Airport Body Scanners

[arch3angel at gmail.com (Arch Angel)]

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>

>  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] *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
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.pauldotcom.com/pipermail/pauldotcom/attachments/20090306/94e3f4e8/attachment.htm