Slashdot Mirror
Researcher Evan Booth: How To Weaponize Tax-Free Airport Goods
New submitter MickeyF71 writes "At the Hack in the Box security conference security expert Evan Booth shares the results of his two year research on the effectiveness of airport security. He demonstrates how easy it is to produce lethal weapons from goods easily bought from the tax-free section at most airports."
Google's translation of the Dutch in that link isn't ideal. For those who prefer English to Dutch, Booth's presentation at CarolinaCon 2013 (YouTube video) may be a better bet.
That's what I was thinking. Some vodka, a lighter, a handkerchief...
The TSA recently changed policies to allow pocket knives, nail clippers, hockey sticks, and box cutters back on planes. Box cutters, you'll remember, were used on 9/11/2001. The reality is, many prohibited items pass through security on a daily basis. You've heard stories about people the TSA failing their own security checks (fake bombs, guns, etc). You probably haven't heard any stories about the TSA actually stopping a terrorist. This is not because they're too modest to tell anyone.
All is not lost, since cockpit doors are still locked during the flight and passengers know a plane hijacking no longer means "free trip to cuba" but "you will die" which changes the dynamic (c.f United Airlines flight 93).
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Who wants to bet that the ultimate outcome of this talk becoming known to the public at large will be to close duty-free stores at international airports? Frankly, while I agree that airport security as it exists is basically theater which provides little-to-no meaningful increase in actual safety, I sort of feel like pointing out what you can do with items you're allowed to purchase on the "secure side of the fence" as it were, is akin to the people who point out that more murders are perpetrated with hand guns than assault rifles: they think they're making a logical point, but all they're doing is creating a causus belli for their opponents to expand their reach to target handguns, too -- NOT providing a rational argument for passing over banning assault weapons.
On the other hand, as a security industry professional, I'm naturally inclined to find things like this kind of cool. But seriously, I don't think anything good will come from this from a policy standpoint.
The weapons in the photos look scary, but I bet they'd be really rubbish in real life. For example, the club is made from a rolled up magazine and some Liberty statuettes. It is small, not very heavy, not very sharp, and would probably fall apart if it was used.
Really any of these weapons is insignificant compared to what an fit but unarmed human can do. And that's why aeroplanes are safe these days: any hijacker will have to take on a hundred or more strong and highly motivated passengers.
... a more powerful weapon. Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and turn anything into a powerful weapon, including their own body. Anyone with a knowledge of chemistry of physics is more capable of making use of the things that they find around them. Anyone with a knowledge of psychology or security is better able to manipulate the mechanisms that are supposed to keep us safe. And the list could go on.
But planes have been hijacked with knives before 9/12/2001.
Fixed that for you.
-- Alastair
Next headline will read:
TSA: How To Eliminate Researcher Evan Booth While Pretending To Be In Line With The Constitution
You can't handle the truth.
This. 9/11 changed the perception of hijackings. And hell, during 9/11 one plane's passengers did resist successfully.
The bottle the stuff comes in makes a pretty good weapon. Also, a bit of flaming booze thrown around a plane would cause quite a but of panic even if it didn't hurt anyone much. Certainly a few glass bottles of alcohol are more dangerous than my tube of toothpaste or that old lady's orange juice.
Yes, correct. And people on slashdot continue to post this on every airplane-related story, and continue to mod these posts insightful, and continue to agree with them.
Meanwhile, the TSA continues to get more funding, continues to grow in power, and continues to perpetuate its injusticies against innocent people both inside of and outside of airports.
Pointing out how wrong and wasteful they are, to an audience of geeks, accomplishes nothing.
Yes - and no. It depends on levels of adrenaline, testosterone, somewhat on rational decisions, training, and more. The pain, and the surprise, in the situation you describe will stop almost everyone, almost 100% of the time. Pure shock almost always stops everyone.
But - there are exceptions. Depending on how things developed into a struggle to the death, the guy being sprayed with burning alcohol may well understand that he is dead whether he fights or not. Some really hard core sumbitches will struggle to make their deaths mutually painful, for him and his attacker.
Call me a numbskull, or whatever. I've been injured a couple of times in my life. (who's counting, anyway?) It takes time for the pain to soak in sometimes. Not always - it depends on how I was injured. But, it can take literally minutes for the shock to hit home. Until the shock hits, you can be fully functional.
After the fact, shock may have reduced me to a helpless idiot, but as long as something remained possible and necessary, I continued to act for my own self preservation.
But planes have been hijacked with knives before 9/12/2001.
Fixed that for you.
Aye. That fact pretty much makes the whole TSA utterly pointless. No one is going to even try hijacking a plane, not anymore. Blowing it up, maybe, but not hijacking. And there are vastly easier targets if you just want to kill a few people with explosives (the queue for the security checkpoint, for example).
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Bar fights are done without the duct tape. Just use any glass or bottle and break the end while holding it.
That's a good way to end up with a handful of blood and broken glass. It's not easy to break the end off of a bottle without breaking the whole bottle. Amateur bottle fighters are little more than business for surgeons. There's a very good reason for the duct tape.
They knew they were dead anyways, fight or not. They did save a bunch of other lives...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Ok, I'm obviously not the only one who got that.
9/11 was like the trojan horse (the original one, not the malware). It was a once in a lifetime, actually, once in history stunt. It will never ever work again. The reason it worked was simply cooperation on the side of the attacked. Yes, cooperation. Not in the sense that they actually helped them, but that they didn't resist thinking that it's "only" a simple plane hijacking.
Try it again and at the very least 50% of the people in the plane will be all over you. Quite seriously, if I let you continue, I will die anyway. If I fight you, I have a fighting chance to survive. Cut, bruised and maybe lethally stabbed, but there's a chance.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You've never been around liquor, have you?
It's not really flammable. Yeah, no. Until you start getting to high-proof stuff, it *won't* burn (unless you throw it into a hot skillet and light it, the heat will evaporate it quickly and the alcohol VAPOR will light, but the liquid form? no dice brah, you can't light your shot of bourbon on fire). 151 will burn if lit, and pure grain alcohol obviously burns REALLY well, but 80 proof? 90? That won't burn.
Throw it in my face, go ahead. The only thing that'll hurt is possibly a stinging in my eyes. Now, try to light it, and while you're fumbling with a tiny lighter thinking that just by bringing it near me that I'll combust like in the movies?... haha, well, go ahead, that would be fucking hilarious.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Because they are not there for security. They are there to enforce conformity.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
As evidenced by TSA's recent and uncharacteristically sensible decision to ignore pen knives and other little sharps the agency has reaffirmed that they only care about stuff that can down the aircraft. No one can hijack any more by threatening the life of another passenger or crew member because since 9/11 the response to such threats has shifted from compliance to defiance. Armed with a bow and arrow made from an "umbrella, hair dryer, socks, a leather belt and condoms." a would-be attacker would receive a hearty laugh and a face full of mace. Emergency landing to treat passenger wounded by umbrella shaft? Yes.
I dare you to try to visualize the weapon in question and keep a straight face.
Joking aside, a determined group of attackers could create a lot of chaos with or without crap bought in duty free. In the right hands even a pair of eyeglasses is lethal. Godfather III anyone? But with the flight deck firmly locked the bird is probably safe.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Count the number of US flags in that list prior to 9/11/2001 (you'll need more than than the standard complement of fingers and toes).
Now count the number of US flags in that list post 9/11/2001 (I'll help here, the answer is 0).
Beyond the many parents who have chimed in, I'd be running in the front if my wife were on the plane.
I've been in situations like that. And I've run into some really bad things. It's a powerful instinct. Sure your life is valuable: but if you're living it right, it isn't the most valuable thing in your care.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien