Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • May 9, 2012 7:08 PM

@ Scared,

It’s now obvious to everybody that simple meta detectors are not enough, contrary to what is claimed by certain security bloggers

Can you name one incident where an explosive bomb (not seting fire to gas canisters) without metal in it has been successfully exploaded in a AQ or other terrorist plot?

Over on last Fridays squid page I left a posting about the problems with detonators and put down a challenge for people to make a “reliable friction match” from chemicals available to them (not by grinding up existing match heads).

The problem with detonating the main charge of a bomb without using any metal is converting simple low energy mechanical or chemical energy into released energy of the right level and rise time (for instance putting a blow torch on C4 and many other explosives will cause it to burn not explode, and hitting it with a hammer will just flatten it out).

As anyone who has tried to do this for real will tell you it’s actually very difficult. What you need to do is form an explosive/detonation train/chain.

These normaly start with a barely stable explosive such as a fulminate or chlorate on an easily deformable metal plate or electrical heating element (but this needs metal…) which then sets of another small quantity of another not quite as unstable explosive which provides greater energy. This may be in a small preasure vessel designed to burst in a predictable way (to initiate another more stable explosive) or it may use a graded mixture of two explosives. The result is usually sufficient energy with a fast enough rise time to ensure actual detonation of the main charge, if the main charge is a marginaly stable explosive. However if it’s a comercial explosive or military explosive these are usually designed to be very stable and thus another stage may be required. And in normal train/chain designs there is usually an “arming cut out” to prevent accidental initiation of the first and second stages reaching later stages thus hopefully preventing the main charge going of in the middle of a stack of prepared for deployment weapons as they are being loaded onto or into the delivery system.

You could try making a “homemade chain” using say conc sulfuric acid, sugar and a good old fashioned weed killer by carefully grading the suar and weed killer you could hopefully if you can find a sturdy enough non metalic pipe get it to set off one of several unstable but high energy explosives you can “make in the bath”. Alternativly you could use a piece of very strong thread with a few knots on it and embed it a “made in the bath” explosive to rip out like a “party popper”, but it might be easier to modify a part popper…

Clive Robinson • May 9, 2012 7:45 PM

It is interesting to note that the early reports on this story indicated that it was not actually a US operation but one carried out by a US allie and the agent was native to the region and drove across the boarder with the device, further that the device was flown to the US so that they could examine it….

Now assuming that is true, it suggests that it might well have been a Saudi who was the agent under the control of the Saudi Intel service. I guess most people remember the “ass bomber” which came very close to “offing” a member of the Saudi rulling elite and head of their intel service, was the brother of the person who supposadly designed this new device.

Now unlike the British Intel services who have had enough of the US blowing under cover operations for purely political reasons the Saudi’s are still quite amenable to this.

Therfore at a guess I would say it is not unlikely that it was a Saudi operation from start to finish aimed specifficaly at getting the bomb designer. However it is has been indicated that he may have gone on to “another place” when a drone got close.

If this is true then a Saudi operation to get him has lost it’s prime objective, so they might well have little reason to keep the operation going anyway.

There’s a few “ifs” there but if the operation was real (as opposed to a fund raiser) it makes more sense of what has been said than the other scenarios suggested.

Another indicator of it not being a US operation is the way the information is comming out in the US and how first the CIA and now the FBI and other agencies appear to be grabing a piece of “Victory pie” whilst there is still a few crumbs left on the plate.

Over all as I said on the Friday Squid page it has a lot of hallmarks of a “fund raiser” operation the question being by who and for whom…

it might just be a few self interested US TLA seniors doing it as a way to ensure the “nearly nude” scanners keep being purchased, or it might as others have suggested been a political campaign booster.

Of one thing I feel reasonably sure is we are not going to find out any time soon if ever…

Clive Robinson • May 11, 2012 4:17 AM

This gets more interesting by the day…

A little history prior to 9/11 and from the mid 1970’s London was kind of the crossroads and lodging place for many of those dispossessed we now consider terrorists (and many who have since been “giffted power” by allied military intervention. The advantage for the various intel agencies was they were in a. nice place to keep an eye on.

As I’ve mentioned the UK traditonal intel services (5/6) have historicaly said nothing and been very carefull about “methods and sources” (not so the likes the Police forces who by accident or design have a poor history of keeping shtum).

Well it appears that the agent was probably a UK asset, they certainly carried a British Passport and had lived here for some years.

Having provided information that lead to the demise of the probable bomb designer on Sunday somebody in the US leaked the story and it appears various attempts have been made in the UK to hush it up a bit.

However what is still not clear is who the agents primary handlers on this operation were (Saudi or UK), from what has been said it still appears very unlikely it was the US.

The reason for sending the device to the US appears to be the “Gentalman’s agreement” under the supposed “Special Arrangement”.

And it appears almost certain the releasing of the information is a politicaly inspired stunt by somebody…

However the question that remains is the what and how of the agent being able to get in so close and still have the freedom to report back. This implies that the security arangments of the terrorists are well below par currently…

Thus it appears that the resources on this intel excercise have been fairly well spent compared to the usual TSA et al expenditure.

Clive Robinson • May 12, 2012 4:10 AM

@ O W,

It was rumored that sniff dogs can’t detect the stuff which was probable another reason it was used.

I don’t know enough about AP and sniffer dogs to say in the speciffic case. However in the more general case of drug dogs or “chemical agent monitors” (CAM devices) there are four basic reasons that they don’t detect them,

1, The substance is in an appropriate sealed container that has then been washed to remove “key smells”.

2, The background level of “key smells” or “masking smells” is to high for reliable indication. Even humans suffer from this with “orange or mint oils”

3, The dog has not been trained on the “key smell” of the substance.

4, The substance genuinely does not have a distinguishable “key smell”.

It would be interesting to know if AP does lack a key smell I know atleast one of it’s ingredients does not, so I’m guessing a combination of 2&3.

Clive Robinson • May 13, 2012 3:50 AM

@ anonymous coward,

Building a friction igniter is easy (but totally unnecessary)

The point behind making as an experiment a “friction igniter” is quite simple, it is as far as I’m aware not illegal in most places to do so, however making a detonator train of any kind is in many places certainly a recipe for a long custodial sentence. Also those chosing to do the experiments from scratch are less likely to lose parts of their anatomy in the process, and thereby gain knowledge of the difficulties involved with designing just the first part of an explosive chain.

I’m sorry that you did not realise why I picked a simple but real world experiment as an example (even just reading about the history of making matches is a worthwhile excercise).

As for your C4 explanation, what you have described is an explosive train, oh and if you actuall think about, it contrary to what you say,

Just plain regular air as a confinement.

The confinement is not air for anything other than the top surface of your pyrotechnic composition. Also as you described it is orientation dependent which is a bit of a problem for many uses.

However for some reason terrorists choose not to go down your supposadly simple C4 route even though as you say,

They even manage to get their hands on military grade explosives!

Why do you think that would be? why go to all the trouble of making up certain types of explosive and explossive trains without metal?

Sometimes to realise why something is not happening people need to think like those who are failing in achiving it as an objective. To do that they need both the knowledge from books and the ability to relate it to real world problems by carrying out a certain degree of experimentation both safely and legaly.

Clive Robinson • May 14, 2012 5:38 PM

@ Andy,

Haven’t a lot of people been saying for a long time that the answer was to stop doing security theater and [start] doing real security, including good old fashioned humint

Yes and I’m one of them.

Now that good old-fashioned humint actually did the job, we have to find a reason to find that sinister. Some people just can’ take “yes’ for an answer.

Actually what many of us find sinister is the releasing of the information in such an inept manner. It came across originaly as either a “fund raiser” or “campaign marker” with TLA’s jumping onto the plate to grab their piece of pie.

What is certain is who ever leaked the information “blew the operation out of the water” and put the agent’s life very much at risk and possibly those of his friends and family. It has shades of “Scooter Libby” about it with outing an agent just for political mileage.

What is still not clear is who the agent’s handlers were, it appears to be either or both the Saudies and British, what is clear is the CIA was at best sitting well outside the ball park on this one.

Likewise the focus of the operation was very unlikely to have been getting hold of the latest incarnation of the pants bomb. Most likely it would have been to find and put out of circulation the actuall bomb designer.

It was thought on the preceading Sunday the bomb designer had been killed along with others but it didn’t pan out that way. The leak appears to have originated after the attack but before the actuall death toll was known.

Thus any hope of reaquiring the target was lost with the agent being outed…

Clive Robinson • May 15, 2012 11:49 PM

@ Anon

Have you ever tried to do that for real? Were you EOD in the military or in SWAT? It’s a federal felony to build, possess, or test a homemade explosive device

I can tell from this question you are not a regular reader. If you look back at my previous posts over the years you will find,

I don’t reside in the US nor am I a US citizen, thus US federal law does not (or atleast should not) apply to me (or many other readers of this blog).

Also that I used to not only “wear the green” for a number of years, I also as a civilian worked in the oil, mining and related industries. Where I designed equipment for the industries including intrinsicaly safe equipment as well as equipment for bomb disposal and protection against what are now refered to as IED’s.

You would also know that as a young adolescent I used to make my own explosives and pyrotechnics (but not fireworks) and as such that was not illegal back then. I also for a short while was involved with what you might call “demolition” as it used explosives to destroy things although more correctly it was decommissioning or “puting beyond use” certain nolonger required hardware that had military uses. Oh and I also have tinitus from being underly cautious with the ear defenders whilst doing many of these activities.

[A word to the wise to anyone under twenty reading this look after your hearing there is absolutly nothing macho/manly about tinitus. It is realy without a doubt quite unpleasently annoying in oh so many ways, including keeping you awake at night, stopping you concentrating and spoiling your ability to talk to people or enjoy music, films etc and at times causing you real physical pain. Oh and learning to read peoples lips is not a skill that has many other practical uses…]

I’m curious as to why you asked about SWAT as it may well be things have changed a lot in more recent times. In the general case such personnel didn’t make or deal with improvised explosives they’d call on other specialists for that sort of work. Even a lot of military Special Forces personnel don’t deal with improvised explosives other than recognising them for what they are and how to avoid becoming a casualty of them. Not having been to the US for a while (nore intending to do so whilst the TSA and their ilk exist) things may well have changed for SWAT personnel especialy as it is becoming evident that more and more US police forces are becoming more weaponised as are the likes of coast guards and harbour masters.

I don’t know when it became Federal law in the US but in most parts of the world in the last century making or using explosive devices was not illegal, unless the purpose for which they were made or used was illegal. Also if you think about it “homemade” is an awkward word as many of the things demolition and mining engineers do is most definatly ad hoc or bespoke, including making certain explosives used in quarrying in a cement mixer.

However as you will see from my comments further up this post I’m aware that in a limited number of parts of the world it is illegal to make explosives and fireworks, but it is still not illegal to experiment in making similar things such as friction matches etc.

I’m also part of an older generation taught in many things whilst young by those who went through WWII many of whom considered the best way to deal with “curiosity in the young” was to show the curious how to do the things that interested them in a safe way, and thus either get it out of their system or potentialy give them a start in a trade. It is a view point I hold myself, because back in the mists of time you “came of age” when you could safely do work on a farm and that was usually before you were seven. When I was going through my early education you were expected to leave sometime between eleven and fourteen to start in on a trade unless you were lucky enough to have passed your “eleven pluss” and be off to “grammar school” and become some kind of “professional”. Now you are expected to stay in fulltime education untill your mid twenties or later, as you need a degree these days to even “do a trade” let alone any kind of profession…

[ The problem with this is that for somewhere between a quater and a third of you natuaral life span you get no “real world work experiance” or “real world knowledge” and the “self reliance” that comes of it. Worse due to H&S and other considerations you don’t even get “hands on” experiance these days so caution taught does not become caution learned and understood. Further in our current times of low interest rates you also lose the first ten years of “earning your pension” which will have a very serious effect on the age you can retire (if at all) in anything remotely aproaching comfort. ]

Also those that taught me so much in my early life did not panic needlessly or at all. When small boys found ammunition and such like that had been hidden away by the likes of the “home guard” and forgoton about. There was no shutting down of huge areas whilst UXB and other people arived to do their “dog and pony show”. By and large it was just carried down to the local police station for later pick up by army personnel. And the “lucky finder” who handed it in would get a pat on the head and a cup of tea and a biscuit or two whilst waiting for his parents to pick him up and hear him being praised for “being a responsible lad” before they took him home (or atleast that was my experiance of the process on a couple of occasions).

From my viewpoint much in life has changed most of it very much for the worse and society these days appears to have sold it’s soul for illusions and falsehoods. People are taught falsely to fear something that in reality will not effect them except through the evening news and the economy destroying tax extorted from them to waste on illusions of protection. Thus they don’t address the things that realy will hurt them and put them in an early grave, such as an unhealthy and by and large ignorant of real life and it’s dangers population.

The solution is “Teach’m young and teach’m well” to encorage them to be inquisitive about the world and most importantly develope the confidence, skills and knowledge to be self reliant in most things.