Harnessing Subatomic Effects for Product Authentication 50
Anon writes: "Israeli company Microtag claims to have come up with a way to avoid counterfits, and they mean everything from CDs to clothes to cash to vegetable seeds. Mix several micrograms of their 'magic powder' - which is engineered with a unique identification using the matter's spin - into your product - and later you can verify its authenticity with a relatively low-cost reader. Although their presumption is that no-one else will be able to create this 'magic powder' (which is probably only a matter of time and enough money), an Israeli article claims that Motorola and even the Bank of England are interested in the technology."
Karma Suicide!!! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Mod him up for humor. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mod him up for humor. (Score:2)
His Karma-Fire-Sale may call some moderators onto the floor.
Re:Mod him up for humor. (Score:1)
Mi Sh'nichnas Adar Marbim B'Simcha
I'm sorry sir... (Score:5, Funny)
Authentication, hell: (Score:1, Funny)
~~~
It's a neat idea (Score:1)
It's a neat idea. It doesn't say on the page, but it seems to imply that it is ready to deploy. WOW! Motorola is manufacturing, and seems to be supplying capital. This could be a huge deal in 1-2 years, since the product is unique and supposedly cheap. Too bad it's not public...
A couple example applications (Score:2, Insightful)
o tagging of removable media, so cases of copyright infringment can be linked to the purchaser of the blank CDR
o tagging of currency, eliminating that pesky tax evasion, drug trade, and prostitution problems often associated with anonymity
Yes, this seems like wonderful technology. Really.
~~~
Re:A couple example applications (Score:1)
Re:A couple example applications (Score:1)
In the US, and other 1st world, democratic countries there are rights that prevent this. The problem with tracking down dissidents is that they do it, not how good the government is at tracking them.
Where are the details? (Score:2)
A few buzzwords, the prefix NANO, and we're all supposed to swoon in awe of them...
Well, I say BULLSHIT... Unless they cut the crap, put up some details and explain themselves, I'm just going to have to assume this is yet another adventure in security through obscurity. We all know how well that works.
--Mike--
I'll bet it's not even that good. (Score:3, Funny)
chemical markers already in use? (Score:2)
Re:chemical markers already in use? (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC during the cold war the US monitored soviet nuclear tests by measuring the atmospheric proportion of a few carefully chosen isotopes, and could not only work out how many nuclear tests had been performed, but how powerful the explosions were.
Re:chemical markers already in use? (Score:1)
In addition, they keep samples of most every run of powder ever produced so that in the case that powder residue is found at a crime scene, they can run a spectographic analysis and figure out where the powder was manufactured.
I have heard that most explosives and substances that could be used to produce explosives (certain fertilizers, etc) in the US are tagged with a with a chemical compound. Not sure if it's true, though.
Re:chemical markers already in use? (Score:2, Interesting)
The goal was not to detect explosives at a distance, but to be able to identify it after the fact. The usual debates: the NRA, the ATF, etc. It was above board, at the congressional level, not a consipriacy. In the end, nothing came of it.
probably no magic here (Score:2)
This really seems like a non-digital PGP "key" (Score:2)
For instance, a company can send out shipping and inventory forms with their "key" printed in the ink, which the buyer is wary of. That way, competitor can't falsify forms or orders or somesuch.
Or, and I think a really interesting application, schools can verify that students have actually turned in their own work. Sure, you can still copy, but there's nothing worse than having Bart Simpson scrawl his name down on your test and get accepted into the special school. =P
Motorola interested in the technology. (Score:3, Funny)
(at trade show)
salesman: "Hey, we've got a magic powder that we can mix into stuff and do cool stuff with it and stuff"
joe schmoe:"Yeah, that would be kinda cool if you can make it work. Maybe then I'd even buy some of it for myself"
salesman:"What company do you work for Sir?"
joe schmoe:"Motorola. Why do you ask?"
They already do this... (Score:1)
They also use mixtures of chemicals that have different quantities of isotopes to the naturally occuring versions that, once again, are easy to find, but only if you know what to search for and have the right equipment.
-- kai
At last, practical application for quantum physics (Score:1)
Maybe if this quantum-entanglement authenticator takes off, it will lead naturally to quantum computers.
Imagine how easy it would be to crack strong crypto if you had one of those quantum computers on the case!!!
Applications already exist. (Score:1)
Re:At last, practical application for quantum phys (Score:2)
Re:At last, practical application for quantum phys (Score:2)
Submolecular not subatomic. (Score:4, Informative)
Someone else mentioned that this makes sense if you say UV instead of RF - well that may be true but its hardly new. Here [spectra-science.com] for example is a UV taggant that works on that principal.
It may well be that their selling point is that they _are_ using RF taggants because its too easy to check if a UV taggant has been applied to something (one of the uses of UV powder tags is to check which employee has touched eg a secure terminal. You have been warned!)
It's not really a "new technology"... (Score:3, Insightful)
- The technology uses materials with "very unique physical and chemical properties" at the "sub-molecular level."
- The reader is an RF "transceiver" which can detect the material in a manner analogous to "magnetic resonance imaging."
Sounds to me like they've build themselves a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectrometer that doesn't have to be very powerful due to bulk effects -- fire some RF at it, stop, then listen.
There's nothing keeping anyone from using a more powerful NMR spectrometer to isolate the material and reproduce it. So maybe they'd just lobby to have NMR spectroscopy outlawed as a "counterfeiting tool." Security through obscurity reigns...
Re:It's not really a "new technology"... (Score:2)
Re:It's not really a "new technology"... (Score:1)
The problem with chemical "keys" as I see it is that there will be two few chemical compounds in any given ink (for the paper case). This makes a brute force attack to discover the key quite feasible using mass spectometry and similar inks.
How would one calculate the resources necessary to conduct such a brute force attack? This uncertainty will make it difficult to assess what types of things you can logically protect with such a system. It is still pretty cool, and should provide a horrendous deterrant, but before going and protecting anything really valuable like an entire currency supply with it, the risk levels need to be better understood. If the company can't provide information on how easy their taggants are to crack, then they probably are just pulling the old "security by obscurity" trick, and since the compound is physically present, there is no way to prevent a determined attacker from discovering the secret (unlike a password) and once the secret is out, its out.
Re:It's not really a "new technology"... (Score:1)
People, stop blindly applying this mantra to everything you come across! Much practical security comes directly from obscurity: passwords only known by a few people and protected against unintended disclosure, metal keys of unknown shapes, PINs that must be used in addition to account numbers,
"Security through obscurity" refers to obscurity of the algorithm, not to the presence of unknown keys, passwords, or PINs. The whole point is that a strong security system is still secure when everything except the key is known, whereas a "security through obscurity" one is compromised (often for all keys) once its inner workings are discovered.
Re:It's not really a "new technology"... (Score:2)
My point was that all security comes from obscurity, and not just of digital cryptographic keys. Every enhancement to obscurity in any part of the system makes the system more secure.
1) True, but keeping the whole thing secret makes it even more secure. Various logistical issues make this expensive to do for practical ciphers, but it's true. 2) Not all security systems are based on symmetric numerical ciphers, and their obscurity equations can be significantly different. In particular, chemical security systems behave as a public key system where even looking at the "public key" (chemical structure) is extremely expensive, nevermind finding a "private key" (synthesis process) that goes with the "public key". Knowledge gained about numerical ciphers does not directly apply to other security methods.Moreover, different security systems have different goals. Classical numerical ciphers are intended to provide the highest possible secrecy for numerical data. Anti-counterfeiting systems, on the other hand, are intended to raise the cost of counterfeiting high enough that many potential counterfeiters are stopped.
Re:It's not really a "new technology"... (Score:1)
My primary concern with this "security" is that I can't imagine such a low-resolution device would provide enough different keys for everyone who might be interested. And this is where the "obscurity" comes in... if they had published their algorithm ("Yeah, basically we have a material we change the ligands on, detected via low-field bulk NMR, and hopefully we can resell the same key to companies on different continents before we saturate the market") no one would be interested. It's not a matter of how much time it takes to crack... it's more the likelihood that when one gets cracked, they would all be compromised. Not particularly secure if you ask me.
But then again, I might be way off base about what they're doing; they don't tell us much, do they? YMMV.
This will work great... (Score:1)
Re:Never Be Rude to an Arab (Score:1)
When are they... (Score:1)