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.
I'll be reading TFA while standing in the TSA security line at the airport.
Have gnu, will travel.
Go into any duty free shop and make a bee line to the liquor section. There's something wonderfully flammable stuff there.
Although, for some of those Scotches, if a terrorist were to use them, you'd see Fark headlines like: "The Horror! 30 year old Scotch murdered in terrorist act! A plane and people died too."
As far as the article, this is not surprising given that security theater dominates our security policy. Look at school shootings. Evidently from what I have read, professors do not have the ability to lock many university classrooms, so they have to barricade of sacrifice themselves. I read this week that the police are now recommending that we take defensive action when someone tries to shoot us. What were school doing before, opening all the doors and lining the kids in the hallways to be executing? At school the policy is to lock doors, hide, and stay away from windows when a attack is announced. Which is to be done before the administration sacrifices themselves. Good defensive positions saves lives.
Of course the answer is always more guns, which is really going to some good when a truck full of claymores and fertilizer is driven into a school courtyard, or when some explodes their group 1 element on the plane.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
That guy is over thinking it. A wine bottle and a roll of duct tape can be used to make a good knife - and on international flights they serve wine in glass bottles. Credit cards can have their edges honed to the point of being as sharp as box cutters.
About the only thing worthwhile is using a remote controlled toy to trigger something.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
While cute, this is really overthinking the problem.
If you want to kill lots of people in an aviation related way, send a suicide bomber to the security checkpoint at Thanksgiving.
If you want to get weapons onto the plane, infiltrate someone into the cleaning staff or maybe the caterers. There are lots of people and vehicles who enter the airport without being rigorously searched. Have them leave a weapon for you in the airplane's bathroom or taped under your seat.
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.
Anyone who takes a self defense class (especially women's self defense) will learn how to "weaponize" ordinary objects that we all have at hand every day. Umbrellas and CDs/DVDs make vicious weapons when broken.
"That's my purse! I don't know you!" -Bobby Hill
You missed the point: you can bring in large empty bottles, or small bottles filled with liquid, but not large bottles with a small amount of liquid. The regulations are arbitrary and near-useless.
Researcher builds bomb out of articles from airport shops
To demonstrate the futility of current airport security, next week a security expert will demonstrate a remotely controllable bomb. All the materials were bought at the airport once past security.
The detonation mechanism will be presented at security conference Hack in the Box in Amsterdam. It is the result of two years of research by security expert Evan Booth.
“There are all kinds of things we cannot take with us and security checks for those. But it turns out that this doesn’t make much sense,” says Booth.
The detonation mechanism is the result of more than two years of research into deficient security at airports and available materials which are sold the in stores which are located ait airports behind customs.
Drone
To build the mechanism, Booth has used a Zippo lighter, disposable lighters, adhesive tape, dental floss and a remote controlled drone. “Which can be opreated with a mobile phone through a wireless network”, claims Booth.
He used the engine from the drone to operate the zippo lighter. With disposable lighters, it is possible subsequently to create a blowtorch. By doing this, it would be possible to cause a fire, but at the conference Booth will present a more developed concept which even enables the detonation of a bomb.
Simple
“The trick is to prove that you can have dangerous weapons on board without carrying any forbidden items with you”, Booth has stated to NU.nl.
Apart from a bomb, Booth also managed without much effort to create a bow and arrow out of items he had bought in a shop at an airport. For this, he used an umbrella, a hairdryer, socks, a leather belt and condoms. He did not want to further develop things were too obvious, such as using a lighter and deodorant as an alternative gas burner.
Also remarkable is a club he created out of a souvenir, some magazines, dental floss, a leather belt and adhesive tape. During a test, this club turned out to be so solid that a single strike sufficed to break a coconut into several pieces.
Profiling
“Airport security has not been done well for a while now. What annoys me, is that we spend a lot of money on it and, for example, violate people’s privacy with body scanners. In the meantime, it turns out it doesn’t work well”, explains Booth.
“It is a difficult problem, but I don’t know if this security makes any sense at all. I believe more in good intelligence and preventing the wrong people from coming to the airport.”
To pre-empt problems with authorities, Booth has contacted the responsible government agencies in the United States in February. “I have offered to demonstrate my research and provide explanations, but I haven’t received any response. In the meantime, I have continued my research.”
... 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.
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.
There are three sets of rules about when you need to be at the airport:
- Check-in time: Usually 30 minutes. This cutoff is to both give you time to get through security and the airline time to put other people in your seat if you don't show. But, since you can check in online anytime within 24 hours of your flight, this doesn't really put any requirement on you as to when you have to be at the airport.
- Back Check Time: Usually the same as the check-in time, and usually 30 minutes, although at some airports it's more. This is to make sure that the airline has time to get your bag to the plane and loaded on it. 30 minutes is pretty reasonable here (and the airports where it's longer, like Las Vegas, there's a reason.)
- At The Gate time: 15 or 30 minutes prior to departure, depending on whether you're doing domestic or international departure. As a practical matter though, this is really "before they are done boarding the plane". If it's 10 minutes to departure and they've still got a line of people getting on the plane, they won't know you're not there. But if it's 25 minutes before departure on an international flight and you're not on the plane and they are done boarding, they're going to pull your bags from the plane.
Why 30 for international but only 15 for domestic? Because the airlines are not required to fly your bags on the same plane as you domestically, but they are required to do so internationally, so they need the extra 15 minutes to get bags off the plane.
So, yes, there are rules about when you have to be at the airport and at the gate. But they have nothing to do with getting people to shop.
paintball
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 ought to teach us just how disorganized and scarce these "Al Quaeda" suicidal terrorists are. If there were that many of them, they'd have figured out how to make airplane assault weapons long before this guy's ideas made it into print.
We are being sold a bill of goods by contractors who want the government to buy their overpriced "anti-terrorist" product-of-the-month.
Every damn politician is now afraid of being perceived as "soft on terrorism," and we now have an Antiterrorism Industry intent on perpetuating itself.
This is getting REALLY stupid . . . almost as stupid as the internet bubble.
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.
Once again, the Israelis have led the way.
Much of Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport’s security protocol is achieved through a combination of comprehensive due diligence, common sense, and consistency – which, one would think would be the objective of airport authorities throughout the world. If more airport authorities were to adopt Ben Gurion’s approach, surely it would be more difficult for those intending to do harm to succeed.
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/06/19/what-israeli-airport-security-teaches-the-world/
Heh, the *boom* will be when you try to compress acetylene above 15psi.
A few liters of acet-oxy mix makes a nice boom but little damage, I've had a quart sandwich bag of mix go off in my hands, not even a tingle.
30 gal trashbag with a nice lean mix will audibly echo in the hudson valley for at least 190 seconds, assuming your ears were plugged for the boom.
REALLY? VALIDITY?
aaaghhhh my head.
LIQUID EXPLOSIVES ARE NOT AND WERE NEVER A DANGER, THEY ARE FAR LESS ENERGETIC THAN SOLID EXPLOSIVES AND FAR MORE DANGEROUS TO TRANSPORT.
Anyone trying to blow up a plane with a liquid explosive is either going to blow up on the way to the airport, or do just enough damage to hurt themselves and no one else.
The whole liquid restriction bullshit is just that, bullshit. And furthermore Susan I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that it was encouraged by the vendors on the 'safe' side of the security checkpoints. I can't fathom how much their sales of beverages must have increased..
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I wanna hang out with this guy..
The cabin is a fairly large area and can take in air from the exterior. The risk isn't nearly what you make it out to be, unless someone's carrying a few gallon jugs onto the plane -- but realistically, without TSA and their liquid restrictions, *someone carrying several gallons of shit would never get on a plane anyway*.
Because it's strange, and someone would ask "why are you carrying 3 gallons of liquid" and the game would be over.
But, yeah. Cabin air isn't enclosed, it's not a tight space. There is air exchange taking place at all times during the flight.. just not much when at cruising altitude. It can be adjusted, though, and there's always those wonderful oxygen masks that can fall from the overhead bins.
Liquids have never been a danger, except in the hollywood-addled minds of people who make too much money for too little work to ever grow a working understanding of how the real world actually fucking works as opposed to their gilded fantasies.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
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
I wanna hang out with this guy..
Bring ear protection.
I've only ever seen "multiple" lighters confiscated.
I've done most of my flying post 9/11, I think one trip before. I had one of two lighters confiscated, after the agent confirmed you're only allowed the one, kinda. That was pre 9/11.
My mother is a lighter kleptomaniac, she took a flight once with a dozen lighters in her handbag, only realised when they got confiscated on the return trip.
Post 9/11 I had an entire computer sans the case in my carry on luggage, including a power supply which just scans as a black box with wire hanging out of it. All I was asked was, "whatcha got, a playstation in there?", once, at one of about 5 scans.
The idea that you can "make a weapon" from shit at the souveneir shops is ludicrous, simply because it's easier to just bring one with you, or at least significant parts of one.
Both are fine. Though I doubt the US military command was competent enough that particular day to manage with your version.
And we all know that no news company has ever had incorrect garbage entered into their news feed before, so that particular example must have been gospel truth, right?
It isn't just energy density, but also how fast that energy is released. IIRC, explosive power* of a brisant explosive is proportional to the third power of the density: The explosive power is proportional to the energy released per time unit, which is proportional to how much explodes. In a brisant explosive, this is proportional to the density times the volume of explosive swept by a detonation wave. The latter is proportional to the square of the speed of sound in the material, which is roughly proportional to the density.
Last I checked, this was believed to be the reason why octanitrocubane had less explosive power than calculated before its synthesis, the density was lower than expected (but that was a long time ago, and I might remember wrongly).
*To the degree that you can quantitate explosive power
Not always intentionally incorrect, either. Sometimes they're just prepping two possible stories with different headlines and differing by only a paragraph or two.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.