5 ms·

Why chips in passports and ID cards are a stupid idea

45 points by bensummers 17y ago

mdasen 17y ago
So, maybe it's just me, but I don't see why RFID is such a great thing for secure applications. Like, it's an awesome technology for a retail store to do inventory with. I mean, they can just pass a scanner near a bunch of products and figure out what they've got. Heck, each individual product can give a different ID which is even better than the simple barcodes that we use today. However, why would one use RFID when you don't want the reading to be easy? There are plenty of technologies that require physical contact to transmit information (like mag strips or smart chips). If they want the passports to have to be inserted into a machine, they might as well use one of those technologies. I'm all for RFID in its place. It's great for my subway pass so that I don't have to take it out of my wallet. Same for highway tolls where I don't have to stop. But neither of those are instances where I completely care about security. Sure, I don't want anyone cloning my subway pass, but it also isn't a window into my identity like my passport is and so I can choose convenience a bit over security there. Oh, a good example would be something like site passwords. Sure, I don't want anyone getting into my HN account, but it's not quite the same as someone getting into my bank account and, as such, I don't need quite as complex a password for it. I'm not saying that I like the idea of chips in passports, but if you're going to put one in, why RFID? Why on earth didn't they choose something that requires physical contact to be read? I mean, the article focuses on the RFID problems (that it can be read without you knowing it since it doesn't require physical contact) and doesn't explain how on earth RFID became the choice. While one might not want to have a chip on their passport, at least a chip that needed physical access to read would put the holder (mostly^) in control of who got access to that information. ^I say mostly because there are always pick pockets and such that could swipe it without your knowledge, but that's a much lower risk than someone walking around with an RFID skimmer - it requires the person to physically remove it from your person, put it in a reader, and return it to you without you or anyone else noticing; not impossible, but a great deal less trivial.
- eru 17y ago
  RFID is not even that much of a hit in retail, either. Some say, "yet". But widespread use of RFID in retail was "just around the corner" for several years, now. As long as the technology is not cheap enough to (profitably!) slap an RFID chip on every 25 cent cup of yoghurt, it won't be ready for retail. (At least that's the picture in Germany. But thanks to Aldi, Lidl and a few others --- most of our groceries don't even accept credit cards, because their razor-thin margins make them unable to swallow the fee. Debit card processing --- which is mostly free for the shop --- is nearly universal however. (Except for Restaurants; most accept only cash.))
  - seldo 17y ago
    Wow, Germany sounds like a horrible place to go shopping.
    - dhoe 17y ago
      Careful with the quick judgments. Credit cards are not popular in many parts of Europe, so it's no big deal. I don't have one, for example, despite being in the top 10% income bracket in my country.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        In America, our debit cards are rigged so they work just like credit cards. This gives you some extra protections, delays when they draw from your bank account, (theoretically) gives you the protections of the merchant's agreement, and for many banks you get some sort of cash-back benefit from it. You can also pay with PIN if you want. That makes it post to your bank account quicker, which is nice if you keep track of your online banking.
        nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        debit cards have less protection than credit, not more. I'd suggest looking at your contract with the bank and seeing where you are responsible for charges to your card.
onreact-com 17y ago
The real reason to introduce them is tightened control not "speed" or something.
sketerpot 17y ago
To make the chips harder to clone, try including a physically unclonable function as part of the authentication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_Unclonable_Function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_Unclonable_Function
- jrockway 17y ago
  Too expensive. Remember, the chips don't do anything useful, they are there so the government can look like it is somehow stopping terrorism with amazing high-tech gadgets. The 9/11 hijackers had valid passports and visas.
  - ars 17y ago
    True about the uselessness of the chips. But adding a PUF is not expensive. For example the last option listed on the wikipedia link: a random magnetic strip costs fractions of a penny.
jrockway 17y ago
I don't really understand why governments are so obsessive about associating a photograph and a name. I can change my name whenever I want, for no reason at all. I can show up at the DMV with trivially-forged documents and get an ID card saying I am whoever I want to be. I can show up in a random country and easily overstay my visa. I can be a nice person one day, and the next day kill 3,000 people. So I don't really see what all this scrutiny about identity documents is about. Identity is something that constantly changes, and doesn't really mean anything.
Bjoern 17y ago
1.) Sometimes new technology does not improve your situation but the opposite. e.g. RFID Passports open new attack vectors. There is no technology which is totally secure. 2.) RFID is not the problem, you can easily put a mesh inside the cover of the passport to prevent reading of the chip. 3.) Hammer time^Wthem. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/start.html?pg=9 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/start.html?pg=9 or tinfoil it. 4.) Subway cards with RFID are scary. In the UK the police uses the "named" cards to track peoples movement.

45 points by bensummers 17y ago

So, maybe it's just me, but I don't see why RFID is such a great thing for secure applications. Like, it's an awesome technology for a retail store to do inventory with. I mean, they can just pass a scanner near a bunch of products and figure out what they've got. Heck, each individual product can give a different ID which is even better than the simple barcodes that we use today. However, why would one use RFID when you don't want the reading to be easy? There are plenty of technologies that require physical contact to transmit information (like mag strips or smart chips). If they want the passports to have to be inserted into a machine, they might as well use one of those technologies. I'm all for RFID in its place. It's great for my subway pass so that I don't have to take it out of my wallet. Same for highway tolls where I don't have to stop. But neither of those are instances where I completely care about security. Sure, I don't want anyone cloning my subway pass, but it also isn't a window into my identity like my passport is and so I can choose convenience a bit over security there. Oh, a good example would be something like site passwords. Sure, I don't want anyone getting into my HN account, but it's not quite the same as someone getting into my bank account and, as such, I don't need quite as complex a password for it. I'm not saying that I like the idea of chips in passports, but if you're going to put one in, why RFID? Why on earth didn't they choose something that requires physical contact to be read? I mean, the article focuses on the RFID problems (that it can be read without you knowing it since it doesn't require physical contact) and doesn't explain how on earth RFID became the choice. While one might not want to have a chip on their passport, at least a chip that needed physical access to read would put the holder (mostly^) in control of who got access to that information. ^I say mostly because there are always pick pockets and such that could swipe it without your knowledge, but that's a much lower risk than someone walking around with an RFID skimmer - it requires the person to physically remove it from your person, put it in a reader, and return it to you without you or anyone else noticing; not impossible, but a great deal less trivial.

eru 17y ago
RFID is not even that much of a hit in retail, either. Some say, "yet". But widespread use of RFID in retail was "just around the corner" for several years, now. As long as the technology is not cheap enough to (profitably!) slap an RFID chip on every 25 cent cup of yoghurt, it won't be ready for retail. (At least that's the picture in Germany. But thanks to Aldi, Lidl and a few others --- most of our groceries don't even accept credit cards, because their razor-thin margins make them unable to swallow the fee. Debit card processing --- which is mostly free for the shop --- is nearly universal however. (Except for Restaurants; most accept only cash.))
- seldo 17y ago
  Wow, Germany sounds like a horrible place to go shopping.
  - dhoe 17y ago
    Careful with the quick judgments. Credit cards are not popular in many parts of Europe, so it's no big deal. I don't have one, for example, despite being in the top 10% income bracket in my country.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      In America, our debit cards are rigged so they work just like credit cards. This gives you some extra protections, delays when they draw from your bank account, (theoretically) gives you the protections of the merchant's agreement, and for many banks you get some sort of cash-back benefit from it. You can also pay with PIN if you want. That makes it post to your bank account quicker, which is nice if you keep track of your online banking.
      - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        debit cards have less protection than credit, not more. I'd suggest looking at your contract with the bank and seeing where you are responsible for charges to your card.

onreact-com 17y ago

The real reason to introduce them is tightened control not "speed" or something.

sketerpot 17y ago

To make the chips harder to clone, try including a physically unclonable function as part of the authentication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_Unclonable_Function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_Unclonable_Function

jrockway 17y ago
Too expensive. Remember, the chips don't do anything useful, they are there so the government can look like it is somehow stopping terrorism with amazing high-tech gadgets. The 9/11 hijackers had valid passports and visas.
- ars 17y ago
  True about the uselessness of the chips. But adding a PUF is not expensive. For example the last option listed on the wikipedia link: a random magnetic strip costs fractions of a penny.

jrockway 17y ago

I don't really understand why governments are so obsessive about associating a photograph and a name. I can change my name whenever I want, for no reason at all. I can show up at the DMV with trivially-forged documents and get an ID card saying I am whoever I want to be. I can show up in a random country and easily overstay my visa. I can be a nice person one day, and the next day kill 3,000 people. So I don't really see what all this scrutiny about identity documents is about. Identity is something that constantly changes, and doesn't really mean anything.

Bjoern 17y ago

1.) Sometimes new technology does not improve your situation but the opposite. e.g. RFID Passports open new attack vectors. There is no technology which is totally secure. 2.) RFID is not the problem, you can easily put a mesh inside the cover of the passport to prevent reading of the chip. 3.) Hammer time^Wthem. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/start.html?pg=9 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/start.html?pg=9 or tinfoil it. 4.) Subway cards with RFID are scary. In the UK the police uses the "named" cards to track peoples movement.