RFID gun safe or gun lock?

[JESmith]

Habdeed,

I am quite aware of current of RFID technology. I have been in EWI/EWC for over 25 years and have tested the capabilities of RFID for a certain DOD application. In my opinion they have some unique vunerabilities that make them ill suited for high security applications.

No I will not discuss what these vulnerabilities are in an open forum. Suffice it to say they are not near as secure as manufactures would have you believe.

 

[MarineOne]

I am quite aware of current of RFID technology. I have been in EWI/EWC for over 25 years and have tested the capabilities of RFID for a certain DOD application. In my opinion they have some unique vunerabilities that make them ill suited for high security applications.

No I will not discuss what these vulnerabilities are in an open forum. Suffice it to say they are not near as secure as manufactures would have you believe.

I've been in Information Technology for almost 20 years, and while the idea of using RFID for inventory control, tracking packages, etc., is sound, I agree with JES. I'm also not too keen on using it for accessing my gun safe, much less having it implanted in my body.

If I were looking for some kind of biometric access system, I'd rather use a fingerprint reader with multiple scans of all my fingers and those of my wife ..... but I'm happy with a simple spinning knob with numbers on it.

 

[berettaprofessor]

I don't like the idea of people being terrified of technology

I'm not afraid of technology, I'm afraid of what can be done with technology by those who aren't.....virtuous.

And to those who pointed out the OP didn't say anything about government implanting the chips...they might not implant them, but if they can get us to implant them voluntarily ("implants will keep your car from being stolen," "implants will help us find your children if they're kidnapped.") they can still read them for other purposes. And if Saudia Arabia is thinking of implanting all visitors they can kiss my......oh well, wasn't planning on going there ever anyway.

 

[hillbillydelux]

Great. Now when someone wants to break in my house or safe they can simply cut my hand off and have at it.

 

[iiibdsiil]

Don't worry HillBilly, when they start cutting off your wife's/kid's fingers and putting cigarettes out on them, you'll give up the code either way.

I like the idea. The building my condo is in has these, probably around 30 of them total. I've seen the lock mechanism not work but the actual scanner itself always works. I keep my card in my wallet and just wave it by the scanner.

A lot of new cars are also using the technology. I have yet to see the one fail on our Mazda. Technology has come a long way.

I'm all for it. Takes the time problem out of it, takes the skill out of turning a lock when your door is being kicked in, and takes the worry out of it too. Add a nice mechanical backup and I'd be set.

It's not like the chip they implant has any information on it other than the access for the safe. No need to be paranoid here folks.

 

[esquare]

Technologically, it's a fun feature to think about, albeit with many flaws including jamming, id theft, and secure RFID is not as secure as everybody thinks. Pragmatically, it's a solution in search for a problem, and I'm not sure what it solves anything other than a minor inconvenience of using a key or typing a code at the tremendous expense of huge amounts of complexity added and all sorts of failure points and areas of abuse...

Just run through the scenarios:

You feel you need 'instant' access to a firearm when you are home for protection. When you are awake, it would be better to wear one. When you are asleep, just put it on the night stand and lock your bedroom door (go to corneredcat.com to read more about this).

You want to secure your firearms from theft while not at home. Okay, well the method of access to a safe matters much less than the quality of the safe, so maybe go with the tried and true.

So. It's a fun idea, but I don't see it flooding the market any time soon.

 

[Habeed]

JES : what I am trying to say is that from a theoretical perspective, it's quite possible to implement an implantable RFID system that would not be clone-able. Jamming is another matter, but there are countermeasures that would work against that as well.

Now, current implementations may have poorly thought out security designs that leave gaping holes. It doesn't mean that a competent engineer couldn't design a bulletproof system tomorrow : it's very possible with current technology.

Basic concept : the tag in your hand will not respond to anything but a secret challenge code that is at least 128 bits long that the safe knows. Once the tag receives the correct interrogatory code, it sends a response code, also at least 128 bits long, to the safe. The safe unlocks. Both the safe and the tag update a memory pointer so that next time the 128 bit code will be different.

At the very least, it would be completely impossible to clone the tag in your hand. A man in the middle observer attack might work, where you had special equipment near the safe at all times, since it might be difficult to fit an adequate microprocessor into a passive RFID tag.

I like the idea of a firearm being accessible within 5 seconds, yet secured in such a way that it would take someone else quite a while to gain access to it. (i.e. I think a proper safe system would need to be at least 1/2" thick hardened steel, and the whole system should be independently tested and audited to make sure it meets a certain level of security)

Suppose there is a 0.01% chance that the system would fail when you needed it. (1/10,000) Given the low probability of you needing a gun to defend yourself at any given point in your life, (I think on average it's about a once in a lifetime event) the risk is pretty minimal.

As for RFID jammers : upon thinking about it, I don't see the problem. Fact is, if your enemies have that kind of equipment with them, then your pistol near your bed probably isn't going to do any good.

 

[stampsm]

rfid does have it's flaws. one is jamming the other is killing the RFID tag.
whoever built it was caring more about looks than function but it works.
http://hackaday.com/2009/12/22/terminate-rfid-tags/

 

[hmphargh]

Basic concept : the tag in your hand will not respond to anything but a secret challenge code that is at least 128 bits long that the safe knows. Once the tag receives the correct interrogatory code, it sends a response code, also at least 128 bits long, to the safe. The safe unlocks. Both the safe and the tag update a memory pointer so that next time the 128 bit code will be different.

At the very least, it would be completely impossible to clone the tag in your hand. A man in the middle observer attack might work, where you had special equipment near the safe at all times, since it might be difficult to fit an adequate microprocessor into a passive RFID tag.

The implantable types of RFIDs are passive as far as I know, so I'm not sure your interrogation/response model is possible with an implantable RFID because of the lack of an IC to process the logic necessary for your system.

A man in the middle attack would most definitely work, and you wouldn't really even have to be in the middle. If you could access the safe and collect the interrogatory code, you could use your own RFID transmitter to collect the response code from your target at another time or location (Think ATM skimmer, but with RFID, the user provides their RFID for what they think is a legitimate purpose, but the information is taken for other purposes).

 

[Sudden Impact]

Go ahead and get "chipped."

I'll pass!

 

[Habeed]

hmphragh : you can fit an IC into an RFID tag, even a passive one. I'm not sure what current limitations are. Theoretically, you could have an entire computer in a tag, it's just not possible with current tech. Power comes from the electromagnetic field in the reader, which is used to induce a current in the antenna in the tag. A capacitor in the tag and a voltage regulator are also in it. That's enough juice to run a tiny, low wattage IC for a fraction of a second, enough to do things like comparisons and math and so forth.

My method won't work, you're right. It would have to be more sophisticated than that. However, it can be done. The safe's 128 bit code would have to vary based upon time or something, and so would the response. That way your attack wouldn't work, since the code you got from the tag later would not be correct for the current time. (the safe would have an internal time counter that started when the safe was first plugged in, it would not have to be user set)


Anyways, this is all moot. Fact is, if someone is able to break into your house, put a reader near your safe, find you, put a reader near your hand....then a pistol isn't going to stop them. The safe doesn't have to be absolutely perfect, just good enough that YOU can always get into it, and others can't without specialized equipment or just cutting it. We're not protecting the hope diamond here, we're keeping a pistol that isn't worth more than a grand from falling into the wrong hands that might use it to shoot someone. Your kid won't be able to play with it, your wife won't be able to grab it and blow you away if she's mad at you Tiger woods style, a burglar won't be able to take it without cutting the safe, and the cops won't be able to get to it without a warrant. (being in a locked safe, they'll need a warrant specifically stating that whatever they are looking for might be in there.)