Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Security The Internet

Hacker Cracks Smart Gun Security To Shoot It Without Approval (cnn.com) 501

Posted by msmash from the security-woes dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hacker Cracks Smart Gun Security To Shoot It Without Approval More

Hacker Cracks Smart Gun Security To Shoot It Without Approval

Comments Filter:

  • Surprise, surprise, surprise! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Who didn't see that coming?

    Oh yeah, fearful gun-grabbers.

  • Some elaborate hack or something that requires you to put magnets on the gun isn't really that big of a deal. But being able to wear e.g. a different watch that jams all these guns is of course a much larger issue.

    I find the whole idea of smart guns mostly silly. Even plain old guns, brand new designs or designs that have been tweaked and fine tuned for 100+ years, misfire sometimes. Adding another level of failure is pretty absurd.

    I can see them making sense in special circumstances, though. One that l

    • I can see them making sense in special circumstances, though. One that leaps to mind is prison guards.

      I feel like the guard would disagree.

      • I feel like the guard would disagree.

        I actually foresee an exception to this for most ALL LEO's.....

        And frankly, what is good for LEO's weapons wise...is good enough for me. I tend to buy the same arms they have with the exception of full-auto which I don't have the ATF licensing for.....(yet).

        But if they don't want it on their guns, I don't want it on mine.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by arth1 ( 260657 )

      But being able to wear e.g. a different watch that jams all these guns is of course a much larger issue.

      Issue? I would love to have a gun jammer in my car. Seems that these days, that would be a prudent safeguard.

      • Issue? I would love to have a gun jammer in my car. Seems that these days, that would be a prudent safeguard.

        You seem to be assuming that the police will use smartgun technology. Ain't gonna happen! Cops want reliable firearms, not something that might not work when the time comes that you really, really need a gun....

    • I find the whole idea of smart guns mostly silly. Even plain old guns, brand new designs or designs that have been tweaked and fine tuned for 100+ years, misfire sometimes. Adding another level of failure is pretty absurd.

      It's useful to have a background in error analysis. You should think about Type I errors versus Type II errors. A Type-I error, here, will mean the gun not firing when you want it to. A Type-II error is the gun firing when you do NOT want it to. For this particular safety mechanism, the type-II error can be considered to consist of the case "the gun fires when somebody else has it", and the worst-case type II error is "the gun fires when somebody else has it and is pointing it at you or your family".

      It

      • There just aren't that many home invasions that are solved by the homeowner shooting the burglar, outside of Hollywood.

        Out of sheer curiosity, do you have any actual numbers or studies on that?

  • Supporters say they could stop accidental shootings or misfires.

    It sounds like they still will.

    • Re:Good enough for practical situations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LeftCoastThinker ( 4697521 ) on Friday July 28, 2017 @02:32PM (#54900451)

      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").

      • Re:Good enough for practical situations (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday July 28, 2017 @02:43PM (#54900535) Homepage Journal

        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.

      • 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.

        But this discussion isn't about "banning" guns (nor doctors). It's about implementing a technology to reduce the number of unintentional deaths. Implementing technologies to reduce the number of unintentional deaths is something hospitals do all the time.

        So your analogy fails.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Zero__Kelvin ( 151819 )
        In reverse order of stupidity of your post doctor's are highly regulated and banning hospitals would cause the death rate to skyrocket, not dip. What amazes me the most is that I don't even think you are trolling. You actually thought that was intelligent discourse and likely handle guns. [Shudder]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pz ( 113803 )

        yet there aren't any politicians trying to ban hospitals or regulate doctors

        Ban hospitals, well, not in a blanket sense, but politicians do very often block hospitals from expanding, or acquiring / merging with other hospitals. And getting the zoning to build a hospital is a non-trivial and highly politicized task. Ban specific hospitals? Yes, that happens. Take political action against things like pharmacies (OK, not precisely a hospital, but bear with me)? Remember the New England Compounding Center that caused many dozens of deaths across the US about five years ago? No lo

      • I'm pretty sure physicians are pretty heavily regulated. Not that it detracts from your point, however.

  • Smart guns & communism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Friday July 28, 2017 @01:48PM (#54900117)

    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!

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

      Communism was never a great idea; it is probably one of the worst ideas ever.

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

      I don't think smart guns are impossible (unlike successful large-scale communism by average humans). I do think that ensuring the smart locking system does not reduce the reliability of a possibly life-saving tool is really, really hard.

      Personally, I trust the police to validate the reliability of their firearms quite well, so I'll be happy to buy and use smart guns as soon as I see all of the police departments switch to using them. Police officers are not infrequently shot with their own guns, so they s

      • Hmm..just thinking about this...how easy would it be to let someone else shoot the gun? Can it be set for multiple people to be authorized?

        I mean, I'd want my significant other and kids (when old enough and trustworthy) to be able to use them....or what about at the gun range when you and friends or other folks there, want to swap guns to try out which I do all the time...?

        • Hmm..just thinking about this...how easy would it be to let someone else shoot the gun? Can it be set for multiple people to be authorized?

          There's no reason it couldn't. But so far we don't have any smart guns that work reliably for one user.

          what about at the gun range when you and friends or other folks there, want to swap guns to try out which I do all the time...?

          Yeah, you'd probably want to be able to disable the locking feature.

          • Yeah, you'd probably want to be able to disable the locking feature.

            Yep..and really at that point, what's the point of having the 'smart' feature? I'd think a LOT of people would want to leave it 'unlocked' all the time....or, would it be mandated, etc?

            This smart feature causes more problems that it solves IMHO.

    • Smart guns & communism

      Smart guns, Communism & Windows

  • If the gun fired, the secure owner fired the shot (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28, 2017 @01:48PM (#54900119)

    "Mr X, this gun can only fire if you pull the trigger. You're going away for a long time."

    "But I wasn't even in the city!"

    "The gun says you were. GPS tracking confirms."

  • Most security features on personal items at best would be made to keep the honest, honest.

    You lock the door on your car, not because it is not impossible for someone to get in. But for that casual person who sees that you accidentally left your wallet there. will try to see if the door is locked. If so, they will not try further.

    The smart gun, can't be unhackable. Because the core technology of the gun is well understood, and designed to be reliable and easy to maintain. However the smart gun can prevent

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arth1 ( 260657 )

      However the smart gun can prevent the person from taking someones gun and then shooting the owner with his own weapon.

      Seems like it's something the police should have. So if someone looks like they're grabbing for an officer's gun, they no longer have an excuse to pump him or her full of bullets.

    • If people are honest, do they need someone to keep them honest?

      If I see a wallet on the seat of a car with an unlocked door, or even an open car window, I am not going to steal it.

      If I found a wallet, say on the sidewalk, I would make an effort to try to locate the owner.

      Surely I am not the only one. There must be others.

      The real question is: what if the wallet had, say, $100,000 in it. I think I might just leave it where I found it. But the real test comes if I ever find myself in that situ

      • Well keep the Honest, honest is the phrase. It is more correctly, most dishonest people are rather lazy, so in a movement of temptation any little excuse normally will stop them.

        Now these people who commit the petty crime of getting that $20 out of your wallet. Are often under hard times, and needs it for drugs, or more important reasons. When you are poor $20 can allow you to eat for a day.

    • Also chances are getting caught with a Hacked Smart Gun, will probably get you much more trouble.

      This statement exposes the deeper motivation that is the fear in the hearts of many gun activists: "Wait - So, you'll want to punish owners of hacked smart guns? Why? How is that any different than owning guns without safety features? Should it be illegal to even own a gun without smart features? How far will the government go to keep us safe? It'll always be pushing for taking freedom away! Freedom! FREEDOM!"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cogeek ( 2425448 )
        I question your knowledge of weapons as a self-proclaimed owner of multiple firearms. There's no such thing as an "assault rifle." The AR on the big, bad, scary black rifle stands for Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle. And my 30-06 hunting rifle has a longer range and greater stopping and penetrating power than my AR-15. Should the 30-06 be reclassified as an Assault Rifle or is it safe because it's painted with camouflage pattern rather than black?

        • I never said AR-15, "AR", or that AR stood for assault rifle. I just said that I don't own one. My brother has an Ar-15 that I can occasionally shoot if I really want - though his sucks because you can't hit much with it (has a 9:1 spin ratio in the rifling, cheaply made, etc.). A bro-in-law also has one but it's nicer - and he's picked up a suppressor (can't wait to try that out).

          I also own a 30-06 (a nice Remington) - but I never shoot that one because I'm not left-eyed and the bolt action is backwards fo

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cogeek ( 2425448 )
            Google Doublespeak and you'll see that just because someone keeps calling something by a different name over and over not every thinking person has to accept the new name and blindly start calling it by that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by suutar ( 1860506 )

          "assault rifle" is a defined term for the US Army. this [tulprpc.org] has some more information, but the short form is that it has the ability to do fully automatic or semiautomatic selectively, using cartridges between submachine gun and rifle in power.

      • Well for some areas if you are caught with a gun, with the safety features disabled, you are already in trouble as you are caring a weapon with the intent to harm.

        The biggest problem I see today with the Gun debate, is how both sides dropped personal gun safety. 20 years ago the NRA would admonish a picture post of a person pointing the gun at an other person even if unloaded and just for a joke. They were involved in teaching Gun safety as part of how to use the gun. Trying to make sure the people who ch

  • . . . . nor was the remote Denial of Service attack against the weapon. In fact, many cops would call that a win.

    Or they would if anyone had actually BOUGHT an Armatix, a hugely-overpriced .22 semi-auto pistol with integrated electronics. . .

  • Smart Guns are just the first step (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Friday July 28, 2017 @02:05PM (#54900251) Homepage
    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!
    • and I wish you'd drop the issue. We here on the left have. Bernie f'in Sanders got an A from the NRA.

      Meanwhile it's being used as a wedge issue to distract you from economic issues. So you go to the polls and vote for the gun loving guy and he sells you out on the economy. How the hell do you think NAFTA got through? They knew the gun lovers would vote them in no matter what they did to the economy. Nevermind the fact that you and your little pea shooter of a rifle is about as useless as tits on a bull

      • How about this: You can have a mother f'in bazooka if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?

        There is a way we can all have it closer to our own way. Stop expecting that everything should be handled by the federal government.

        Why shouldn't there be a state with single payer healthcare and strict gun laws and other states with less restrictive gun laws and employer based insurance or offer private high-deductible plans and low taxes? Why do those in Nebraska or New York feel that they need to tell those in Alaska or Florida what rules they need to live by? Why even have states if everything is run

        • where the gov't didn't do anything except fight wars and life was nasty, brutish and short. I've got about 70 years where the gov't did a bunch of stuff and things got a lot better really fast. You'd think folks would have noticed this by now.

          The reason you can't have a state do that is a state doesn't have enough power to stand up to a global mega corp run by robber barons. Did you ever see the pic of a snake cut in 13 pieces when you were a kid? It wasn't from a snake cook book.

      • Bernie f'in Sanders got an A from the NRA.

        And he was squashed by a woman who said she'd certainly consider an Australia-style confiscation program, and who said she considers the Supreme Court to have been in error as they ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership. In other words, you're exactly incorrect.

        • backing that woman because she opposed progressive policies that benefit the working class. And Hillary couldn't give two shits about your guns either. She just needs some issue, any issue, to make her seem like something other than a Republican. Well, an issue that isn't economic anyway. She's not gonna support Single Payer in my lifetime.

      • Re:Nobody's coming for your guns (Score:4)

        by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Friday July 28, 2017 @03:50PM (#54900923)

        >"How about this: You can have a mother f'in bazooka if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?"

        I have a better deal- you pay for your own children (or let them get their own loans and pay for themselves) and get your own health insurance AND we also obey the 2nd amendment, too.

        And I will further with: There is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows the federal government to mess with education nor health insurance, and if you want them to, then first you get a Constitutional Amendment passed.... then we'll talk about more Socialism after that.

  • "make every bullet cost ten thousand dollars and there will never be another accidental shooting".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

      Something many people may be unaware of, is that black powder weapons are completely uncontrolled. Bullets can't be expensive so long as lead is pennies a pound -- I've cast them myself, it's a really simple procedure -- and cartridges are frequently reloaded. It's a joke, and a reasonably funny one, but it doesn't go much further than that. Even if somehow all existing cartridges could be cleared from circulation to prevent reloading, you'd just see a rise in the ownership of black powder pistols [cabelas.com].

      • Indeed it is a joke. There are incalculable billions of rounds of ammo in circulation right now; we couldn't make them all go away even if we tried.

        That said, I have a hard time believing that it would really cause an uptick in black powder sales. Right now as the law stands it is relatively easy to kill someone with a typical firearm. Hell in many states it takes less time to purchase a weapon than it takes to purchase sudafed. You buy the weapon and the ammo at the same time and only a couple second

      • I have a friend who is a reformed felon. He would like to own a gun to protect his family but is prohibited. I told him about black powder revolvers. You can get .44 special performance out of an Army model black powder revolver and pretty good reliability.

        LK

    • what got discussions on gun control going (at least in the US) was when shooting became cheap enough that minorities could afford guns to defend themselves.

      Reminds me of one of the funniest things I've ever read. A bunch of those "People's Militia" folks decided to get their Assault rifles and go scare some Muslims by hanging around their Mosque with their guns slung over their back.

      Apparently these fine upstanding citizens didn't realize that the Nation of Islam is a different branch of faith than w

  • Huge problem with "smart" guns (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LeftCoastThinker ( 4697521 ) on Friday July 28, 2017 @02:10PM (#54900293)

    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.

    • This is not a huge problem. It is fucking trivial as fuck.

      Shocker/Not Shocker, hacker with physical access to a device can make a device malfunction.

      If an organization or entity is dedicated enough to have identified your particular firearm, built a device to disable your firearm, than actively use the device, guess what? You are dead as fuck and your trivial ass gun, smart or not, will not be able to do you any good

      I am rather neutral on gun control laws and see some rather philosophically valid argum

  • shoot the guy first or cut the guys hand off and wear the watch?

  • These are guns for people who don't like guns or the people who like guns.

    They're ridiculously expensive and why in the hell would I want a gun that can be remotely disabled? Lest we forget, the people that are the reason why we (in the USA) have the second amendment are the very people who would be able to remotely disable such a device. No thank you. Do not want. No bueno!

    LK

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close