Airport Body Scanners

[signupjar at gmail.com (SignupJar)]

The only real defenses are either leaving that part of spectrum 
(frequency hopping) or make the ECM weak relative to the receiver 
(highly directional antennas or high power transmit/receive mode). It is 
the quintessential problem of an uncontrolled shared medium.

Arch Angel wrote:
> That's exactly what I thought would be the result - I know some of the 
> things I worked on in the Army I dealt with different items that had 
> similar effects but was curious if this concept fell into the same realm...
>
> The next question I pose is if these items are to secure our airways and 
> can be scrambled or jammed then our, ooooo so qualified TSA agents are 
> going to fall back onto the metal detector scanner and call for 
> maintenance as people begin to file through the "defective" body 
> scanner.  Wont this pose a massive flaw in the design as well as our 
> safety on flights?
>
> I guess my thoughts shift away from is it possible to how to prevent.  
> Will any sheilding currently in development or production protect the 
> scanners waves and the displays of our fearless TSA agents?
>
> 2009/3/6 Manley, Jim W <jim.w.manley at lmco.com 
> <mailto:jim.w.manley at lmco.com>>
>
>     Basically what you?ve described is an electronic countermeasures
>     (ECM) device similar to what is used in both ground-based and
>     airborne scenarios to disrupt electronic sensors operating in the
>     frequency range of interest.
>
>      
>
>     Based on work I?ve done with ECM gear, depending on the location of
>     the ?jammer? with respect to the scanner?s aperture, the jammer?s
>     signal strength, and the jammers radiation pattern, the scanner
>     operator will see something akin to what you see on a television
>     receiving a very weak or no signal.  If the jammer is has enough
>     signal strength and is properly positioned, the operator?s screen
>     would be a ?white out.? 
>
>      
>
>     Jim
>
>      
>
>     1st Immutable Law of Computer Security
>
>     If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer,
>
>     it's not your computer anymore.
>
>      
>
>     *From:* pauldotcom-bounces at pdc-mail.pauldotcom.com
>     <mailto:pauldotcom-bounces at pdc-mail.pauldotcom.com>
>     [mailto:pauldotcom-bounces at pdc-mail.pauldotcom.com
>     <mailto:pauldotcom-bounces at pdc-mail.pauldotcom.com>] *On Behalf Of
>     *Arch Angel
>     *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2009 5:13 PM
>     *To:* PaulDotCom Security Weekly Mailing List
>     *Subject:* [Pauldotcom] Airport Body Scanners
>
>      
>
>     I was researching some information for a buddy who had questions
>     about these body scanners some of the airports are beginning to use,
>     well during my intertube travels I noticed that the signal used is a
>     1mm wavelength.  Well my buddy got the info he was wanting and some
>     of these tid bits I found, as I had been taking good notes for him,
>     and began to converse with his buddy Bob who researched the 1mm
>     signal that is put out by these scanners and found that the 1mm
>     wavelength actually converts to 299.792458 GHz which is within the
>     spec for an amature radio operator.
>
>     Well Bob began to ponder (out loud I might add) what would happen if
>     a person developed a small device that would transmit random white
>     noise on a range of say 295 --> 300 Ghz ?
>
>     He said that the viewable devices or systems would be directly
>     connected to the machine so the devices reading the images would not
>     be affected but what about the general image being taken, could it
>     be distorted by this device transmitting from somewhere in the area
>     of this scanner?
>
>     Could a device small enough even be built to transmit these freqs?
>
>     Now I tried my best to explain to Bob that scanners at an airport
>     are by no means a place to play games and test his ideas as you fall
>     under some interesting laws and these people have the right to do a
>     full body search for additional tiny devices in places tiny devices
>     are never ment to go.  He agreed not to use his curiousity for evil,
>     and that he was just curious as to the result of said interference. 
>     Bob has verbally acknowledged the full understanding of a test such
>     as this and the laws involved, agreeing the end result is not worth
>     the chance you would take...
>
>     However it does raise the question...
>
>     What would be the result of such an interference be..................
>
>     Arch3Angel
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Pauldotcom mailing list
>     Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com <mailto:Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com>
>     http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
>     Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com