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.

41 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. First Post by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll be reading TFA while standing in the TSA security line at the airport.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:First Post by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the TSA guys could read they'd probably give you an hard time.

    2. 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.
  2. They needed research for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

    1. Re:They needed research for this? by sribe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You've watched too many action movies.

      When someone splashes alcohol in your face and lights it, the very last
      thing you will be thinking about is beating them up. You WILL be thinking
      about you face being on fire.

      I think it's you that's watched too many movies--booze does not burn all that well. While splashing alcohol in 1 person's face and lighting it might, possibly, incapacitate that person, it is not any way to incapacitate the entire flight crew and all the other passengers. The end result would be an attacker struggling to not suffocate, because it is actually very hard to breathe when hog-tied, and especially with one or more knees in your back.

      Oh, by the way--you do realize there's fire extinguishers on board, and the flight attendants know where they are and how to use them? Right? So what do you think they're going to do with the fire extinguisher after they empty it? ;-)

    2. 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
    3. Re: They needed research for this? by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

      Molotov cocktail with vodka?

      It won't work. Vodka -- and in fact most liquors -- are mostly water. 80-proof beverages are only 40% alcohol, and it needs to be at least 50% (100 proof) alcohol* to burn (strong stuff like 151-proof rum is sold with a flame arrestor built into the top of the bottle.)

      (*If the beverage is warmed you can coax a flame off of the alcohol evaporating out of the liquid -- this is how you ignite brandy; it has to be warmed first. But as soon as you splash it or try to spray it, it will cool below the ignition point.)

      If the bottle is glass it would make a more dangerous weapon than the liquid inside it.

      --
      -- Alastair
    4. Re:They needed research for this? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. 9/11 changed the perception of hijackings. And hell, during 9/11 one plane's passengers did resist successfully.

    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 Hamsterdan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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. :|
    10. Re:They needed research for this? by matfud · · Score: 3, Informative
    11. Re:They needed research for this? by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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).

    12. Re:They needed research for this? by JabberWokky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    13. Re:They needed research for this? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny

      Precisely.

      Young children are compact and easily thrown to distract or injure a hijacker.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  3. 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.

  4. Over thinking it by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:Over thinking it by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  5. Ruining it for everyone by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Ruining it for everyone by Imagix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      True story: Passing security, my wife had her nail clippers confiscated. As soon as we cleared security, we walked into one of the shops and bought another pair of nail clippers. What was the point of seizing them at security? Equally true story: we bought water in the security area in our originating airport. Transferred planes in London, and they seized the water. BTW: do they somehow scan all of the merchandise that was brought into the secured area, like the bottled water that you can't bring across security?

    2. Re:Ruining it for everyone by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 5, Funny

      The replacement clippers you bought in the shop were made of approved inert metal. The ones you tried to smuggle on the aircraft could well have been made of plutonium. You and a few of your terrorist buddies put your plutonium nail clippers together and... BOOM! So you see, the policy was effective. Now please report to Guantanamo Bay.

    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:Ruining it for everyone by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3, Informative

      What was the point of seizing them at security?

      Aside from the obvious security theater, they also sell the items.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    5. Re:Ruining it for everyone by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What was the point of seizing them at security?

      To make you buy from the duty free store. The stores were losing money, and needed an influx of forced shoppers so that the airports could increase rent fees. I'll bet most of the confiscation rules were suggested by airports and not airlines or security professionals.

  6. Why work so hard? by putaro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. 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.

    2. Re:Rubbish weapons by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      You'd be surprised at how effective seemingly benign things like this are. It sounds akin to a Milwall brick.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  8. Re:WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject o by AikonMGB · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. My Q&D human translation of the Dutch article by fondacio · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.”

  10. Uhm, no. by raehl · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. Next headline by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Next headline will read:

    TSA: How To Eliminate Researcher Evan Booth While Pretending To Be In Line With The Constitution

  12. What this tells us about the scope of the problem. by MarkvW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject o by BubbaDave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re: WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wanna hang out with this guy..

  16. But can it down the aircraft? by bdwoolman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  17. Re: WTH does tax-free have to do with the subject by BubbaDave · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wanna hang out with this guy..

    Bring ear protection.

  18. Re:Flight 93 is a myth by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.