Look Ma, No-Hands Fasteners! 200
theodp writes "Inspired by a daughter who suffered a serious infection from an IV feeding apparatus, the Trib reports an Australian architect has developed high-tech bolts and latches, which can be operated remotely without being touched. The first commercial applications are intended for aircraft, allowing crews to quickly reshape interiors to maximize payload space. BTW, smart fasteners hit Slashdot's radar almost two years ago."
Hacker's Delight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2, Funny)
http://math.cofc.edu/kasman/MATHFICT/mfview.php?c
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2)
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2)
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:3, Funny)
No it cant' be hacked. RTFA (Score:2)
"I wondered what's to prevent some nut using a garage door opener from pushing the right buttons to make your airplane fall apart," said Harrison. "But everything is locked down with codes, and the radio signals are scrambled, so this is fully secured against hackers."
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2)
Reminds me of a Far Side cartoon.
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2)
I dunno.. it'd only be a real problem in turbulance (or maybe take-off/landing)
If it uses Shape Memory Alloys [wikipedia.org] for actuators, then temperature may be a problem as well. Their site mentions "smart materials" used for actuators.
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2, Funny)
This whole idea is nuts!
-Lasse
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2)
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2)
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2)
Re:Hacker's Delight (Score:2)
Actually, I imagine they'd use a wrench for that...
Easily Hacked (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh well, time will tell.
Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
I wouldn't think that it would be too hard to key them with, say, 1,000 keys, 128 bits per key. That's 16,000 bytes, and 3.4 * 10^38 odds against you per guess. (I'll wager I don't need quite so many bits per key.)
The procedure is this: (1) Listen for my address to be spoken. (2) Listen for fasten/unfasten command. (3) Listen for password.
If you give it a good key, it follows the command, and throws away that key.
If you give it a bad key, it locks up for, say, an hour, ten minut
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:3, Informative)
That right there is a DoS
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:3, Interesting)
How would you attack this?
Send a bad key once a minute. One useless bolt.
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
The scenario is that these mechanics are working on these aircraft in a controlled physical environment. So your attack makes no sense: If someone's using one of these devices to attack your bolts, you just look for the device. It's a freakin' lighthouse, and shouldn't be hard to locate.
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
For that matter, what prevents me from sitting at the airport perimeter with a significantly stronger transmitter and disabling you
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
You're obviously not paying attention. You've got 20 minutes between single attempts, regardless of how many of these you have. In a day, you can try 72 codes. You get to try 26,280 codes in a freaking YEAR. With just 2 bytes, I've got 65,536. Oh, look, I just added another bit: Now I have 131,072 codes you're up against. Oh, look, each key is 16 full bytes, meaning you are up against... 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 possibilities.
Good luck, with your 26,280 per year.
You're go
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
I am guessing that one of the commands will be the equivilant of a ping. That is, the fastener will simply acknowledge that it is talking. Keep ind mind, that some items will require multiple fasteners to operate at the same time.
These are just a few ways to get long term exposures to quietly try to crack the code. If you can get access to something, it can be cracked.
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
2. Long flight from NYC to India.
Several days won't be long enough. If it is, just add 10 more bits, and it takes 1,024x as many days. Your attack is uneconomical: You'd be better served dispatching robots.
The case will be found on airplane inspection.
Of course everything can be cracked. The thing is, you can make it so much insanely more complicated, that the opponent is better served attacking y
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
The keys only work once.
After you've exhausted the keys, you rekey the bolt.
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
Re:Here's how you secure it: (Score:2)
You have to watch how you distribute information from sensors, since it can plausibly be faked.
But perhaps you could lock the bolts from manipulation on a time-basis: "For the next 14 hours, accept no instruction," or something like that. That'd be good, to protect you during flight, and it's dirt simple.
Re:Easily Hacked (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry they will design a nice obscure protocol for it.
Re:Easily Hacked (Score:2)
Well, not that I don't agree with your point, but I just want to point out;
Since the real world isn't binary with two extremes only, 'not nearly unbreakable does' not imply 'easily hackable'.
Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I have a sneaking suspicion this will include the user, and/or third-party techs?
I can hear the coins rolling in now.
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, you didn't use the right code to open the case? We're gonna brick it now.
This is the future, where you will need the manufacturer's permission to do anything to an item that you supposedly own.
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is an equal opportunity for wealth.
You seem not to realise that the quote above is the direct outcome of the one below. The ultimate purpose of Capitalism, from a perspective of a powerful participant, such as a multi-national corporation, is to enslave everybody who can be enslaved by making them dependant on your products and destroy or marginalize the rest, by any means one can get away with. An ability to deprive the consumers of control of the things they supposedly own, or ensuring that such things have built-in obsolesence and are as disposable as possible, to be replaced with even less controllable and more disposable "goods", are perfectly valid strategies from a purely capitalist perspective, where greed and bottom line are the only overriding concerns and where definitions of the nature of "private property" are simply naive holdovers from earlier, simpler times and easily circumvented by technological chickanery.
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the contrary. Without government the development of capitalism is impossible. You need money, property, markets, investment, etc. It only works in a society where people dare to give money to someone else in some other town in the expectation that they will make more money. It only happens in countries with a wealthy and efficient bureacracy. It is of course possible to organize capitalism around a some kind of commerc
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:2)
Yes, these are needed, but not a single of these items comes from the government. I mean, in general. Nowadays, of course, the government has its claws everywhere.
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:2)
Having a monopoly on violence and theft is the first imperative for a budding state. There is a fine dividing line between robber barons and kings taxing their subjects: the king was there first. In an anarchic situation most people will voluntarily subject themselves to any group that is able to monopolize violence and theft in an area, because e
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:2)
As someone already responed to you, without external enforcement, capitalism is simply impossible. The concept of "private property", "capital" and a myriad of other things depends on a central, nation-wide, or even in many cases global, entities to dictate and enforce the rules of all of these, artificial, and pretty much arbitrarty from the point of view of many possible societal systems, concepts.
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:2)
While amusing, thus has anything to do with the above post how exactly?
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it is those, like yourself, who apparently think that anyone to the "right" of Benito Mussolini is a "communist" who are really funny. In a pathetic sort of way. What amuses me personally, is their propensity for firing broadside, ad hominem, wholly off target and unsubstantiated attacks, in response to just about any questioning which would demand a most modest amount of logic and reason on their part to respond, and then hiding behind asine one-liners when called on their non-sequiturs.
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:2)
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:3, Insightful)
My original post is anything but "unsubstantiated", it describes the general mechanisms in play in a Capitalist marketplace, which I am willing to discuss at length. Yours, on the other hand, speaks of my "commuting with nature", a hypothetical activity about which you have no way of knowing and accuses me of being a "communist", which by any sane definition, I am far, far away from being.
You are certainly no teacher in
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:2)
Sometimes challenging the status quo can be useful.
Never mind that. We would be still hanging off the trees in Africa -- which must certainly constitute the quintessential essence and the very apex of "conservativism".
Re:Secured against unauthorized parties? (Score:2)
Thinking the same thing == redundant at Slashdot
AHA! (Score:5, Funny)
Disassembler? (Score:2, Funny)
well (Score:2)
Intelligence!! (Score:4, Funny)
Most people are less intelligent than bolts and latches:)
*ducks*
Umm, batteries? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2)
http://2005.recon.cx/recon2005/papers/Jonathan_We
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2)
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2)
Maybe include a left hand?
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2)
Great, maybe then we can finally get rid of all those stupid screws to mount drives with !
Uh, wait, magnetic what ?
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2)
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2)
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2)
Nah, they've got a safety feature -- when the battery dies they fly apart, letting you know it's time to replace the batteries.
Oh, were you using that wall?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2)
I'd say its a combination of "programmed obsolescence" and lawsuits about people hurting themselves opening these things up (because its not enough to slap a huge warning sticker there, they have to activly make sure you have to go through extra measures to open the thing up)
Probably a hex-pin head (Score:2)
You can buy them anywhere, here [google.com] is an example
Re:Umm, batteries? (Score:2)
I'll take it (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if this mechanism means that bolts won't back out due to vibration, I'll take it. As long as it means I don't have to dick around with loctite threadlocker anymore. I mean, what genius decided to put the red loctite in a blue tube and the blue in a red tube?
Re:I'll take it (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll take it (Score:2)
I love this company... (Score:3, Funny)
Perrine, who left Microsoft Corp. to join Telezygology, said intelligent fasteners will cut the costs of designing, building and maintaining products that use them, and this is just the first step in a new direction.
When Balmer heard about this he threw a chair into a wall. Luckily the wall was constructed with intelligent-fasteners and with a push of a button, the wall was back to new.
Right... (Score:3, Funny)
"I wondered what's to prevent some nut using a garage door opener from pushing the right buttons to make your airplane fall apart," said Harrison. "But everything is locked down with codes, and the radio signals are scrambled, so this is fully secured against hackers."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's rich!
Telezygology? (Score:5, Funny)
its the hacker equivalent of (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a cool idea, but i'm a bit sceptical about these 'codes'
it Would be cool if, say, in a car accident, firemen could spontaneously deconstruct a car involved, to get at the victim inside, but i doubt that screws have a lot to do with that. Its probably just going to make it easier for people to steal your radio
Re:its the hacker equivalent of (Score:2)
No (remotely) disassemble.... (Score:2, Funny)
New competition at next HOPE convention? (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory bicycle reference (Score:3, Funny)
Look ma, no feet!
Look ma, no teeth!
Skynet! (Score:2)
Terminator 3 was on dutch TV yesterday. There must be a link in there somewhere.
Wow.... (Score:2)
Electronic "Bolts"? (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds like nothing more than radio controlled solenoids, similar to what we see in remotely controlled apartment building entrance doors and in automobile power locks. A solenoid is just a coil that is electro-magnetized on demand to push or pull a metal bar through it's center. This bar usually moves something attached to it or touches a contact to close a high current circuit loop, like in a car starter motor. My guess is that the solenoid in a "smart fastener" would push open a latch or release some hooks.
So why all the talk about "smart materials", "intelligent bolts", and materials that "change shape on demand"? It sounds like a bunch of pie in the sky market speak to me, not unlike what is heard in articles written by corporate PR agencys. Such articles are often given to lazy, disinterested journalists as neat & easy pre-packaged stories.
This story has no substance - buzzwords are rampant and technical detail is non-existant. Yet the slashdot editors are proudly proclaiming they broke the story 2 years ago. Even worst, the story is being pitched as using exotic technology that allows self-threading bolts of some kind. The same false pitch was used last time as well. I bet this sort of "mistake" generates lots of $$$^H^H^H click thoughs though.
Re:Electronic "Bolts"? (Score:2)
There are plenty of electromechanical devices other than electromagnetic solenoids and motors out there, capable of exerting physical force controlled by an electrical impulse (in this case from an RF receiver). Examples: piezo buzzers and liquid crystals. I'm not aware of anything other than solenoids or motors that could exert the kind of force necessary to release a latch of reasonable size, but even if it is just a solenoid and the 'smart materials' stuff is PR hype, it doesn't detract from the usefulne
Fully agree (Score:2)
My hunch is that this is just one of the few similar recent releases that might kick off another dot.bomb venture captical cycle.
A question (Score:4, Insightful)
But we might need to design a new path to replace the batteries.
(well, I haven't read the spec., may be they doesn't require battery replacement or self-charging something....)
Re:A question (Score:2, Interesting)
An aeroplane sitting on a hot middle-east tarmac, or freezing loose while flying over cold North Dakota.
Depressurisation and repressurisation will cause moisture and salt to get in and attack the battery, or a lightning strike , or static electricity zap make the device kaput.
Minature solenoids suffer from vibration, and fatigue breakages. If using
Re:A question (Score:2)
My God! They let children drink this stuff!
This is Bolt 2.0 (Score:5, Funny)
BOLT 2.0 is future of internet hosting.
Call my company now to find out how not to get left behind.
Ben there, done that (Score:2)
NASA has been doing this for years, or did he think that someone went along every unmanned satellite to undo the bolts holding it together. NASA tends to prefer the one-time use explosive bolt because it is extremely reliable, but sometimes they have things like docking module fasteners that can be remotely operated.
As an aside, if you want to move something from here to there exactly once, the explosive bolt is the mos
Secure? My ass.... (Score:2)
Well, my garage door opener [liftmaster.com] also says it has secure codes:
For greater security, our screw drive openers include Security+® rolling code technology. Each time the remote is activated, Security+ automatically rolls the code over to
That wouldn't be the worst part. (Score:2)
No, the real pain will come when you all tumble to the front of the airplane as it's augering into the ground like a lawn dart!
We're back to the future! (Score:2)
--Rob
Does this count as DRM then? (Score:2, Interesting)
Voiding the Warranty (Score:3, Interesting)
cliche (Score:2)
Pix and Photos of Production Products (Score:2, Informative)
If I worked on such a technology... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Wait for full deplyoment.
2) Design a tiny transmitter, they seemed to be saying these things could be "Daisy Chained" so you would only need to be near one bolt--that means a good transmitter taped to a watch battery could be as small as a quarter. You worked at the company, so figureing out the codes should be a no-brainer, they are probably as easy to hack as RFID.
3) Place the transmitter somewhere under/in a chair (maybe slit the fabric somewhere or bubble-gum attach it underneath on a few dozen planes.
4) It mid-flight, five flights later one goes of and unlatches all the seats, then starts sending an invalid signal every 5 minutes so they cannot be re-latched for landing.
5) send a letter to the airlines saying there are more set to go off in the future, but you'd be glad to sell them the locations
6) profit.
Yeah, I guess that sucks--probably why I'm not a theif.
Re:If I worked on such a technology... (Score:2)
Thief? That's not stealing, dude, that's stuff like:
-extortion
-recklessly endangering human life
-hacking, dmca violations etc
-probably murder/manslaughter (you'd likely kill all/most people on board that plane. As others have stated, balance of the airplane would be thrown off... that's bad)
In fact I wouldn't be too surprised if the government convicted you as a terrorist.
You really haven't thought this one through, dude
Cheers
Stor
Get screwed (Score:2)
Mal-2
DRM + trusted computing + computer control'd latch (Score:2)
POPUP: I'm sorry Dave, you shouldn't have opened my case.
Have to say it (Score:2)
Actually these things are pretty cool. But I don't want my airline seats to be attached with these things. I want them real solid so it takes guys hours to replace them. I don't want to worry about a lightning strike or embedded vulnerability disabling them or something!
Re: (Score:2)
Ob. Slashdot Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the DMCA makes hacking the encrypted communication to the fasteners a crime in its own right, only people who the vehicle manufacturer authorises can undo them. They presumably are their franchised dealer service centres and will not include the owner of the vehicle or their chosen unaffiliated repairer.
But why stop at the airbag? Why not bolt the hood down with the same things so that only the dealer can service the vehicle?
Heck, why not bolt the fuel filler cap shut with the same things. I imagine you could afford to give cars away if for their lifetime, they could only be refuelled at a Ford owned gas station.
If the devices become cheap enough, you might never be able to take the cover off anything you own again.
Re:Ob. Slashdot Paranoia (Score:2)
Well, it would certainly lead to a run on Dremel tools...
Re:Ob. Slashdot Paranoia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ob. Slashdot Paranoia (Score:2)
Personally, I have often wondered why someone doesn't already do this - sell a car that only has two inputs: fuel and wiper fluid. Not that I think it would be a good idea, it is just that GM or Ford might think it is a good idea...
Re:Ob. Slashdot Paranoia (Score:2)
I doubt that a class action would follow if they did bolt the hood down (I was assuming that there would be no hood), since that would be known before the vehicle was purchased.
Kinda like buying an iPod...