Slashdot Mirror


Hacker Cracks Smart Gun Security To Shoot It Without Approval (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader shares a CNN report:Smart guns are supposed to be safer than traditional weapons. They're designed to only fire when paired with a second piece of technology that identifies the shooter, like an electronic chip or a fingerprint. Supporters say they could stop accidental shootings or misfires. And they've been lauded by law enforcement to prevent criminals from using stolen or misplaced guns. However, like any technology, they're not unhackable. A hacker known by the pseudonym Plore doesn't want to put a stop to smart guns, but he wants the firearm industry that's increasingly manufacturing these devices to know that they can be hacked. The model Plore hacked is called the Armatix IPI. It pairs electronically with a smart watch so that only the person wearing the watch can fire it. The devices authenticate users via radio signals, electronically talking to each other within a small range. Plore broke the security features in three different ways, including jamming radio signals in the weapon and watch so the gun couldn't be fired, and shooting the gun with no watch nearby by placing strong magnets next to the weapon.

18 of 501 comments (clear)

  1. Surprise, surprise, surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who didn't see that coming?

    Oh yeah, fearful gun-grabbers.

    1. Re:Surprise, surprise, surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OR they knew a secure smart gun couldn't be created and intended this. Just think, make the legislation say it requires smart guns only if they are secure, leave it as vague as possible, then ban all smart guns that are made as insecure. Roundabout way to outlaw guns.

      Now THAT'S what gun grabbers really want.

    2. Re:Surprise, surprise, surprise! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OR they knew a secure smart gun couldn't be created and intended this. Just think, make the legislation say it requires smart guns only if they are secure, leave it as vague as possible, then ban all smart guns that are made as insecure. Roundabout way to outlaw guns.

      I'd not put it past them.

      But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.

      I mean, having a firearm that my life may depend on in a home invasion, that may not fire if I'm not wearing a watch (I usually do not wear one), or if I"m wearing it, happens to be low or run out of power....is not a good thing.

      I mean, if you want one, I think that's fine, but trouble is, if they become prolific, then I foresee problems with govt trying to mandate that all weapons be "smart" (likely cops are excepted)...and I don't like that mandate.

      I like to keep my guns loaded, chambered and hidden throughout the house...where I'm never but a few steps away from any weapon that I can grab, and pull the trigger on (some do have safety on, but the glocks do not).

      I don't want to have the risk that any of these would not fire due to a missing signal from a watch or other e-signature type device.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Surprise, surprise, surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      if they become prolific, then I foresee problems with govt trying to mandate that all weapons be "smart" (likely cops are excepted)...and I don't like that mandate

      Agreed. Especially if that mandate forces the inclusion of a state-controlled override or backdoor, with the promise that, of course, it would only ever be used by the "good guys", with court order and due process etc blah blah. I'm generally on the side of firearm regulation (not banning, just finding an appropriate balance between individual liberty and public safety), but I don't see "smart" guns offering any kind of solutions to the problems we have with guns, and potentially adding a bunch more problems to the mix.

    4. Re:Surprise, surprise, surprise! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it paranoid to have multiple fire extinguishers throughout the home, ready to go?

      Better to have it and not need it...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  2. Smart guns & communism by DaHat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've long thought the two rather similar.

    In theory, both are great ideas... in reality, no one can ever seem to get it right.

    Don't worry though... THIS time, THIS time will be different! All of those previous attempts... those weren't real smart guns/communism!

    1. Re:Smart guns & communism by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who cares? This tech will protect home owners from escalating the level of violence against a burglar.

      You mean "protect burglars from home owners", of course. And, obviously, burglars already have a sure-fire way to protect themselves: not breaking into homes. And note that smart guns that work correctly won't protect burglars from homeowners.

      Simply breaking into a place shouldn't be a death sentence.

      I actually agree with this. The problem is that it's very difficult to know what the burglar's intentions are. If I could be certain that all the guy wanted was my TV, and that if he got it no one would get hurt, I'd help him carry it out. My TV isn't worth anyone's life, and anyway, I have insurance.

      But if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I can't know what they intend, other than that it's very unlikely that they intend to be nice to me or my family. So unless they can convince me pretty quickly that they don't intend to do my family any harm, I will be aiming a gun at them. Whether or not I pull the trigger will depend on what they do next. Raise their hands, turn around slowly and leave the house the way they came? Fine. I'll do my best to give the police an excellent description. Make any move that seems aggressive or threatening? I'm shooting first and dealing with the outcome -- which will probably include a lifetime of regret -- later.

      A 15 year-old kid was shot in my neighborhood a few years ago after walking through an unlocked sliding glass door. No thinking person would ever believe that he deserved to be executed for that.

      Deserved? Absolutely not. Even if he intended to rob the place. But neither does the homeowner deserve to be in fear for his life and that of his family... none of them did anything wrong at all! As for the young burglar, it's a tragedy, but the tragedy is not just that he got shot, it's also that he chose to commit a violent felony. He didn't deserve to die, but he made the choice to place his life in serious jeopardy, by threatening the lives of others. Or appearing to, at least, which is the same thing in the eyes of the law.

      I'm assuming that it was deliberate here, and not some sort of accident, of course. If it was an accident, that's also a tragedy, but it's way, way down the list of the ways that 15 year olds accidentally die.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Smart guns & communism by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Raise their hands, turn around slowly and leave the house the way they came? Fine. I'll do my best to give the police an excellent description.

      Uh, no. Get down on their knees and wait until the police come as you keep them under control, yes. You are simply allowing them to go on the the next house, making you a passive accomplice in the next crime.

      Utter nonsense.

      Oh, I have no problem with holding the intruder for the police if I can do so in safety... but that's a really tough thing to do. Not only might the intruder be able to do something, but more than one homeowner has been holding a gun on a perp, and been shot to death by the police when they arrived.

      In one example, from a few years ago, the guy sent his family into the yard and his wife called 911. She told the dispatcher that her husband had the intruder at gunpoint, and described in detail their location, clothing, etc. The dispatcher passed all of that along to the police officers responding. When the police arrived, the wife reiterated all of this information to them directly before they went in. But when they walked in and saw a man holding a gun, they shot him, putting six bullets into him before he could hit the ground. Oops.

      Nope, unless it's absolutely certain that I can hold the perp and turn him over to the police safely, I want him to run away. And I'm a former police officer, who actually received training in how to safely disarm and secure a prisoner.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. Smart Guns are just the first step by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The next step after smart guns is Cloud Connected guns.

    The government could keep track of how much ammunition is used. This would provide valuable statistics for the department of the census bureaucracy.

    Instead of requiring a fingerprint or gadget to authorize your gun to fire, you could authorize it to fire using an app on your smartphone. "hold on, just a sec, Mr. burglar, while I authorize my gun to activate . . . where did I put my phone . . ."

    The government could revoke the firing of weapons that have been stolen. The government could also revoke the ability to fire any weapon to certain individuals. Especially crazy people. And crazy could have a technical definition, such as "the desire to own or use a firearm".

    It's all for your protection.

    Think of the children!

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  4. Huge problem with "smart" guns by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This hacker just demonstrated what gun advocates and critics of smart guns have been saying for years. The use of a gun is to stop a person or animal, often in a life or death situation. Guns are a powerful tool, and have historically relied on training to ensure gun safety and proper use. Smart guns attempt to take away some of that responsibility from the owner and in the process sacrifice key functionality. Guns have been developed over hundreds of years, and the modern gun is both extremely simple (relative to other technologies) and very reliable. As soon as you start adding other technologies, there are unintended consequences (or intended if you are a bit more cynical).

    I am a firm believer in a constitutional amendment that subjects lawmakers first and foremost to their own legislation, and this is just another example of where that would be an excellent idea. I think that the every politician who voted to require smart guns who is armed, and every armed bodyguard that they have (all the gun grabbing libtard politicians are armed and/or have armed bodyguards BTW; classic do as I say, not as I do) should be required to carry only smart guns first and foremost. Tax dollars well spent in my opinion. That way they can experience the problems first hand (running out of battery or malfunctioning or being jammed by a wide band transmitter etc.) when their lives depend on it. After the first few politicians have their guns fail when their lives depend on it, I suspect their positions will change.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  5. Re:Good enough for practical situations by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have to read very closely, but unintended fatal shootings in the US from 2005-2010 resulted in 3800 deaths, or roughly 760 per year. As a frame of reference, approximately 250,000 people die from medical mistakes at hospitals every year, yet there aren't any politicians trying to ban hospitals or regulate doctors.

    Smart guns are a dumb idea trying to fix a problem that is much more effectively mitigated by proper education, training and proper storage of firearms (as evidenced by the fact that gun ownership is at an all time high, but accidental shootings are at nearly the lowest they have been ever). Smart guns tamper with and make less reliable the most effective self defense tool on the planet, potentially endangering the thousands of lives that are saved daily (every day hundreds of citizens use their concealed carry to protect themselves or others, and police officers do the same).

    As with any tool in this imperfect world, there are accidents, misuse and abuse, but we must weigh the cost vs benefit of guns, something that the fascist progressives and Dims refuse to do (and have prevented the FBI from collecting statistics on; there is a very cynical reason that you can't find statistics on incidents where citizens save lives or property using their lawfully owned firearm, you can only find "gun deaths").

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  6. Re:Good enough for practical situations by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there is a very cynical reason that you can't find statistics on incidents where citizens save lives or property using their lawfully owned firearm, you can only find "gun deaths").

    And the fact that they lump in suicides with the larger gun death numbers.

    Those should be weeded out, as that this person wants to off themselves, and would do it by most any means. It isn't an unintended death, the gun is working properly, but the method doesn't matter, it is what the person wanted to do.

    I believe if someone wants to end their own life, well, sad as it is..that should be their choice.

    If nothing else, it should be separated out as it's own number and not a wrongful death number.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  7. Don't worry about burglars- toddlers will kill you by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.

    To the contrary, smart guns are a good thing to have, and the fact that they can be hacked is almost irrelevant.

    The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other. This happens all the time-- 1300 children get killed by firearms per year. (alternate source)(another story on the subject).

    Even, if as you say "I mean, having a firearm that my life may depend on in a home invasion, that may not fire if I'm not wearing a watch" -- that's actually a good thing, because the thing that you should most be worried about in a home invasion is getting killed by your own gun.

    Worrying that a hacker is going to break into your home, hack your gun, and then kill you with it is pretty remote.

    You really want a gun that only fires when you fire it. A gun that fires when you don't want it to is not a good thing.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  8. Re:Don't worry about burglars- toddlers will kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How would a proximity control prevent a toddler reaching in his mom's purse and shooting her point blank?

  9. Re:Don't worry about burglars- toddlers will kill by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even, if as you say "I mean, having a firearm that my life may depend on in a home invasion, that may not fire if I'm not wearing a watch" -- that's actually a good thing, because the thing that you should most be worried about in a home invasion is getting killed by your own gun.

    Most of the home invasions I'm seeing reported, the criminals are bringing their own weapons to the party.

    And at the very least, shouldn't it be MY decision to make?

    And..what about those of us with no toddlers or all children grown and out of the house...or if your kids are older and responsible enough they too can have access to said guns?

    One size does not fit all buddy.,

    My parents took me and showed me our gun (we only had one early on)....I shot it with them, learned how to chamber a round, how to shoot, how to SAFELY handle a fire arm.

    They showed me where it was kept, and I also had the fear of God put into me that I never, ever, ever had a reason to get it or touch it shy of someone breaking into our house or threatening me.

    Most of my friends were raised this way too....none of us would even think about getting that gun out to play with or even look at without just cause.

    It so happened, that one day while I was home and both parents were at work...I think I was in 9th grade or so....it was raining and some bum came to the front door knocking on it...asking for drink of water, etc.

    I was scared, but didn't panic. I went back, got the gun, chambered a round, and waited near the front door...till this asshole went away about half an hour later.

    After that, I took the gun back to my parent's room, removed the magazine, took the round out of the chamber and put the gun together and back where it was supposed to be.....and promptly called my Mom at work to tell what happened, she and my Dad were very happy with my behavior.

    So, are all kids today just too stupid for such training....or is the problem we have too many stupid parents today who don't care to train their kids or discipline them on proper behavior (not just guns, but most anything in life)?

    Toddlers and babies are one thing, but young kids can be trained and you only have to secure things as age appropriate....etc.

    Right now, I"m not worried about any of that...and I do not need a 'smart' weapon adding a new potential level of failure when I may need to kill someone in my home.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  10. Re: Don't worry about burglars- toddlers will kill by kaatochacha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no desire to have a firearm ever present for safety. I just like to shoot.
    And I shouldn't have to justify it, either.

  11. Not fear, respect by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The key to safety is knowledge, not fear.

    The key to safety is knowledge and a healthy respect for the dangers involved. One without the other leads to mistakes and, since we are humans, mistakes will always happen. This is one of the many reasons why most countries strictly control firearms. It's not fear of them but a healthy respect for the dangers they pose in the hands of random humans who are sometimes drunk, forgetful, distracted, insane etc. While it's fine for you to suffer from your own mistakes and actions when firearms are involved it is usually others who do the suffering.

    So you get a choice: either to restrict access to firearms or you learn to live with mass shootings, a high murder rate and toddlers accidentally killing themselves. "Smart" guns are just one way to restrict access so if you prefer the deaths to restrictions on personal freedoms you should be opposed to them. Just don't fool yourself that guns are perfectly safe and pose no risks to anyone. They are designed to be lethal and are only safe when handled correctly which is never going to happen 100% of the time.

  12. Guns and Fear by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like to keep my guns loaded, chambered and hidden throughout the house...where I'm never but a few steps away from any weapon that I can grab, and pull the trigger on (some do have safety on, but the glocks do not).

    Sweet Jesus, are you that paranoid that someone wants to come take your shit? What is going on with you mentally that you have multiple guns, cocked and loaded all over your house? What is wrong with you, why are you so scared of everything?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!