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.

10 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Re:WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject o by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Rubbish weapons by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Rubbish weapons by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet it can smash a coconut in multiple pieces in one hit according to the article. He did 2 years of research so it would be rather rubbish if he came up with a armory of weapons that fall apart on first use.

      Sounds impressive doesn't it. But if you tried you could easily smash a coconut with your bare hands. However it would be very different if the coconut had arms and legs and was defending itself. And if there were a hundred of them, you would soon be overwhelmed.

      If your goal is to injure one random person on a plane then nothing and nobody can prevent you. Almost anything will serve as a weapon, and if you are reasonably strong you don't even need a weapon. But that's a preposterous idea, because the remaining passengers will flatten you and you will spend the rest of your life in jail.

      If your goal is to take over a plane then a rolled-up magazine laced to a handful of trinkets will not help.

  3. Re:Ruining it for everyone by MLCT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That won't happen, because ultimately airports are only profitable as they are run as giant shops. Antiquated rules on the requirements for how long people need to be there before the flight are maintained to ensure there is a large number of trapped people sitting about who want to buy food/drink and who get bored or are addicted anyway to buying things they don't really need in shops.

    Ultimately our security means little compared to the ability of the shops to sell "things" - hence the fact that we can still buy such things in the departures lounge even though it is clearly a security risk. The money they make (and thus the rent the pay to the airport) matters more than absolute security. Indeed some of the shops were no doubt delighted when the 100 ml rule came in, as now they can sell us elementary things like a bottle of water that we are not allowed to take through security.

  4. Re:They needed research for this? by AJWM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But planes have been hijacked with knives before 9/12/2001.

    Fixed that for you.

    --
    -- Alastair
  5. Re: They needed research for this? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:They needed research for this? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:They needed research for this? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:They needed research for this? by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. :|
  9. Re:First Post by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because they are not there for security. They are there to enforce conformity.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.