Slashdot Mirror
3D Printers Have 'Fingerprints', a Discovery That Could Help Trace 3D-Printed Guns: Study (sciencedaily.com)
Like fingerprints, no 3D printer is exactly the same. That's the takeaway from a new University at Buffalo-led study that describes what's believed to be the first accurate method for tracing a 3D-printed object to the machine it came from. From the study: The advancement, which the research team calls "PrinTracker," could ultimately help law enforcement and intelligence agencies track the origin of 3D-printed guns, counterfeit products and other goods. "3D printing has many wonderful uses, but it's also a counterfeiter's dream. Even more concerning, it has the potential to make firearms more readily available to people who are not allowed to possess them," says the study's lead author Wenyao Xu, PhD, associate professor of computer science and engineering in UB's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.
[...] To understand the method, it's helpful to know how 3D printers work. Like a common inkjet printer, 3D printers move back-and-forth while "printing" an object. Instead of ink, a nozzle discharges a filament, such as plastic, in layers until a three-dimensional object forms. Each layer of a 3D-printed object contains tiny wrinkles -- usually measured in submillimeters -- called in-fill patterns. These patterns are supposed to be uniform. However, the printer's model type, filament, nozzle size and other factors cause slight imperfections in the patterns. The result is an object that does not match its design plan.
[...] To understand the method, it's helpful to know how 3D printers work. Like a common inkjet printer, 3D printers move back-and-forth while "printing" an object. Instead of ink, a nozzle discharges a filament, such as plastic, in layers until a three-dimensional object forms. Each layer of a 3D-printed object contains tiny wrinkles -- usually measured in submillimeters -- called in-fill patterns. These patterns are supposed to be uniform. However, the printer's model type, filament, nozzle size and other factors cause slight imperfections in the patterns. The result is an object that does not match its design plan.
Clean the inside of the nozzle with a metal brush after each print. The micro-scratches it creates should throw it off enough that you can't ID it.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Even more concerning, it has the potential to make firearms more readily available to people who are not allowed to possess them
So does the plumbing section at Home Depot. Faster and cheaper than 3D printing as well. 3D printed guns are really only proof of concept to demonstrate how stupid gun control laws are. Anyone actually needing one can make a zip gun that has an order of magnitude lower probability of blowing up from a scrap pile.
Have gnu, will travel.
It should be easy to identify the blood on what's left of the gun after being shot.
set up your speakers
next to your 3D printer
and
play a different song
for every print you make.
I read somewhere
that the best 3D printed GUNS
where printed while playing
Chopin - Piano Sonata No. 3
Volume needs to be loud enough
to cause tiny ripples on a glass of water
also,
yes you need a glass of water
to verify the presence of ripples on the water surface.
Someone who claims that a 3D printer "footprint" is conclusive evidence linking anything to anyone, has no concept of modern manufacturing, utilizing CNC machines.
Aside from that, unlike a test-firing of a metal firearm, a 3D printer can be adjusted by law enforcement to print in a particular fashion.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Reality Winter was convicted because the classified documents that she printed out and gave to a reporter had microdots that identified the office printer at the NSA.
And this method becomes irrelevant.... The smoothing will wipe away the majority of the traces being used and slightly re-size the object.
I hear it's also good for detecting the presence of dinosaurs.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Very true, and that might work for big 3d printer manufacturers who are willing to play ball with governments in making linking of printout to printer easier... however the degree of open source nature involved makes that tricky, as anyone who decides they are going to 3d print things they could get in trouble for is probably going to know to use a clean firmware.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Your comment of fixing things into the (2D) printer firmware as an anti-forgery measure made me think of something, people 3D printing 2D printers.
A printer, 2D or 3D, are things people have made on their own. These are not trivial devices, assuming they produce quality results, but it's not rocket surgery either. People are getting a bit fed up with the BS pulled by printer manufacturers on locking people into buying expensive ink from them later. Well, make your own printer then. With 3D printing getting as cheap as it is now there is the potential for this technology being advanced enough that someone could 3D print the parts needed to make their own inkjet printer.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Seriously. Type writers use to be able to be traced. I am sure the material that is used in the 3d printers is also fingerprints. Including other distinctions. Again, why does this surprise anyone.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
That works too. The point is that the tighter they squeeze the more slip between their fingers. With "they" defined as the government, manufacturers, or the combination of the two.
I admit I didn't put too much thought into it, only that this seemed like a somewhat obvious solution to the problem. The 3D printers might have a "fingerprint" that is gathered from the big manufacturers to trace people that might print a gun or some other device that someone would want to trace back to the origin at some point. What will inevitably happen though is the development of an underground of people making their own printers to defeat such tracing. A 3D printer can be used to make another 3D printer. The "fingerprint" of the first printer is unlikely to show in the products of the second printer. Or, as you point out, people will simply make modifications to off the shelf devices to defeat this fingerprinting.
This has been discussed to no end on a "fingerprint" for guns. Not the 3D printed kind, just guns in general. There have been claims of taking the rifling "fingerprint" from one fired bullet to that of another. The problem with this right off the top is that modern machining is so consistent that such rifling is nearly indistinguishable from one new gun to the next from the same factory. Then there is the wear on the barrel making the rifling change over time. Then with people knowing that such fingerprinting might take place will make efforts to make such fingerprinting difficult, through switching out barrels (which can take only minutes on some firearms by an experienced gunsmith) or just running an abrasive down the barrel to mess up the rifling a bit (or removing the rifling completely but that will be detrimental to the accuracy). Oh, and shotguns don't leave any kind of unique markings on the projectile.
The whole idea of matching the composition of the projectiles to a manufactured batch has also been rendered impossible with modern quality controls.
There is no solution to this fingerprinting of machines that cannot be defeated once it gets out on how the fingerprinting was done. As soon as people figure out what the determining factor is then it will be defeated by randomizing the factors or making them so minute that they can no longer be measured accurately. This is also often dependent on the cooperation of the manufacturers to collect the "fingerprint" of what they make and where it went, which will also in time be defeated with some home brew workarounds or just plain old identity fraud.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
They described a lot of different aspect that give a particular 3D printer some sort of unique fingerprint.. so what's to stop someone from doing the deed, then discarding one of the parts and replacing it, like I dunno.. the nozzel?
This research into method to identify the source printer of a particular 3D printed object seems pretty unintelligent. Did they even consider how easy it would be to mess with your device to make it's 'fingerprint' change?
I'd go as far to say, as a 3D printer gets used, it's signature or fingerprint will drift over time just from regular wear and tear, without any active measures to alter that signature.
If it's this trivial to alter the signature, then this research is pretty much garbage. Only congrats I'm offering is one for duping people out of $$$ to conduct this study. Good job!
A solution looking for a problem. How many people have been shot with a printed gun?
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
So, gun control and such things work out very well in fictional universes.
Shall we discuss how well they work in OUR UNIVERSE?
and I’m willing to bet they used proprietary software that managed the infill for them, this is something aftermarket slicers allow you to change, not just the amount but even the type.
Even if you use proprietary that doesn't allow you to alter the infill, all you need to do to mess with their results is to rotate the object a small amount, it will alter how the infill pattern is laid down. If each file has a 1degree rotation the software would likely be unable to identify what printer did what because how the slicer would alter the infill regardless of the machine and how it handles the stepping.
This works fine in a lab where you can control all of the variables, like the slicing software, firmware, plastics and environment, but in the real world, it's completely impractical. People update software, change settings, nozzles wear, belts stretch, plastic absorbs water and requires different temps, different plastics need different temps... It's just too many variables.
3D printed guns are much like the ever feared, at least in Kommiefornia, .50 cal sniper rifle. Both have not been used in crimes yet get inordinate amounts of press.
Build your sten at home with regular tools since it will be more reliable and won't have a fingerprint either.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Been in the copier/printer/fax/computer business almost 40 years. Printers print a row of light yellow dots, even on b&w copies along the edges to ID each print. It's not as bad with "fake" stuff these days because most printers have tech to know if it is a "non copy" document. Unless you copy them over 150% or less than 74% of the original size, they come out blank or black, or just won't copy at all.
What is all this uproar over 3D printed plastic toys. A 3D printed plastic gun is a complete and total joke, they last for what, 3 or 4 shots, then it breaks. Plus, 3D printers are expensive.
On the other hand, I can can go to Home Depot, and for a few hundred dollars, I can buy all the tools and material I need to build a REAL usable gun, that lasts more that 3-4 shots, and actually has some accuracy. Literally all you need is a cheap drill press, drill bits, files, some steel, piece of pipe, springs, piece of wood and you've got a usable gun. It's not hard, it's not rocket science, and I'd say it's a lot easier than fiddling with an stupid plastic 3D printer. Literally, about the only use I've found for these plastic 3D printers is to print trinkets and bobbles. The plastic is too soft for anything useful.
But give me a piece of steel, and I can build you something useful.
This response reminds me of the experimental program for illegal gun possession that was tried some decades ago -- Project Exile. You get caught with an illegal gun, you bought yourself a mandatory 5 year felony sentence -- regardless of how "innocent" you were of other crimes.
It seems to address all the right behavior for all the right reasons. I looked it up on Wiki and it seems that Rochester NY is the sole jurisdiction where it is still in practiced.
I remember reading in the distant past that it was not being enforced at the federal level for some unknown reason as I recall.
Too bad that the program didn't fly, makes perfect sense to address illegal firearms possession. Anyone know why it faded out?
could ultimately help law enforcement and intelligence agencies track the origin of ... counterfeit products and other goods
Where can I get one of these (presumably) affordable 3D printers capable of printing high-enough quality to be able to pass any attempt at counterfeiting as an original product!??!
Same deal if they mandate some sort of microtag to be laced into the filament. People will just simply make their own.
I don't think our gov't overlords get it yet....they are about to lose almost complete control of manufacturing once this gets cheap/good enough in the near future. Once it is cheap enough and good enough to be on par with what you now buy in a store.
A nice metal printer that fits in your office and can produce actual gun parts will only set you back about $150,000. A nylon re-enforced polymer printer is about the same. That was something that was millions of dollars just a decade ago. They are rapidly approaching parity with the old school manufacturing methods in terms of speed/cost, especially since it only takes 1 person to run a few dozen of these machines and maybe 1-2 more to keep them serviced. You could print out all the parts for a modern handgun, including the tungsten rails (yes they can do that now) and the barrels with rifling, with those two printers taking up the space of maybe a decent sized bedroom. Obviously there is a little more to it than that. They aren't good enough to print everything together assembled, and the parts will require some finishing, but parts wise companies are starting to look at these for more than just prototypes.
Using those two machines at $200 a gun, printing 5 guns a day, a very reasonable amount for the ones I've seen, you are talking about ROI on those machines of less than 1 year. That is off the shelf now. Just imagine what they'll be able to do in another 10 years.
... in the Rosenberg case?
I , personally, have never met a Klingon or Romulan in Australia.