14 ms·

Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]

363 points by vesche 12y ago

idlewords 12y ago
I wish there was a transcript to go with these slides, or some context. It looks like an amazing talk. One thing that jumped out at me right away is that the explosives sniffer is also configured to detect narcotics, amphetamine and marijuana. Is this standard procedure at American domestic airports?
- potatolicious 12y ago
  There's a sticker from the inside of the machine that indicates it belonged to the US prisons system at some point. Narcotics detection would seem very relevant to that application. Some of these vulnerabilities are shocking. This goes beyond carelessness and straight into incompetence.
- Implicated 12y ago
  They don't seem to be detecting marijuana in their currently configured state.
  - rustyfe 12y ago
    This isn't correct. They are checking for THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana.
    - eli 12y ago
      The "selected" column indicates "no" for drugs.
- vesche 12y ago
  It's from blackhat USA 2014 (Aug 6/7), when the video is uploaded it should be posted here: https://www.youtube.com/user/BlackHatOfficialYT/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/BlackHatOfficialYT/videos
  - zerohm 12y ago
    +1
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  TSA has more than a bit of scope creep going on. In theory, all they're supposed to do is a basic administrative search to prevent weapons or explosives from being brought onto a plane. In practice, the perception in the public mind that they are a more general law-enforcement body allows them to easily perform other tasks on behalf of agencies that don't have the same general search powers. The classic example is searching for large sums of cash. Detecting large quantities of traveling cash and ensuring it's been properly declared is CBP's (Customs and Border Protection) job, not TSA's. But because TSA gets to X-ray and search every bag and body-scan every passenger, they catch that stuff, and then hold the passenger and go get CBP. The result is that the number of outside-the-mandate things that can end up happening as an "incidental" result of TSA's screening is staggering.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Is searching for cash the classic example or a one time example involving Ron Paul's cash courier, which then led to a rule change instructing TSA to ignore cash?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      TSA claim they don't search for eg drugs; they claim to search for expsi es and incidentally find drugs. This is the classic mission creep example. There are people who hide drugs in jars of peanut butter. This shows up on TSA screens as a jar with different stuff in, which they claim to view as suspicious because it looks like explosive.
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        There seems to be some goal post creep as well. How many classic examples are there?
        DanBC 12y ago
        Well, I do wonder if there's any benefit to the TSA for finding drugs? Perhaps I should trawl theough the reports to see if the TSA uses drug-finds as part of their results to support their work?
- tptacek 12y ago
  I wonder how the THC thing could possibly work. I opt out at every checkpoint, and each time, they maximize body contact and then generate an input to those machines. Wouldn't it go off for anyone who had smoked up earlier in the day, or the preceding day? It seems like they'd be spending all their time doing drug searches. (Don't get me wrong: drug searches at TSA checkpoints are extremely alarming, because TSA has been given a near all-access pass to mechanically searching people). Fun fact: if you do any welding before you get on a flight, there's a good chance you'll set those things off.
  - js2 12y ago
    I most recently triggered it at SFO after wearing clothing I had gone go carting in the day before. First time for me. The enhanced screening was fun. Aside, SFO security is a contractor, not TSA.
    - leftcoaster 12y ago
      Contractor probably measured by throughput, not capture rate. Hence incentives are to push people through.
  - VonGuard 12y ago
    Must not work that well. I flew alongside someone who smoked before a flight, and had the opt-out pat down... No alerts from the machine.
  - eli 12y ago
    It's a confusing UI, but I'm pretty sure the "selected" column indicates that drug alerts are not configured to alert.
  - bane 12y ago
    Also, if you spend lots of time outdoors around fertilizer you can set it off.
    - tagawa 12y ago
      Yes, this happened to me after a couple of hours on the golf course.
joshfraser 12y ago
expensive security theater
nathannecro 12y ago
Is there a video to go along with these slides? This is fascinating. The diagram-heavy slides could certainly use some context.
- uxp 12y ago
  It was a presentation at Blackhat 2014. The videos are released sometime afterwards. https://www.blackhat.com/us-14/speakers/Billy-Rios.html https://www.blackhat.com/us-14/speakers/Billy-Rios.html
stevefeinstein 12y ago
If this isn't the answer, and I'm not asserting it is or isn't. What is, and how do implement it. Or do you suggest if we scrap it all and go back to 1950's like airport security that the few incidents that are inevitable are an acceptable risk? I don't know the answer, but I'd like to have the conversation.
- tehwebguy 12y ago
  I vote to drop nearly all of it. The cockpit door is reinforced and locked, without the ability to take over the aircraft there is literally less risk than if someone just drove a bomb into an airport.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    There's a risk that an aircraft will be bombed in-flight, which doesn't require access to the cockpit. Before 9/11, such bombings were the primary security concern as hijackings usually resulted in a hostage situation. It'd probably be wise to keep explosives screening.
    - toufka 12y ago
      An in-flight bomb, though tragic, is much less of a threat, economic, social or otherwise, than an 'airplane-as-missile' into a populated area. So long as there is no access to the cockpit, the maximum effect of a terrorist's explosion is the downing of a plane, not the downing of a $1B 110 story building.
      - joelhaus 12y ago
        I don't think this conclusion takes into account the 'terror' part of the plan. Most everyone here assumes rational responses from the: media > public > politicians. This is incredibly naive. It reminds me of economic arguments used by libertarians.
    - tehwebguy 12y ago
      Sure, but without taking over the craft and turning into a significantly more dangerous missile (a la 9/11) there is only as much risk as bombing a parking garage, mall, school or any other place with hundreds of people and virtually no security. Not sure how much that logic actually applies to anyone trying to bomb stuff, though.
neil_s 12y ago
Seems like the SFO Kronos has been taken offline since this disclosure.
blantonl 12y ago
"Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security" - This article's title. Wow. Almost all airport security is a theater... The TSA are simply the actors...
- drdeadringer 12y ago
  In this context, I'm having trouble filling in the blank in terms of TSA vs Public: "All the world's a ___"
- averill 12y ago
  Pulling the curtain on "ticketed passengers only" as the crown jewel of this airport security theatre. Or as I call it the "TSA smoke and miroros/window dressing security" show. There is one security policy, which everyone should be aware of for the farce it is and represents. It is the taking away of YOUR freedom of movement at your airport. This useless waste of time and manpower of only allowing persons with tickets past the security screening areas, known as "ticketed passengers only". Don't be fooled, "ticketed passengers only" is NOT a security measure. The following is only a partial list as to why this is a waste of time. I know, I worked as a supervisor at a security checkpoint for five years, and for the last 10 years have worked for a major airline. There's the question of how our nations deal with the critical question of preserving both a reasonable measure of safety with individual rights in general. Striking a balance between feeling safe as opposed to being safe, and being free at the same time, is the most tenuous security concern of all. Averill Hecht Cheltenham, Pa. All comments are welcome. adhecht@comcast.net Please speak-up,
bussiere 12y ago
It makes laugh a lot, 9/11 happen because they used cutter. Airport security will piss you off for a kid cissor. But they will let you buy a glass bottle of alcohol in duty free. That you can break properly and use as a weapon ... Logic ...
- jamesbritt 12y ago
  Do they let you carry that own or do they hold that until you get off the plane? The latter was my experience some years ago.
  - dlss 12y ago
    from their blog: http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/01/tsa-travel-tips-tuesday-traveling-with.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/01/tsa-travel-tips-tuesday-travelin... Yep. You can bring two 1.7 oz glass bottles with you to the airport (in case you have a specific shape or kind of glass you'd like).
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    There are many shops in the sterile area of most airports that sell goods that could be readily transformed into weapons.
- farnsworth 12y ago
  Relevant - This guy built a bunch of weapons from things you can buy in airport shops. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513362/Man-builds-homemade-gun-items-purchased-airport-terminal-AFTER-security.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513362/Man-builds-h...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Direct link to the guy's project site: http://terminalcornucopia.com/ http://terminalcornucopia.com/ I really recommend watching the movies. It reminds us both that airport security is nonsense, and that the people can weaponize pretty much anything if they care to do so.
jqm 12y ago
About a year after 9/11 I flew from Phoenix to Corpus Christi Texas. I brought a carry on case from work with me full of papers and (unknown to me) some tools including a large folding knife, a smaller pocket knife, a leather man and some screwdrivers. I honestly had completely forgot about the tools, they were buried in the bottom of the case under papers (yes, my case was not very organized). So, I took the case carry through x-ray in Phoenix, then, during a layover in Dallas I went outside the airport with the case, came back in through security, re-boarded the airplane and proceeded to Corpus Christi where I passed my vacation. After vacation, on the return flight to Phoenix, they found the knives and tools at the small airport in Corpus Christi as I attempted to board. I gave them to security and nothing came of it but I didn't feel it wise to tell them that I had already been through two checkpoints with the contraband. I realize things have probably tightened further since then but still... I was a bit shocked. And I'm still thinking a lot of the "security" at airports is for show.
BorisMelnik 12y ago
"TSA has not audited these devices for even the most basic security issues" This to me is the most troublesome aspect of this an entire ordeal. Any security pen-testing firm with their wits about them could have discovered these backdoors in a few simple audits. The fact that he was able to find all of these is very worrisome to me. I can only imagine what other bugs/backdoors are built in to these systems. Does any of this security matter with the fact that you can build weapons using airport giftshop items? http://www.wired.com/2013/12/terminal-cornucopia/ http://www.wired.com/2013/12/terminal-cornucopia/
- MichaelApproved 12y ago
  The weapons in the video are not powerful enough to take down an airliner. They'd likely harm a handful of people nearby or blow a small hole in the side of the plane but not much more than that. A small hole in the side of the plane would likely not cause it to crash. Of course, I don't mean to be flippant with regards to the lives of people close by but it's not a larger threat than someone doing this on the ground. The biggest point of airport security is to keep the planes from falling out of the sky or flown into buildings.
  - BorisMelnik 12y ago
    arguing for arguments sake: 9/11 happened with a box cutter
    - ufmace 12y ago
      Because passengers believed that the result of a hijacking was to land in a third-world country and eventually be released after negotiation mostly regarding things that have nothing to do with them. Once the passengers believe that the result of a hijacking is to be flown into the side of a national monument, you're gonna need a lot more than box cutters to hold them back. As we saw before the 9/11 attacks were even completed.
pmorici 12y ago
Typical. Government organizations think IT security means having strongly worded statements and reams of bureaucratic rules and procedures. If you look closely though the strong words often aren't backed by any meaningful action. In a government official's mind if the 50 page IT security document was filled out and is on file that means the system is secure. It's all a big joke really.
- sleeping_pills 12y ago
  I don't think most of them would be that stupid. Just lazy. In a government official's mind, if the 50 page IT security document was filled out then he can't be held responsible when the shit hits the fan.
  - nhstanley 12y ago
    Fifty pages filled out means it is now someone else's job to read those pages and implement. His hands are clean.
  - bedhead 12y ago
    It's both...it's a problem of incentives. The government guy aint getting stock options or a real bonus or whatever for a job well done. And he's probably close to impossible to fire if he does poorly. So what does he care? And while this is a problem in itself, it also creates a self-selection problem where good candidates don't want to work there in the first place.
  - pmorici 12y ago
    My first job out of school was with the US government. I'm speaking from experience. It is worse than you could possibly imagine. Onion levels of absurdity, snake oil levels of effectiveness. Being young and naive I, at first, thought it was just an isolated case of astonishing incompetence but I came to realize it was actually accepted as normal and good practice across many parts of government. Once my idealism about civil service wore off I got out of there as fast as possible.
  - bicknergseng 12y ago
est 12y ago
search for 2323098716 you get this http://www.joecasaletto.com/joekronos/2012/605/4500_telnet/ http://www.joecasaletto.com/joekronos/2012/605/4500_telnet/
nikcub 12y ago
I ended up finding a way to get cigarette lighters through with a 100% success rate just by brute forcing it. If you travel a lot and you're a smoker you'd know that the worst part is getting off the flight, crawling through the airport at exit and then not having a lighter because they took it off you at departure[1]. No penalty for being caught with a lighter, so I kept leaving lighters in my bag in different places deliberately to figure out how I could get one through. Solution turned out to be simple, and I hit it almost accidentally. I removed the metal shield and then dropped the lighter into an inside pocket of my bag that contains pens and loose coins. Worked 100% of the time thereafter. The scanners being blacklisting like a virus scanner means they have the same problem, they can only identify known threats. Change the form of the threat and you're through until they update and train their scanners again (both human and machine). The illusion of safety. I've since quit both smoking and flying frequently. [1] I gave the TSA the idea of handing out lighters they have confiscated from departing passengers to arriving passengers but they didn't buy into it.
- toong 12y ago
  In Europe they let you keep your lighter, at least inside the Schengen Area.
  - MeinCrapf 12y ago
    They do in the US, too.
- iamtew 12y ago
  That seems very odd that they would take a lighter. Mind you I've been on very few domestic US flights, and on a few flights in/out of the US, but I never had problems with lighters. I just drop it on the plate they send through the X-ray and pick it up afterwards, no issues. This was within the last 4 years though, maybe procedures have changed? Here in EU I've never had any problems either. The only thing that I know they frown upon is Zippo lighters, unless it's brand new and still sealed. Something about the petrol being used in those lighters they don't like.
  - 12y ago
warcode 12y ago
The increasing amount of security is more terror than any real group could hope to inflict. Technically the terrorists won.
jimktrains2 12y ago
I still maintain that security checkpoints are the scariest places to be. So many people gathered, huddled, around a small, politically sensitive area outside the "secure" zone.
corford 12y ago
Lots of people are posting highlighting how pointless airport security is given the ease with which a terrorist can bypass it by e.g. blowing himself up in the security line, targeting buses or shopping malls, making weapons from stuff bought "air side" etc. As this hasn't been happening (despite how easy it would be for a terrorist to do), the only logical conclusion I draw is that the entire terrorist threat is so unbelievably overblown it doesn't warrant even thinking about when it comes to evaluating personal safety. I mean, how can it not be, given how easy it would be for a terrorist to just stroll in to an airport departures hall with a jacket bomb and detonate himself yet the closest we've seen to this is one lunatic failing to ignite some powder in his shoes and another idiot burning his crotch. I think the real answer is that you can probably count the number of truly dangerous terrorists in the world on two hands. The rest of the current crop are nothing more than brainwashed amateurs who spend their time wreaking havoc and misery in isolated parts of the world that no normal person would ever have occasion to set foot in. This article from the FT makes a similar point: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ee2a8412-2923-11e4-9d5d-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3B1XsaAw5 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ee2a8412-2923-11e4-9d5d-00144... If I was a black man in the US I'd be much more afraid of looking at a cop the wrong way than being caught up in a terrorist outrage.
- clarkmoody 12y ago
  I completely agree with your first two paragraphs, but you lost me on the second half of your comment. The TSA's response to attempted attacks has been to clamp down on the rest of us after the fact: shoes off, no liquids. This tells us that the intelligence gathering effort was not reflected in the airport security measures. They lock down those attack vectors to prevent "me too" attacks, but there haven't been any. Yet, the security gymnastics routine has not gotten lighter for the average traveler. Where I disagree: > no normal person would ever have occasion to set foot in You just dismissed a chunk of humanity as non-"normal" along with their homeland. Yes, Westerners have rare occasion to visit some of the places where terrorists breed and train. But the world contains more than Westerners, doesn't it? > If I was a black man in the US I'd be much more afraid of looking at a cop the wrong way than being caught up in a terrorist outrage. You are making the same mistake we're talking about with airport security: you are blowing a few highly-publicized events way out of proportion. Here[1] is some 2011 data from the FBI highlighting homicide victim/offender race & sex. Compare that to this report[2] from the Bureau of Justice Statistics showing arrest-related deaths from 2003-2009. (I know different years, etc, sorry) From that data, it looks like blacks kill way more blacks (and whites kill more whites) than cops killing either race. [1]: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c... [2]: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf
jtheory 12y ago
I keep forgetting that this whole mess is still ongoing. The articles seem to come in waves -- there'll be a new exposure of how useless the scanners are, lots of noise around that, and sometimes articles about changes to actual policy. I actually had the impression that the silly Rapiscan (what a lovely name!) scanners had been retired a year or two ago. Then this summer I went back to the US (first time in several years!) and it was worse than ever. In the one visit (involving 4 flights including my arrival to the US and departure from) I twice had to turn down the millimeter wave scanner -- apparently having a baby in a sling on my chest wasn't enough to exclude me -- and so I got to experience (twice) the uncomfortable manual pat down process, including the by-the-book warning that they're going to slide a hand up my inner thigh until they meet "resistance". On the other hand, I have some fairly ugly memories of arriving in JFK in the past (and going through immigration difficulties), and the airport remains horrible (their computer system went down for a half-hour while we waited to pass immigration...), but the people working there were impressively kind, especially to a family traveling with small children.

363 points by vesche 12y ago

I wish there was a transcript to go with these slides, or some context. It looks like an amazing talk. One thing that jumped out at me right away is that the explosives sniffer is also configured to detect narcotics, amphetamine and marijuana. Is this standard procedure at American domestic airports?

potatolicious 12y ago
There's a sticker from the inside of the machine that indicates it belonged to the US prisons system at some point. Narcotics detection would seem very relevant to that application. Some of these vulnerabilities are shocking. This goes beyond carelessness and straight into incompetence.
Implicated 12y ago
They don't seem to be detecting marijuana in their currently configured state.
- rustyfe 12y ago
  This isn't correct. They are checking for THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana.
  - eli 12y ago
    The "selected" column indicates "no" for drugs.
vesche 12y ago
It's from blackhat USA 2014 (Aug 6/7), when the video is uploaded it should be posted here: https://www.youtube.com/user/BlackHatOfficialYT/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/BlackHatOfficialYT/videos
- zerohm 12y ago
  +1
ubernostrum 12y ago
TSA has more than a bit of scope creep going on. In theory, all they're supposed to do is a basic administrative search to prevent weapons or explosives from being brought onto a plane. In practice, the perception in the public mind that they are a more general law-enforcement body allows them to easily perform other tasks on behalf of agencies that don't have the same general search powers. The classic example is searching for large sums of cash. Detecting large quantities of traveling cash and ensuring it's been properly declared is CBP's (Customs and Border Protection) job, not TSA's. But because TSA gets to X-ray and search every bag and body-scan every passenger, they catch that stuff, and then hold the passenger and go get CBP. The result is that the number of outside-the-mandate things that can end up happening as an "incidental" result of TSA's screening is staggering.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Is searching for cash the classic example or a one time example involving Ron Paul's cash courier, which then led to a rule change instructing TSA to ignore cash?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    TSA claim they don't search for eg drugs; they claim to search for expsi es and incidentally find drugs. This is the classic mission creep example. There are people who hide drugs in jars of peanut butter. This shows up on TSA screens as a jar with different stuff in, which they claim to view as suspicious because it looks like explosive.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      There seems to be some goal post creep as well. How many classic examples are there?
      - DanBC 12y ago
        Well, I do wonder if there's any benefit to the TSA for finding drugs? Perhaps I should trawl theough the reports to see if the TSA uses drug-finds as part of their results to support their work?
tptacek 12y ago
I wonder how the THC thing could possibly work. I opt out at every checkpoint, and each time, they maximize body contact and then generate an input to those machines. Wouldn't it go off for anyone who had smoked up earlier in the day, or the preceding day? It seems like they'd be spending all their time doing drug searches. (Don't get me wrong: drug searches at TSA checkpoints are extremely alarming, because TSA has been given a near all-access pass to mechanically searching people). Fun fact: if you do any welding before you get on a flight, there's a good chance you'll set those things off.
- js2 12y ago
  I most recently triggered it at SFO after wearing clothing I had gone go carting in the day before. First time for me. The enhanced screening was fun. Aside, SFO security is a contractor, not TSA.
  - leftcoaster 12y ago
    Contractor probably measured by throughput, not capture rate. Hence incentives are to push people through.
- VonGuard 12y ago
  Must not work that well. I flew alongside someone who smoked before a flight, and had the opt-out pat down... No alerts from the machine.
- eli 12y ago
  It's a confusing UI, but I'm pretty sure the "selected" column indicates that drug alerts are not configured to alert.
- bane 12y ago
  Also, if you spend lots of time outdoors around fertilizer you can set it off.
  - tagawa 12y ago
    Yes, this happened to me after a couple of hours on the golf course.

joshfraser 12y ago

expensive security theater

nathannecro 12y ago

Is there a video to go along with these slides? This is fascinating. The diagram-heavy slides could certainly use some context.

uxp 12y ago
It was a presentation at Blackhat 2014. The videos are released sometime afterwards. https://www.blackhat.com/us-14/speakers/Billy-Rios.html https://www.blackhat.com/us-14/speakers/Billy-Rios.html

stevefeinstein 12y ago

If this isn't the answer, and I'm not asserting it is or isn't. What is, and how do implement it. Or do you suggest if we scrap it all and go back to 1950's like airport security that the few incidents that are inevitable are an acceptable risk? I don't know the answer, but I'd like to have the conversation.

tehwebguy 12y ago
I vote to drop nearly all of it. The cockpit door is reinforced and locked, without the ability to take over the aircraft there is literally less risk than if someone just drove a bomb into an airport.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  There's a risk that an aircraft will be bombed in-flight, which doesn't require access to the cockpit. Before 9/11, such bombings were the primary security concern as hijackings usually resulted in a hostage situation. It'd probably be wise to keep explosives screening.
  - toufka 12y ago
    An in-flight bomb, though tragic, is much less of a threat, economic, social or otherwise, than an 'airplane-as-missile' into a populated area. So long as there is no access to the cockpit, the maximum effect of a terrorist's explosion is the downing of a plane, not the downing of a $1B 110 story building.
    - joelhaus 12y ago
      I don't think this conclusion takes into account the 'terror' part of the plan. Most everyone here assumes rational responses from the: media > public > politicians. This is incredibly naive. It reminds me of economic arguments used by libertarians.
  - tehwebguy 12y ago
    Sure, but without taking over the craft and turning into a significantly more dangerous missile (a la 9/11) there is only as much risk as bombing a parking garage, mall, school or any other place with hundreds of people and virtually no security. Not sure how much that logic actually applies to anyone trying to bomb stuff, though.

neil_s 12y ago

Seems like the SFO Kronos has been taken offline since this disclosure.

blantonl 12y ago

"Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security" - This article's title. Wow. Almost all airport security is a theater... The TSA are simply the actors...

drdeadringer 12y ago
In this context, I'm having trouble filling in the blank in terms of TSA vs Public: "All the world's a ___"
averill 12y ago
Pulling the curtain on "ticketed passengers only" as the crown jewel of this airport security theatre. Or as I call it the "TSA smoke and miroros/window dressing security" show. There is one security policy, which everyone should be aware of for the farce it is and represents. It is the taking away of YOUR freedom of movement at your airport. This useless waste of time and manpower of only allowing persons with tickets past the security screening areas, known as "ticketed passengers only". Don't be fooled, "ticketed passengers only" is NOT a security measure. The following is only a partial list as to why this is a waste of time. I know, I worked as a supervisor at a security checkpoint for five years, and for the last 10 years have worked for a major airline. There's the question of how our nations deal with the critical question of preserving both a reasonable measure of safety with individual rights in general. Striking a balance between feeling safe as opposed to being safe, and being free at the same time, is the most tenuous security concern of all. Averill Hecht Cheltenham, Pa. All comments are welcome. adhecht@comcast.net Please speak-up,

bussiere 12y ago

It makes laugh a lot, 9/11 happen because they used cutter. Airport security will piss you off for a kid cissor. But they will let you buy a glass bottle of alcohol in duty free. That you can break properly and use as a weapon ... Logic ...

jamesbritt 12y ago
Do they let you carry that own or do they hold that until you get off the plane? The latter was my experience some years ago.
- dlss 12y ago
  from their blog: http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/01/tsa-travel-tips-tuesday-traveling-with.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/01/tsa-travel-tips-tuesday-travelin... Yep. You can bring two 1.7 oz glass bottles with you to the airport (in case you have a specific shape or kind of glass you'd like).
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  There are many shops in the sterile area of most airports that sell goods that could be readily transformed into weapons.
farnsworth 12y ago
Relevant - This guy built a bunch of weapons from things you can buy in airport shops. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513362/Man-builds-homemade-gun-items-purchased-airport-terminal-AFTER-security.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513362/Man-builds-h...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Direct link to the guy's project site: http://terminalcornucopia.com/ http://terminalcornucopia.com/ I really recommend watching the movies. It reminds us both that airport security is nonsense, and that the people can weaponize pretty much anything if they care to do so.

jqm 12y ago

About a year after 9/11 I flew from Phoenix to Corpus Christi Texas. I brought a carry on case from work with me full of papers and (unknown to me) some tools including a large folding knife, a smaller pocket knife, a leather man and some screwdrivers. I honestly had completely forgot about the tools, they were buried in the bottom of the case under papers (yes, my case was not very organized). So, I took the case carry through x-ray in Phoenix, then, during a layover in Dallas I went outside the airport with the case, came back in through security, re-boarded the airplane and proceeded to Corpus Christi where I passed my vacation. After vacation, on the return flight to Phoenix, they found the knives and tools at the small airport in Corpus Christi as I attempted to board. I gave them to security and nothing came of it but I didn't feel it wise to tell them that I had already been through two checkpoints with the contraband. I realize things have probably tightened further since then but still... I was a bit shocked. And I'm still thinking a lot of the "security" at airports is for show.

BorisMelnik 12y ago

"TSA has not audited these devices for even the most basic security issues" This to me is the most troublesome aspect of this an entire ordeal. Any security pen-testing firm with their wits about them could have discovered these backdoors in a few simple audits. The fact that he was able to find all of these is very worrisome to me. I can only imagine what other bugs/backdoors are built in to these systems. Does any of this security matter with the fact that you can build weapons using airport giftshop items? http://www.wired.com/2013/12/terminal-cornucopia/ http://www.wired.com/2013/12/terminal-cornucopia/

MichaelApproved 12y ago
The weapons in the video are not powerful enough to take down an airliner. They'd likely harm a handful of people nearby or blow a small hole in the side of the plane but not much more than that. A small hole in the side of the plane would likely not cause it to crash. Of course, I don't mean to be flippant with regards to the lives of people close by but it's not a larger threat than someone doing this on the ground. The biggest point of airport security is to keep the planes from falling out of the sky or flown into buildings.
- BorisMelnik 12y ago
  arguing for arguments sake: 9/11 happened with a box cutter
  - ufmace 12y ago
    Because passengers believed that the result of a hijacking was to land in a third-world country and eventually be released after negotiation mostly regarding things that have nothing to do with them. Once the passengers believe that the result of a hijacking is to be flown into the side of a national monument, you're gonna need a lot more than box cutters to hold them back. As we saw before the 9/11 attacks were even completed.

pmorici 12y ago

Typical. Government organizations think IT security means having strongly worded statements and reams of bureaucratic rules and procedures. If you look closely though the strong words often aren't backed by any meaningful action. In a government official's mind if the 50 page IT security document was filled out and is on file that means the system is secure. It's all a big joke really.

sleeping_pills 12y ago
I don't think most of them would be that stupid. Just lazy. In a government official's mind, if the 50 page IT security document was filled out then he can't be held responsible when the shit hits the fan.
- nhstanley 12y ago
  Fifty pages filled out means it is now someone else's job to read those pages and implement. His hands are clean.
- bedhead 12y ago
  It's both...it's a problem of incentives. The government guy aint getting stock options or a real bonus or whatever for a job well done. And he's probably close to impossible to fire if he does poorly. So what does he care? And while this is a problem in itself, it also creates a self-selection problem where good candidates don't want to work there in the first place.
- pmorici 12y ago
  My first job out of school was with the US government. I'm speaking from experience. It is worse than you could possibly imagine. Onion levels of absurdity, snake oil levels of effectiveness. Being young and naive I, at first, thought it was just an isolated case of astonishing incompetence but I came to realize it was actually accepted as normal and good practice across many parts of government. Once my idealism about civil service wore off I got out of there as fast as possible.
- bicknergseng 12y ago

est 12y ago

search for 2323098716 you get this http://www.joecasaletto.com/joekronos/2012/605/4500_telnet/ http://www.joecasaletto.com/joekronos/2012/605/4500_telnet/

nikcub 12y ago

I ended up finding a way to get cigarette lighters through with a 100% success rate just by brute forcing it. If you travel a lot and you're a smoker you'd know that the worst part is getting off the flight, crawling through the airport at exit and then not having a lighter because they took it off you at departure[1]. No penalty for being caught with a lighter, so I kept leaving lighters in my bag in different places deliberately to figure out how I could get one through. Solution turned out to be simple, and I hit it almost accidentally. I removed the metal shield and then dropped the lighter into an inside pocket of my bag that contains pens and loose coins. Worked 100% of the time thereafter. The scanners being blacklisting like a virus scanner means they have the same problem, they can only identify known threats. Change the form of the threat and you're through until they update and train their scanners again (both human and machine). The illusion of safety. I've since quit both smoking and flying frequently. [1] I gave the TSA the idea of handing out lighters they have confiscated from departing passengers to arriving passengers but they didn't buy into it.

toong 12y ago
In Europe they let you keep your lighter, at least inside the Schengen Area.
- MeinCrapf 12y ago
  They do in the US, too.
iamtew 12y ago
That seems very odd that they would take a lighter. Mind you I've been on very few domestic US flights, and on a few flights in/out of the US, but I never had problems with lighters. I just drop it on the plate they send through the X-ray and pick it up afterwards, no issues. This was within the last 4 years though, maybe procedures have changed? Here in EU I've never had any problems either. The only thing that I know they frown upon is Zippo lighters, unless it's brand new and still sealed. Something about the petrol being used in those lighters they don't like.
- 12y ago

warcode 12y ago

The increasing amount of security is more terror than any real group could hope to inflict. Technically the terrorists won.

jimktrains2 12y ago

I still maintain that security checkpoints are the scariest places to be. So many people gathered, huddled, around a small, politically sensitive area outside the "secure" zone.

corford 12y ago

Lots of people are posting highlighting how pointless airport security is given the ease with which a terrorist can bypass it by e.g. blowing himself up in the security line, targeting buses or shopping malls, making weapons from stuff bought "air side" etc. As this hasn't been happening (despite how easy it would be for a terrorist to do), the only logical conclusion I draw is that the entire terrorist threat is so unbelievably overblown it doesn't warrant even thinking about when it comes to evaluating personal safety. I mean, how can it not be, given how easy it would be for a terrorist to just stroll in to an airport departures hall with a jacket bomb and detonate himself yet the closest we've seen to this is one lunatic failing to ignite some powder in his shoes and another idiot burning his crotch. I think the real answer is that you can probably count the number of truly dangerous terrorists in the world on two hands. The rest of the current crop are nothing more than brainwashed amateurs who spend their time wreaking havoc and misery in isolated parts of the world that no normal person would ever have occasion to set foot in. This article from the FT makes a similar point: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ee2a8412-2923-11e4-9d5d-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3B1XsaAw5 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ee2a8412-2923-11e4-9d5d-00144... If I was a black man in the US I'd be much more afraid of looking at a cop the wrong way than being caught up in a terrorist outrage.

clarkmoody 12y ago
I completely agree with your first two paragraphs, but you lost me on the second half of your comment. The TSA's response to attempted attacks has been to clamp down on the rest of us after the fact: shoes off, no liquids. This tells us that the intelligence gathering effort was not reflected in the airport security measures. They lock down those attack vectors to prevent "me too" attacks, but there haven't been any. Yet, the security gymnastics routine has not gotten lighter for the average traveler. Where I disagree: > no normal person would ever have occasion to set foot in You just dismissed a chunk of humanity as non-"normal" along with their homeland. Yes, Westerners have rare occasion to visit some of the places where terrorists breed and train. But the world contains more than Westerners, doesn't it? > If I was a black man in the US I'd be much more afraid of looking at a cop the wrong way than being caught up in a terrorist outrage. You are making the same mistake we're talking about with airport security: you are blowing a few highly-publicized events way out of proportion. Here[1] is some 2011 data from the FBI highlighting homicide victim/offender race & sex. Compare that to this report[2] from the Bureau of Justice Statistics showing arrest-related deaths from 2003-2009. (I know different years, etc, sorry) From that data, it looks like blacks kill way more blacks (and whites kill more whites) than cops killing either race. [1]: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c... [2]: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf

jtheory 12y ago

I keep forgetting that this whole mess is still ongoing. The articles seem to come in waves -- there'll be a new exposure of how useless the scanners are, lots of noise around that, and sometimes articles about changes to actual policy. I actually had the impression that the silly Rapiscan (what a lovely name!) scanners had been retired a year or two ago. Then this summer I went back to the US (first time in several years!) and it was worse than ever. In the one visit (involving 4 flights including my arrival to the US and departure from) I twice had to turn down the millimeter wave scanner -- apparently having a baby in a sling on my chest wasn't enough to exclude me -- and so I got to experience (twice) the uncomfortable manual pat down process, including the by-the-book warning that they're going to slide a hand up my inner thigh until they meet "resistance". On the other hand, I have some fairly ugly memories of arriving in JFK in the past (and going through immigration difficulties), and the airport remains horrible (their computer system went down for a half-hour while we waited to pass immigration...), but the people working there were impressively kind, especially to a family traveling with small children.