

      That's 'probably' why the UK govt keeps refusing to give an estimate of how much the ID card system would cost.

      A lot of the resistance, as well as a dislike for the general concept/system, is merely that it won't improve anything, so why waste billions of pounds of UK taxpayers' money implementing it?

  27. Can I zap it? by seanadams.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cloning a passport has become no harder or easier thanks to RFID. But Identity theft will become much much easier.

    Couldn't one kill the RFID chip by putting the passport in a microwave oven for a minute?

    I can't imagine the rubber-stamper at immigration control not letting me through because he can't read my RFID tag... I'm sure a good percentage of non-zapped passports would fail to scan for one reason or another. If enough people did it, then they justn wouldn't be able to rely on them, period.

    1. Re:Can I zap it? by Alioth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, they can and will deport you if the chip doesn't work.

      You make the invalid assumption that people at immigration desks are reasonable people - they are *not*. Some of them are little Hitlers with bad attitude, and the ones who aren't have their hands tied by the law - they have no discretion at all. If the law says you can't enter without a working chip, the immigration officer (even the world's friendliest and most reasonable one) has no choice but to deport you. Just as they would deport you if your passport photo was mutilated.

      (I'll make one exception for the little Hitlers - one notable aberration is Houston's immigration desks - those people are polite and make you feel welcome to the United States - truly refreshing to get to an immigration desk where it isn't just stony faces and demands to see that you have a return plane ticket. I frequently travel through Houston and they've always had good people there. Dallas Ft.Worth on the other hand - I will never travel through that airport again).

    2. Re:Can I zap it? by ageoffri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please stop with the FUD. The new passport is bad enough without adding fuel to the fire. Check out the official information according to the US Government.

      What will happen if my Electronic passport fails at a port-of-entry?

      The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. The bearer will continue to processed by the port-of-entry officer as if he/she had a passport without a chip.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
  28. Identification isn't the problem. by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just once, when one of these government prats is bragging about their latest and greatest hard-to-forge ID paraphernalia, I hope SOME reporter will point out the uncomfortable fact that none of the 9/11 perps were travelling with forged documents. They had passports in their own names, and credit cards. They made NO attempt to conceal their identities, and in fact were most likely hoping to be hailed as heroes by their fellow fanatics.

    If the bad guys were still in the business of trying to bring down airplanes, they'd use people with squeaky-clean records to do the attacks. Let's not kid ourselves, they HAVE people with squeaky-clean records.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  29. The technology used by Eljas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Many people here seem to make claims on RFID security without knowledge of the technology actually used. I have done some research on the subject so I think I can give some pointers. Details about the technology can be found at ICAO's web page and short presentation on the subject Jacobs/Wichers Schreur.

    The communication between the password and the reader is encrypted using information in the Machine Readable Zone at the bottom of the passport. This is the basic way to authorize passport reading. The MRZ-information is generated from the information of the passport holder and random numbers. If bad numbering scheme is used, breaking the encryption is quite possible. If large enough random numbers are used, breaking the encryption with brute force is currently not practical.

    The authentication is done using public key cryptography. Currently only Passive Authentication is mandatory, but Active Authentiacation is supported and it is mandatory when fingerprint information is contained in the passport. With only Passive Authentication cloning of MRZ-compromized passport is easy, but with Active Authentication it should be unfeasibly difficult.

    Reading and cloning an European RFID passport which is using all available security measures (like the e-passports in Finland) is not as trivia as many people here seem to think. As long as there are no backdoors in the cryptography (e.g. for the intelligence agencies) I think the technology is quite sound. Not using all available cryptography is just bad choise by the goverment issuing the passports.

    The scheme in TFA is nothing new and nothing revolutionary. If you have physical access to a passport with only Passive Authentication cloning is trivial, as pointed in TFA. This is actually how the technology was designed to work. Maybe the design is bad, but that is hardly big suprise, since the technology is compromize between many organizations and goverments. When someone clones a passport which has Active Authentication, then that is real news.

  30. Re:Then why put it on? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apply for a bank account/credit card... identity theft stuff. A passport is prime ID. I believe you can do as much with it as with a birth certificate (probably more since you cannot use a birth certificate to get back into the U.S. by air and soon by ground as well). In fact, I wouldn't doubt that you could order a duplicate birth certificate with it... or maybe go to a social security office with it and claim you lost your SSN card and would like to know the number. You could probably cause a lot of problems. Or if you were a terrorist from say Iran, you could fake a U.S. citizenship and get into the country without a hassle. Theft of someone's identity is very serious.

    And if they mess up the systems dealing with passports when they become required for all entries to the U.S. including ground entry from Mexico and Canada (and they *will* be required, it was just delayed for a year for ground crossings) there could be a HUGE impact. They are America's two biggest trading partners accounting for something like half of all foreign trade (Canada is the U.S.'s biggest trading partner... Mexico I believe is a close second and maybe soon to pass the Canadians). What if, for example, the trucks all of a sudden couldn't roll across the border because the driver's passports were messed up (in either direction by the way... what American driver is going to want to leave if he/she can't get back in)?

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  31. Such ID numbers already exist by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your birth certificate number could be read as CN.DN.cert-number. You have a social insurance number, social security number, or equivalent. You are numbered by your driver's license, your chequing account, your power bill, and a host of other unique identifiers.

    I have no objection to SECURE identification. I object to wasting billions on useless crap.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Such ID numbers already exist by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's not forget we are talking about Europe where many countries issue personal IDs and keep registries of all citizens at several levels with mandatory registration.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  32. The most important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The most important question here (and, at the same time, a question I see nobody asking) is: what is the range of these RFID chips?
    If they have a range of one or more feet, so that somebody can scan my passport from across the room, then I really see a big privacy and security problem.
    If, on the other hand, they have a range of one inch or less, then I don't see any reason of concern: if scanning my passport requires roughly the same effort as stealing it, and also if by scanning it one obtains the same information (d.o.b., height, picture, etc.) that he would have obtained by stealing it, where's the problem here?

  33. Yes, but not co-ordinated like this by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, governments have databases about the citizens of their countries, for tax purposes, medical purposes, driver licensing and so on. That in itself is not unreasonable, as long as the data collected is necessary for the purpose, properly and securely handled, with suitable checks made on those with access to it and confidentiality maintained.

    The National Identity Register in the UK, however, will combine most of the existing government databases into a single, centralised point of failure. In practice, it will likely be the case that most government departments and many outside agencies will have access to all of the records about an individual, not just those they have reason to see.

    A second major concern is that the NIR will track every time it is checked. That won't help with the identity theft problem that follows from the above, unless the security of access is near-perfect across many thousands of people with access to the database. It will, however, mean that once the national ID card becomes the "easy option" for identity verification, the government has a handy record of each citizen's entire life: where they shop, which financial services they've been using, jobs they've been applying for, where they've travelled and who with, etc. There is simply no need for any state organisation to keep this sort of information about any citizen, other than when conducting legitimate surveillance of a suspect for genuine security purposes, with independent oversight.

    Identity thieves, however, already happy to be part of the fastest-growing and most profitable crime wave in recent history, have hit the jackpot. Just along the Slashdot front page from this story as I write this, there is another article estimating that 100 million personal information leaks have occurred within the past couple of years or so. If that combination isn't reason enough to stop the NIR plans right now, I don't know what kind of sanity prevails in the government's universe.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.