7 ms·

Smart gun beaten by dumb magnets

37 points by 0xbadf00d 9y ago

cstrat 9y ago
That was a really interesting read and watch, both high tech and low tech hacks. Given that these guns mean life/death for people I hope this find is enough to take them off the market. So many chances for failure given all these holes.
zaroth 9y ago
In weighing whether we should legislate whether the technology must be used and whether we fine or imprison people who refuse to use the technology, even forgetting for a moment about the ~300 million guns already in the US, it's a prudent question to ask... will this technology potentially cost me my life? Clearly the answer for the current state-of-the-art in "smart" guns is YES, this is currently dangerous and error prone technology which IMO should not be legal to sell in a gun because it makes it overall more dangerous not less. But assuming we want to let companies sell these prototypes and let people buy them assuming they do so fully informed of the risk, and let the courts decide in the end if companies are liable when the "smarts" malfunction... To the point about legislating whether guns must implement this technology, I think this is a constitutional question, and so I think the bar is much higher than questions like seat belts, airbags, speed limits, etc. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to bear arms. And I think that means we have the right to own firearms which are free from DRM, if we so personally choose. Your laptop can be infected with malware and potentially further spread malware or participate in DDoS attacks. Malware and DDoS as a whole cause great economic damage and potentially loss of life. However, if we let government whitelist all apps and require all computing devices to implement hardware trust zones to verify apps are signed and trusted by the government, this technology could prevent certain malware attacks. Is it Ok for government to pass legislation requiring this? We have the right to free speech and so I think it's a similar constitutional issue and I think the answer must be consistent with the firearm question, and the answer must be NO. Just because a technology will absolutely save money and save lives, does not mean that technology can be mandated when it would impinge on constitutionally guaranteed rights. Under strict scrutiny a legislative remedy must be compelling, narrowly tailored to its purpose, and the least restrictive means possible to achieve the desired policy outcome. DRMing all guns, like DRMing all computing devices, doesn't pass the test in my opionion.
haburka 9y ago
This could have been prevented if they had hired someone to test designs against potential hacking during prototyping but I don't believe that it would have been worth the money. Unless someone knows exactly how to put the magnet against the gun, they can't beat it. Everything is vulnerable to some risk and I believe that this gun is sufficiently well designed to prevent most if not all would be threats.
- pps43 9y ago
  The main threat is that the gun does not fire when it should. As soon as those "smart" guns are mandated (they can't win on the merits, as nobody is buying them), there will be $5 gun jammers all over eBay.
  - cc439 9y ago
    AKA spark gap generators. Take $50 worth of parts, connect it to a lightweight motorcycle battery, throw it in a backpack, and you've jammed all useful frequencies within several hundred yards of your transmitter. You can even jam military satellite communications with a surprisingly reasonable budget (sub-$10,000). The only defense is the fact that the signal source's location is incredibly conspicuous, thus easy for the military to blow up but civilians can't exactly rely on EM-homing missiles to keep their lines of communication open.
- pps43 9y ago
  It's been done before. Colt tried to do it, failed, then announced that they have eventually solved all technical problems and invited a bunch of journalists for the demo. The turned out to be perfectly safe - it did not fire during the demo, even when it should have. The story made headlines back in the day, and was pretty popular. Nobody has tried building "smart" guns for a while. Looks like it's been largely forgotten now, and we're due for another cycle. Edit: source http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-develop-a-safer-smart-gun-backfired http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-devel...
- bifrost 9y ago
  This gun is extremely poorly designed in the case that it doesn't fire when the person using it can't fire it when they need to. This is a solution in search of a problem because the number of deaths it will prevent is likely zero.
Animats 9y ago
There's a very simple technology for this.[1] It's a purely mechanical gun lock operated by a magnetized ring on the user's finger. Some cops use it, in case someone grabs their gun. It's useful to cops who have to work in dense crowds, like transit police. About 10% of cops who are shot are shot with their own gun. [1] http://www.smartlock.com/smartgun_detail-r.htm http://www.smartlock.com/smartgun_detail-r.htm
- lostapathy 9y ago
  Sources, please, on the claim that "some cops use it." I know a lot of cops, and none of them would get close to something like this. Too many ways for it to fail and get them killed.
pitaa 9y ago
Are there any gun- and tech-literate people who actually think smart guns like this are a good idea? Anytime someone (cop or civilian) pulls a trigger in self defense, they do so as a last resort. Not a time when you want to be worrying about whether you have your smart watch or if you changed the batteries in your firearm.
- booleandilemma 9y ago
  You're right. One of the most successful guns, the AK-47, was successful largely because of its simplicity.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  Are there any gun- and tech-literate people who actually think smart guns like this are a good idea? Anytime someone (cop or civilian) pulls a trigger in self defense, they do so as a last resort. Have you honestly never heard of an accidental shooting occurring? Heck, it seems like at least once or twice a year we hear about a parent being shot by their own toddler... Trigger locks and smart guns are specifically intended to prevent these types of accidents.
  - bifrost 9y ago
    The same parent who gets shot by their toddler is also the same parent who will never have this kind of gun. We have very very effective toddler thwarting technology; low tech, very cost effective and easy to impliment, its called "keeping it where the toddler can't get it". Its worked fairly well since the inception of the firearm.
    - zzalpha 9y ago
      We have very very effective toddler thwarting technology; low tech, very cost effective and easy to impliment, its called "keeping it where the toddler can't get it". Its worked fairly well since the inception of the firearm. To which the inevitable reply is: If I put my gun in a safe place, it won't be where I need it when I need it. A similar argument is frequently used as an objection to manual trigger locks, which have also been around for a very long time. An effective smart gun eliminates that objection by allowing a firearm to be stored somewhere accessible while still preventing accidental discharge. I understand there are enormous technical challenges to achieve that goal, and I'm not claiming the current generation of technology is effective, or heck, even that an effective solution is possible. But I think it's absolutely disingenuous to claim that all firearm discharges are done under deliberate, life-threatening circumstances, or that this kind of technology does not have the potential to save lives while still providing an effective tool for self-defense.
Pinckney 9y ago
Why does anyone think the magnet attack matters? The wireless safety is designed to defeat a child, or an assailant who manages to wrestle the gun away from you. The idea that they're going to pull out a big-ass rare earth magnet and fire it that way just doesn't make any sense in real-world scenarios. The problem with the iP1 is that it can be jammed, and this should be a surprise to absolutely nobody.
Grue3 9y ago
So he hacked a smart gun and the result was.... a regular gun. How is this supposed to be dangerous? He can't fire it over the internet or anything, just disable it's lock. It's like "hacking" an elevator by stopping it: it just becomes stairs!
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > How is this supposed to be dangerous? He was also able to disable the weapon from a distance.

37 points by 0xbadf00d 9y ago

That was a really interesting read and watch, both high tech and low tech hacks. Given that these guns mean life/death for people I hope this find is enough to take them off the market. So many chances for failure given all these holes.

zaroth 9y ago

In weighing whether we should legislate whether the technology must be used and whether we fine or imprison people who refuse to use the technology, even forgetting for a moment about the ~300 million guns already in the US, it's a prudent question to ask... will this technology potentially cost me my life? Clearly the answer for the current state-of-the-art in "smart" guns is YES, this is currently dangerous and error prone technology which IMO should not be legal to sell in a gun because it makes it overall more dangerous not less. But assuming we want to let companies sell these prototypes and let people buy them assuming they do so fully informed of the risk, and let the courts decide in the end if companies are liable when the "smarts" malfunction... To the point about legislating whether guns must implement this technology, I think this is a constitutional question, and so I think the bar is much higher than questions like seat belts, airbags, speed limits, etc. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to bear arms. And I think that means we have the right to own firearms which are free from DRM, if we so personally choose. Your laptop can be infected with malware and potentially further spread malware or participate in DDoS attacks. Malware and DDoS as a whole cause great economic damage and potentially loss of life. However, if we let government whitelist all apps and require all computing devices to implement hardware trust zones to verify apps are signed and trusted by the government, this technology could prevent certain malware attacks. Is it Ok for government to pass legislation requiring this? We have the right to free speech and so I think it's a similar constitutional issue and I think the answer must be consistent with the firearm question, and the answer must be NO. Just because a technology will absolutely save money and save lives, does not mean that technology can be mandated when it would impinge on constitutionally guaranteed rights. Under strict scrutiny a legislative remedy must be compelling, narrowly tailored to its purpose, and the least restrictive means possible to achieve the desired policy outcome. DRMing all guns, like DRMing all computing devices, doesn't pass the test in my opionion.

haburka 9y ago

This could have been prevented if they had hired someone to test designs against potential hacking during prototyping but I don't believe that it would have been worth the money. Unless someone knows exactly how to put the magnet against the gun, they can't beat it. Everything is vulnerable to some risk and I believe that this gun is sufficiently well designed to prevent most if not all would be threats.

pps43 9y ago
The main threat is that the gun does not fire when it should. As soon as those "smart" guns are mandated (they can't win on the merits, as nobody is buying them), there will be $5 gun jammers all over eBay.
- cc439 9y ago
  AKA spark gap generators. Take $50 worth of parts, connect it to a lightweight motorcycle battery, throw it in a backpack, and you've jammed all useful frequencies within several hundred yards of your transmitter. You can even jam military satellite communications with a surprisingly reasonable budget (sub-$10,000). The only defense is the fact that the signal source's location is incredibly conspicuous, thus easy for the military to blow up but civilians can't exactly rely on EM-homing missiles to keep their lines of communication open.
pps43 9y ago
It's been done before. Colt tried to do it, failed, then announced that they have eventually solved all technical problems and invited a bunch of journalists for the demo. The turned out to be perfectly safe - it did not fire during the demo, even when it should have. The story made headlines back in the day, and was pretty popular. Nobody has tried building "smart" guns for a while. Looks like it's been largely forgotten now, and we're due for another cycle. Edit: source http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-develop-a-safer-smart-gun-backfired http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-devel...
bifrost 9y ago
This gun is extremely poorly designed in the case that it doesn't fire when the person using it can't fire it when they need to. This is a solution in search of a problem because the number of deaths it will prevent is likely zero.

Animats 9y ago

There's a very simple technology for this.[1] It's a purely mechanical gun lock operated by a magnetized ring on the user's finger. Some cops use it, in case someone grabs their gun. It's useful to cops who have to work in dense crowds, like transit police. About 10% of cops who are shot are shot with their own gun. [1] http://www.smartlock.com/smartgun_detail-r.htm http://www.smartlock.com/smartgun_detail-r.htm

lostapathy 9y ago
Sources, please, on the claim that "some cops use it." I know a lot of cops, and none of them would get close to something like this. Too many ways for it to fail and get them killed.

pitaa 9y ago

Are there any gun- and tech-literate people who actually think smart guns like this are a good idea? Anytime someone (cop or civilian) pulls a trigger in self defense, they do so as a last resort. Not a time when you want to be worrying about whether you have your smart watch or if you changed the batteries in your firearm.

booleandilemma 9y ago
You're right. One of the most successful guns, the AK-47, was successful largely because of its simplicity.
zzalpha 9y ago
Are there any gun- and tech-literate people who actually think smart guns like this are a good idea? Anytime someone (cop or civilian) pulls a trigger in self defense, they do so as a last resort. Have you honestly never heard of an accidental shooting occurring? Heck, it seems like at least once or twice a year we hear about a parent being shot by their own toddler... Trigger locks and smart guns are specifically intended to prevent these types of accidents.
- bifrost 9y ago
  The same parent who gets shot by their toddler is also the same parent who will never have this kind of gun. We have very very effective toddler thwarting technology; low tech, very cost effective and easy to impliment, its called "keeping it where the toddler can't get it". Its worked fairly well since the inception of the firearm.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    We have very very effective toddler thwarting technology; low tech, very cost effective and easy to impliment, its called "keeping it where the toddler can't get it". Its worked fairly well since the inception of the firearm. To which the inevitable reply is: If I put my gun in a safe place, it won't be where I need it when I need it. A similar argument is frequently used as an objection to manual trigger locks, which have also been around for a very long time. An effective smart gun eliminates that objection by allowing a firearm to be stored somewhere accessible while still preventing accidental discharge. I understand there are enormous technical challenges to achieve that goal, and I'm not claiming the current generation of technology is effective, or heck, even that an effective solution is possible. But I think it's absolutely disingenuous to claim that all firearm discharges are done under deliberate, life-threatening circumstances, or that this kind of technology does not have the potential to save lives while still providing an effective tool for self-defense.

Pinckney 9y ago

Why does anyone think the magnet attack matters? The wireless safety is designed to defeat a child, or an assailant who manages to wrestle the gun away from you. The idea that they're going to pull out a big-ass rare earth magnet and fire it that way just doesn't make any sense in real-world scenarios. The problem with the iP1 is that it can be jammed, and this should be a surprise to absolutely nobody.

Grue3 9y ago

So he hacked a smart gun and the result was.... a regular gun. How is this supposed to be dangerous? He can't fire it over the internet or anything, just disable it's lock. It's like "hacking" an elevator by stopping it: it just becomes stairs!

LyndsySimon 9y ago
> How is this supposed to be dangerous? He was also able to disable the weapon from a distance.