Re: We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too
At 06:16 AM 5/13/2004 +1000, Ian Farquhar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would almost bet money that the commercial interests currently evaluating RFID tags will push for a legislative ban on RFID jamming. And I'll bet they get it too. I really won't matter what they prohibit, it will get out into the market anyway if its cheap enough to manufacture and there is sufficient demand. Cellular jammers, which should be much more expensive to make than those for RFID, are a good example. AFAIK they are illegal for the average citizen to posses one, yet they are as close as your browser to purchase. steve
Re: We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too
>> ASK any Elmer you happen to see, >> what's the best jamming, RFID.. >> (With apologies to the tuna industry and those too young to >> know the jingle. Or to know the RF double meanings.) >Interesting cultural reference that goes entirely above my head with a >cute swooshing sound. >Care to explain, please? :) I hope the subject line was not too obscure, mon. ASK = amplitude shift keying, which I believe is the RFID modulation Elmer = guru/wizard/elder in HAMspeak Jingle: Ask any mermaid you happen to see, what's the best tuna? Chicken of the sea. Ie, fish in cans. Sorry Charlie. Charlie don't surf, but that's because tuna cans don't give enough forward gain. Tying knots in the cultural web, MV
Re: We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Major Variola (ret) wrote: | RFID jamming should be very easy and a quite amusing DoS attack | on commercial targets. Easy because its not frequency hopping, low | power, and relatively low frequency. Particularly cute would be | transmitting sex-toy codes intermittently. I would almost bet money that the commercial interests currently evaluating RFID tags will push for a legislative ban on RFID jamming. And I'll bet they get it too. Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAooY0SVC5oflyiAIRApAQAKCSflfED0AYd25kF6oUJZ8cffm7GACgj73q JrFT7ErGpPnGdSZMLFJgPd0= =PrA0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too
You might want to look at the work RSA Labs is doing on 'blocker tags'. These are special tags which leverage the mechanism used to disambiguate the presence of multiple tags to make it look as if you are carrying 2^n (n usually 128) different tags at once. They propose a protocol to make them only block tags for items which have undergone sale to their final owner, but the idea could be applied to all tags. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/rfid/index.asp Peter Trei Full Disclosure: I work for RSA > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Major Variola (ret) > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too > > > At 03:09 PM 5/11/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >The second covers a "hacking the system" concept. I'd considered > >something similar myself, though different in approach. Rather than > >finding RFID chips and "redistributing" them, why not create > >programmable RFID broadcasters which could spoof other chips, and > >distribute these. The idea being to pollute any RFID > detectors with a > >vast spew of superfluous data. > > RFID jamming should be very easy and a quite amusing DoS attack > on commercial targets. Easy because its not frequency hopping, low > power, and relatively low frequency. Particularly cute would be > transmitting sex-toy codes intermittently. > > ASK any Elmer you happen to see, > what's the best jamming, RFID.. > > (With apologies to the tuna industry and those too young to > know the jingle. Or to know the RF double meanings.) > > > >
Re: CDR: We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too
On May 12, 2004, at 12:47 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 03:09 PM 5/11/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: The second covers a "hacking the system" concept. I'd considered something similar myself, though different in approach. Rather than finding RFID chips and "redistributing" them, why not create programmable RFID broadcasters which could spoof other chips, and distribute these. The idea being to pollute any RFID detectors with a vast spew of superfluous data. RFID jamming should be very easy and a quite amusing DoS attack on commercial targets. Easy because its not frequency hopping, low power, and relatively low frequency. Particularly cute would be transmitting sex-toy codes intermittently. ASK any Elmer you happen to see, what's the best jamming, RFID.. (With apologies to the tuna industry and those too young to know the jingle. Or to know the RF double meanings.) I remember the tune (grin). Ah, childhood. Would RFID jamming really be effective? RFID scanners work when the chip passes the scanner - when a pallet passes a door for instance - at which point the scanner 'knows' that chips Abe, Bill, Charlie passed point Delta. To get the jammer to work it would have to be run past the scanner - I don't see how an RFID jammer planted in (say) the changing room at Wal-Mart would be an effective DoS? It's possible I'm ill-informed or just unclear on the concept. ~~brian
Re: We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too
> RFID jamming should be very easy and a quite amusing DoS attack > on commercial targets. Easy because its not frequency hopping, low > power, and relatively low frequency. Particularly cute would be > transmitting sex-toy codes intermittently. Considering the transmitting powers of the tags, an active battery-powered transmitter with a suitable antenna could have rather long range. A small circuit with a battery could be magnetically attached to a car of a selected "victim" and switched on after a delay, resulting in a mobile jamming platform. Parking lots in front of the stores, where there is often a direct line of sight between the cash registers and the cars, are especially suitable for this kind of attack. > ASK any Elmer you happen to see, > what's the best jamming, RFID.. > (With apologies to the tuna industry and those too young to > know the jingle. Or to know the RF double meanings.) Interesting cultural reference that goes entirely above my head with a cute swooshing sound. Care to explain, please? :) For personal defense, I came up with a similar, smaller-range and lower-power idea: - Micropower RFID jammer Very-low power passive/active jammer of passive RFID tags Radiofrequency tags bring a wide variety of privacy-related concerns. A semi-passive jammer may be an option to alleviate some of them. The tags are powered from the electromagnetic field the reader irradiates them with, then they transmit back on another frequency. The transmission takes some time, I guess few milliseconds, and is detectable by a nearby receiver. The tags are made in two kinds: "plain", and more advanced collision-resistant ones. The first kind transmits blindly whenever powered, repeating its signature over and over, which causes two tags within the field of one reader to jam each other, as their responses get mixed together. The second, more expensive kind, uses algorithms to avoid the situation when two tags transmit at the same time, overlapping their responses and making them difficult to recognize; most often detecting another tag transmitting, and then going silent for random amount of time. This behavior makes it possible to design a micropower jammer. The device shall listen on the frequencies both the readers and the tags transmit on. When the tag read attempt is detected, the device owner may be alerted - by a LED, a sound, a vibration. Then when the device detects the tag's attempt to answer, it broadcasts pulses looking like the answer of another tag, forcing a collision and a misread into every answer. The tiny power required for occassional transmitting of few very short pulses makes the device unlikely to cause other kinds of trouble, while additionaly making it less easy to be detected if declared illegal than "continuous" jammers.
We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too
At 03:09 PM 5/11/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >The second covers a "hacking the system" concept. I'd considered >something similar myself, though different in approach. Rather than >finding RFID chips and "redistributing" them, why not create >programmable RFID broadcasters which could spoof other chips, and >distribute these. The idea being to pollute any RFID detectors with a >vast spew of superfluous data. RFID jamming should be very easy and a quite amusing DoS attack on commercial targets. Easy because its not frequency hopping, low power, and relatively low frequency. Particularly cute would be transmitting sex-toy codes intermittently. ASK any Elmer you happen to see, what's the best jamming, RFID.. (With apologies to the tuna industry and those too young to know the jingle. Or to know the RF double meanings.)
