Firing a Locked Smart Gun

The Armatix IP1 "smart gun" can only be fired by someone who is wearing a special watch. Unfortunately, this security measure is easily hackable.

Posted on July 27, 2017 at 6:14 AM • 37 Comments

Comments

bickerdykeJuly 27, 2017 6:47 AM

Well, it's the old case of secure against WHAT.

I'd guess the main reason for the "smart" safety is preventing being shot with your own gun, either by accident, the gun being grabbed by kids or wrestled from you in a close combat situation.

If it takes 5 minutes to set up the rig to allow shooting with a gun that should be locked, there would be time to set up a non-smart gun.

So I don't see any danger from unauthorized firing, as in these situations shots could be fired from any other gun. (Which in the US could be assumed as present everywhere anyhow)

The jamming attack is far more serious

BobJuly 27, 2017 8:31 AM

@bickerdyke

"The jamming attack is far more serious"

No shit. We've been saying for years that we don't want to bank our lives on something with electronic failure built in.

TatütataJuly 27, 2017 8:56 AM

The gun manufacturer should have watched all those videos about hacking expensive snake-oil electronic padlocks, where someone turns the motor's rotor with the deft motion of a magnet. After all, gunsmiths and locksmiths were historically rather related trades.

A more useful piece of techno-gimmickry would be to condition the firing of the gun to the body camera being enabled... No video, no firing.

vas pupJuly 27, 2017 9:10 AM

I guess that is directly related to the subject:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40671089

"The security industry needs to worry less about technology and more about people, said Facebook's security boss.
He said there was too much focus on technically complex "stunt" hacks and not enough on finding ways to help the mass of people stay safe. The problem would only worsen if the industry did not become more diverse and exhibit more empathy, he said.
…often security experts had little interest in or empathy for people, he said. This attitude was exemplified by the thought he often heard security pros express that there would be fewer breaches and less data lost if people were perfect, he added.

Instead, Mr Stamos said, it would be better if the industry tried to work with those imperfections by giving people tools and services that were more straight-forward to use.
!!!Facebook had set up initiatives that sought to make its workforce more balanced and which encouraged people with non-technical backgrounds to get involved in developing secure systems, products and features."
Do you remember 'Scorpion' on TV (CBS)when team of nerds incorporated as a member female with non-technical background bringing human angle to their activities and success as result?

Ergo SumJuly 27, 2017 9:13 AM

Quote from the article:

And most disturbingly, he can mechanically disable the gun's locking mechanism by placing some cheap magnets alongside its barrel, firing the gun at will even when the watch is completely absent.

As the video shows, the magnet is not against the barrel, it'll do no good there. It is held against the firing mechanism at the back end of the slide. Presumably, it's a weak electromagnet that blocks the firing pin from being moved forward by the hammer/cock. The actual magnet just neutralizes the electromagnet that allows firing the "smart gun".

Principally, I am not against smart guns, even if they can be bypassed under certain circumstances, as long as there's zero failure, if and when I'd need to use it. I just don't see how a fully mechanical device could integrate electronic component that cannot be circumvented and won't fail.

Rob NJuly 27, 2017 9:24 AM

The ranger extension and jamming parts aren't too useful. The whole point of a locked gun is that a thief can't steal it and use it (one common way guns get into the hands of criminals), or in a break-in or fight, the gun can't be used against you. We're talking about common criminals here, they're not going to carry around miscellaneous pieces of electronics on the off chance that the next gun they encounter is a smart gun. What is the point of the range extender anyway? You still need something next to the gun and something next to the watch, that gains nothing in practical terms. If you know already where the watch is, just take that too.

You have to weigh the level of security vs. the capability of the people you're protecting against.

Which makes the magnet attack is a bit more serious. It might look a bit goofy, but I can see a gangster duct-taping magnets on the gun. It certainly wouldn't be a desired gun on the street (couldn't be hidden in a waistband), but it would be usable.

Side note, I thought the NRA kept these options away from people, it's nice to see something like this on the market for people who want it. This is better than the trigger locks in my mind, even with the security flaws.

Clive RobinsonJuly 27, 2017 9:51 AM

@ Tatütata,

After all, gunsmiths and locksmiths were historically rather related trades.

In many ways they still are, and this device brings them closer together.

In all but a very few cases when you strip all the chrome and other flash technology off of either a gun or a lock, you end up with a simple mechanical lever and spring to activate them. In the case of a gun it's often a firing pin in a bolt at the rear of the chamber. In the case of a lock it's a latch that via the process of moving sprung loaded leavers or pins controles a latch.

In the case of a lock the "chrome" is where the security lies, as if you remove it all you need to do is "turn/pull the latch". In the case of old car locks it was screw in a slide hammer whack it back a couple of times which rips out the lock barrel the shove in a flat blade screwdriver to turn the latch.

In essence the same applies to a smart gun the lock does not change the basic firing mechanism, all it does is add extra unreliability in the form of an extra --Permisive Action-- link into the firing chain. Simply removing the link or replacing it will remove the smart functionality.

Once you realise that this link in the chain as with so many electronic locks is easily manipulated by a magnet, over comming it is just a matter of a little sideways thinking...

You can also use a little sideways thinking to defeat the use of a simple magnet. In essence you add a second locking link that is normaly left in the unlocked state. But if the permisive action link is drawn by an external magnetic field, this secondary locking link is drawn into the locked state.

Whilst not being a perfect security solution, the second link can make simple magnet attacks too difficult and fiddly to actually carry out reliably.

The problem, with the second link and it's a real one is any additional mechanic or electrical items will increase breakages as well as reducing the day to day reliability of a weapon.

parabarbarianJuly 27, 2017 9:51 AM

@Bob

"No shit. We've been saying for years that we don't want to bank our lives on something with electronic failure built in."

Well, I am sure the police would like a way to shut down a firearm remotely. Think of all the good that will do when the criminals get ahold of the technology.

OTOH, how many people wear their watch on their right wrist? Criminal are not usually the brightest bulbs in the chandelier but they are not completely bereft of intelligence. The whole setup of the Armatix "smart" gun is a shoot-me-first advertisement. Not even Bruce could think that was security done right. Even if it worked perfectly.

Chris FJuly 27, 2017 10:13 AM

@Rob N

We're talking about common criminals here, they're not going to carry around miscellaneous pieces of electronics on the off chance that the next gun they encounter is a smart gun.

Either that or an organized group that did research into what the force they'll be going up against carries. If someone gets their hands on a smart gun and has a way to fire it you will typically no worse off than if you had a standard gun to begin with. Either you'll be able to see them holding something up to the gun and Should be suspicious or you'll lose sight of them and would be foolish to assume it's a non-firing gun. But if you go into a situation expecting a gun to fire and it doesn't that can go downhill much faster.

BillJuly 27, 2017 10:31 AM

@Rob N:
"The whole point of a locked gun is that a thief can't steal it and use it (one common way guns get into the hands of criminals)"

All they need to do is disassemble it enough to remove the plug that blocks the firing pin.

AnuraJuly 27, 2017 10:51 AM

@Bill

Usually only one part of the gun has a serial number and thus restricted sale; the rest of the parts can be bought online. For handguns, this is just the frame - the slide, barrel, trigger mechanism, hammer, springs, pins, magazine, etc. can all be bought online.

Removing a firing pin will not prevent the theft or use, just the immediate use until the part is replaced. Only a gun safe that is too heavy for a thief to easily carry is an effective deterrent against theft.

JohnJuly 27, 2017 11:24 AM

Working-level police universally abhor this "feature". It will only result in making police work riskier than it already is.

ChrisJuly 27, 2017 11:43 AM

That story reminds me of the elevator we had in my high school decades ago. You needed a key to call it and of course only teachers had those keys. It took a few days after the elevator had been installed for some student to figure out that holding a magnet to the panel was just as good as a key. But, then, that was just an elevator. Not sure why decades later anyone would make the same mistake when designing a firearm...

Clive RobinsonJuly 27, 2017 12:09 PM

@ Anura,

Only a gun safe that is too heavy for a thief to easily carry is an effective deterrent against theft.

You forgot to mention, that it should also not be openable by a three year old rattling the door lock...

Somebody I know indirectly purchased an old High Street Bank to convert into a house. With it came a "walk in safe". They also shoot competitively and have both shot guns and rifles (you are nolonger allowed hand guns in the UK). So they thought the safe would be an ideal place to keep them and installed some gun cases.

Anyway the UK fire arms regs require you to have a police officer come around and inspect where not just the guns but the amunition will be stored. The police officer who inspected the premises for his private firearms ticket decided that the gun cases were not secure enough to be used, and did not accept that the fact they were in a walk in safe was sufficient security.

However another police officer who visited the property because he had decided to become a gun dealer, decided that the walk in safe was fine.

So OK to store a large number of guns to sell but not OK for a small number of guns for private use...

As the saying has it "Go figure".

Dirk PraetJuly 27, 2017 12:43 PM

@ John

Working-level police universally abhor this "feature". It will only result in making police work riskier than it already is.

Getting attacked or even shot could be considered somewhat of an occupational hazard when serving as a police officer in a country with very liberal gun laws. Getting shot in pajamas by a freaked out cop while reporting in a possible sexual assault most definitely is not. I kinda get that this is the sort of control the average US LEO is definitely not waiting for, but it could probably have a positive net effect on the number of innocent and unarmed civilians shot by trigger-happy cops every year.

As to the design of the Armatix IP1's "security" feature, it's back to the drawing board.

TedJuly 27, 2017 12:58 PM

The challenge of creating a "smart" gun requires a marriage of very strange bedfellows, the firearms industry along with hardware and software engineers. Guns are generally designed to be a simple as possible. The Glock has been successful at least in some part because of the simplicity of its mechanics and the minimal number of components. The fundamental design goal of any firearm has been that it always goes "bang" when the trigger is pulled. And more recently doesn't go "bang" if the trigger is not pulled. Anything that adds complexity almost inherently reduces the odds of successful discharge. There are simply more things to go wrong. The ideal smart gun would need a fiendishly simple and secure mechanism to ensure it was reliable. One odd duality of the design imperative for a smart gun is that the "fail safe" state of the weapon depends on your perspective. If the priority is preventing unintended/unauthorized discharges the mechanism must "fail" into an inoperative state. However, if the priority is maintaining the ability to neutralize a target the mechanism must "fail" into an operable state.

A thorny problem to be sure. And sadly one that I don't think the right players will be working on for a long time.

TatütataJuly 27, 2017 12:59 PM

when you strip all the chrome and other flash technology

Speaking of Flash, Google already stripped the Flash from Chrome. But the news is: Adobe is finally pulling the plug, sort of. (1, 2).

(It's mildly OT, but I couldn't resist to digress).

IggyJuly 27, 2017 1:01 PM

What everyone is missing in this latest detour in the search for the Holy Grail of gun safety is that properly raised and trained humans are the best safety for any gun. The longer we avoid the responsibility of doing that, trying to rely on external goo-gahs, the more avoidable gun deaths there will be.

We need to stop demanding artificial contraptions fix our failures to raise competent, responsible, poised and wise citizens. Notice I didn't say "wise consumers."

Richmond2000July 27, 2017 1:16 PM

the lock pin in this gun IMHO is it was designed that the electromagnet coil positions the pin 1/2 way through its travel and like a lock tumbler if over traveled would relock the gun would make the magnet trick a LOT harder to do as the external magnet would pull the pin all the way NOT to the position required to unlock the gun

but my concern would be the reliability of the weapon when used "properly" in a struggle/defensive environment as all the thief has to do is rip the watch off my wrist and then the GUN is useless

MikeAJuly 27, 2017 1:22 PM

@parabarbarian

Just a data point... I wear my watch (If I wear one at all) on my right wrist, and I'm right-handed. Long story which even I forget.

But my point is that a large number of security issues arise because some designer is using the threat model: "Everybody acts and thinks exactly like I do". At one job, we had a guy (still a friend 40 years later) who was an absolute treasure, with the ability to trigger "unanticipated behavior" in systems, whose designers were then predictably likely to ask "Who the heck would do that?". Well, Owen would, and did, and odds are he is not the only person among all humanity who would"

JeremyJuly 27, 2017 1:44 PM

So conceptually, they've divided the "gun" into two pieces, and made it so that you need to have both pieces in order to fire?

I have a new secure gun that can only be fired by someone who possesses compatible ammo.

Even if this worked perfectly, I can only see it theoretically helping in a couple scenarios, and they both seem a bit fanciful:

1) Security by obscurity--the bad guy doesn't realize that he needs to take the watch

2) The bad guy tries to take the gun from you *while* you are trying to use it--snatching both the gun AND the watch is presumably harder than snatching just the gun

Admittedly, I do not use guns, and do not know anyone who does, so maybe these scenarios are more prevalent than I would guess?

Doug CoulterJuly 27, 2017 3:05 PM

I'm with Iggy here all the way. Tech "solutions" to sociological problems failing has been covered here as a fail by Bruce and others.
To this old guy, it seems parenting has gotten worse over the years very dramatically...I was raised at a time when not only were there not phones and pads, there wasn't TV to babysit, and my parents had to, you know, actually raise me.

I could go on about how it now takes two working adult to have a family (and why) which necessarily means lousy parenting, but...that's another topic.

JasonRJuly 27, 2017 3:07 PM

@ John

Working-level police universally abhor this "feature". It will only result in making police work riskier than it already is.

--

What's wrong with that? If you're running for mayor in Minneappolis you try to get folks to drink that sort of Kool-Aid and make the Police keep their guns locked in the squad car when they go on calls. If you can't fix the problem (police over-reaction), just nuke it, right?

http://www.startribune.com/police-reform-debate-surges-in-minneapolis-mayoral-race-after-justine-damond-shooting/436615103/

SheepdogJuly 27, 2017 3:48 PM

On a side note, will the fact that the "Smart" gun feature doesn't work as advertised mean that NRA will now endorse the Armatix gun?

SevesteenJuly 27, 2017 4:05 PM

will the fact that the "Smart" gun feature doesn't work as advertised mean that NRA will now endorse the Armatix gun

The problem isn't that these guns exist as an option--the problem is state laws that said once these guns are sold commercially all other guns become illegal to sell. (IIRC, the "smart gun only" law has been repealed or overturned)

Matt from CTJuly 27, 2017 4:05 PM

>, I thought the NRA kept these options away from people,

No, they certainly don't encourage such silliness though.

New Jersey, in passing a law mandating that once a single manufacturer begins retail sales of "smart weapons" that only sales of smart guns will be allowed inadvertently destroyed the commercial viability of the concept.

The grass roots response of gun owners was loud and clear -- they will not do business with any company that introduces them.

And gun companies by and large make their profits on the civilian, and not government, markets. Government sales, going to the lowest bidder, are used to keep the unit volume up to achieve efficiencies of scale; efficiencies that then become profits on civilian weapons.

You do not have a right to a gun to hunt or shoot targets. You have a right to a gun for self defense; compromising that role with electronics prone to failure undermines the entire purpose.

So the major gun companies are left with a business decision:

1) Make "smart guns" that the police will not buy due to reliability concerns, and that few if any civilians will buy either their smart guns due to their undependability nor their reliable firearms as a political statement...and thus go out of business

2) Don't pursue "smart guns" and continue being profitable.

Lawrence D’OliveiroJuly 27, 2017 9:16 PM

“Gun safety” is an oxymoron. When a gun is causing injury, destruction and death, it is only working as designed, after all. All these attempts to tack on “safety” devices are just window-dressing.

IggyJuly 27, 2017 10:33 PM

Lawrence D’Oliveiro • July 27, 2017 9:16 PM said:

"“Gun safety” is an oxymoron. When a gun is causing injury, destruction and death, it is only working as designed, after all. All these attempts to tack on “safety” devices are just window-dressing."

Either you're trolling for the Ss & Gs or you're serious. Poe's Law.

Ss & Gs aside, 'cuz discussing that would just ruin it for all of us, but if you're serious, what other inanimate objects do you blame for your misdeeds? Usually, only primitives blames the coke bottle for the failure of his crops.

Asking for a friend.

IggyJuly 27, 2017 10:47 PM

Doug Coulter • July 27, 2017 3:05 PM said:

"I could go on about how it now takes two working adult to have a family (and why) which necessarily means lousy parenting, but...that's another topic."

You said it. Of course, super-consumerism could be eschewed for a more natural arrangement where the best nurturer/teacher stays home to nurture/teach and the best hunter/defender goes out and hunts/defends. That makes the Bezos's and Gates's of the world pucker their pants. LOL

Hey, I'm all for capitalism, just not for its own sake.

ThothJuly 28, 2017 1:38 AM

@all

No robust encryption of signal, no secure hopping tables for freqiencies, no multiple frequency fallback, no robust physical locking mechanism except a solenoid lock is really asking for trouble.

Oh NoJuly 28, 2017 4:28 AM

We're all missing the obvious about this Armatix gun. Its owners subconsciously will be lulled into more unsafe behaviors:
"I can put my gun in the nightstand and it won't matter if I forget to lock it."
"I can put it down on the table while I'm working under the car / sink / cabinet / up a ladder"
"Sure, kid: you can hold my gun. Neat, huh?"
"Having this gun in my house will not make me less safe."

Clive RobinsonJuly 28, 2017 5:10 AM

@ Doug Coulter,

Long time no hear, I hope you are well and still knocking out neutrons by the bucket full ;-)

With regards,

I was raised at a time when not only were there not phones and pads, there wasn't TV to babysit, and my parents had to, you know, actually raise me.

Yup I remember the first time I heard the phone ring. It was one of those black bakalite phones with a rotary dial and that odd looking scoop/funnel on the microphone end of the hand set. It also had wires that were rubber coated with an outer layer of fine cloth. My parents had had the phone installed in the bay window of the "dining room" where my fathers "home working" desk was. He was an accountant by trade, and fairly well paid but still did the books for a number of local businesses as well from home. My mother was a much valued teacher, which is why I got put into school a year and a half earlier than was normal (I guess it was the "workplace nursery" of it's time). She also did historical research on a proffessional level, and occasionaly made cloths for people as her mother had been a "Court Dressmaker" and had taught mum the trade from before she went to school.

Which to a certain extent ment "I draged myself up" and spent a lot of time entertaining myself. I don't remember when we got a TV but I do remember when we got our first colour TV. To my parents supprise I was not interested in "childrens TV" however back then the BBC started transmitting lectures for the Open University, and I would sit and watch fascinated by the science and engineering programs. To me it was a window into a different world where even the lecturers dressed differently. I remember my mother saying I couldn't possibly understand it and my father pointing out that I talked a lot about them, and the only time I was quiet in the house was when I was watching them or asleep. Consequently I spent a lot of time outdoors doing things that would make me sound like an Enid Blyton charecter. Some of it constructive like helping dad with the garden, siving out stones to add to the "stone heap" to use when making concreat paths in the summer and alsorts of other things.

The thing was though as children we did grow up faster, I was preping vegtables from around five, and cooking my own breakfast at weekends by the time I was eight,I knew how to safely make a fire outside to cook on as well, and could make bread that people would happily eat around the same time, pies and puds, jams and other preserves soon followed. And if I wanted a toy, my dad would show me how to make it out of wood, and was thus required to use my new skills around the house for decorating and general repairs, including how to cut glass and glaze it in for the occasional windows I broke.

It's these sorts of activities modern kids don't get to do or don't want to do. My son for instance does not cook, even though I've tried to teach him when he's interested. The real reason I guess is he finds it dull compared to his phone, tablet or computer, and I'm daft enough to let him get away with it because he's learnt the art of not cleaning up properly in the kitchen knowing that I'll get annoyed and do it myself...

The thought occurs that it's the hectic pace of life that is in effect responsible for our kids not realy learning things at home and families being a lot poorer than they used to be. I cook because I want to, not because of the money I save by doing so. I can cook a better dinner for four for less money than one E-Num filled frozen microwave meal. Yes I do have "ready meals" in the freezer for times when I get in late etc but only a few are "shop bought". I estimate my food bills are around one sixth that of what I would have to pay for "microwave meals". Likewise I was shocked when a friend twenty years younger than me told me what they had had to pay to replace a mixer tap unit on their sink and have their central heating pump replaced, when I asked them why they had not done it themselves the answer came down to they did not know how... Thus they had been caught in the "Im going to make you pay through the eyes because you don't know" trap. But worse, a few years ago due to an unforseen falt in the property, I had to claim on the insurance, and elected to let them use their own builders and decorators, huge mistake I will not remake. I actually had to show one supposedly skilled tradesman how to measure up and cut some wooden beading... Needless to say unbenown to me one of their workmen had not put in a sill correctly and it showed up a few months later with cracking. It all had to be torn out and redone. This time by a friend who is a tradesman who's work I trust as I used to do a bit of work for him now and again when he had large electrical work at a customers, or he was short handed at weekends or over night, and I'd seen how he went about things.

My friend pointed out a salint point about Brexit, because so few people in the UK now have the skills to do basic maintenance and building or decorating there is a chronic lack of tradesmen. This ment their was room for the likes of East European workmen, many of whom were not skilled. Thus their lower prices and bodge work had given East European workmen a bad reputation not just from their low quality of work but for "stealing jobs". Which influanced a lot of Brexit votes.

Thus this lack of learning of basic life skills is in fact a very real security risk because it makes a dependancy culture that becomes a downward spiral. In effect people fall into a trap and develop a relationship much like that of a junkie and their dealer. The price starts of cheap but when you are dependent the price goes up and up and as a result your own ignorance and failings pushes you into serious poverty that often leads to risky / dangerous choices then crime etc.

Clive RobinsonJuly 28, 2017 5:35 AM

@ Thoth,

No robust encryption of signal, no secure hopping tables for freqiencies, no multiple frequency fallback, no robust physical locking mechanism except a solenoid lock is really asking for trouble.

You forgot the punch line after "solenoid lock" of,

    That you can get round with a fridge magnet, or match stick

@ All,

For those that do not know most semi-automatic weapons can be made "full auto" by putting a match stick in the "Safty sear" so it does not catch the working parts and in effect the gun functions like the old very simple "Blow back" weapons like the SMG or Sten gun both known as "Plumbers delight".

The point to remember is with all auto loading or blowback weapons you have to "add safety" mechanisms that will break or be easily disabled. Thus the primarily they "Fail Dangerous"...

All the rest of the gun safety stuff it is just chrome and gimmicks of zero real worth. Even the safety catch on many weapons is fail dangerous. Because it's very difficult to make a weapon otherwise due to it's simple mechanical nature. Something that has not changed in nearly two hundred years since the percussion cap became universal around 1825, and is not going to change as long as the percussion cap or similar is used in amunition. Which obviously is going to be true as long as chemical based amunition remains in use...

Bong-Smoking Primitive Monkey-Brained SpookJuly 28, 2017 6:06 AM

@ Clive Robinson, Doug Coulter,

Thus this lack of learning of basic life skills is in fact a very real security risk because it makes a dependancy culture ...

Perceptive observation. This trend is not only continuing, it's also accelerating. Western civilization is on the brink of self destruction due to laziness, greed, and self-righteousness.

Scot AlexanderJuly 28, 2017 6:29 PM

From http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/06/24/325178305/a-new-jersey-law-thats-kept-smart-guns-off-shelves-nationwide

"Reliability concerns will go away once smart guns are on the market, says NJIT's Sebastian. "If we get law enforcement and military and other respected professionals to have experience with it, to show that it doesn't break and that it performs when it's supposed to, that's the way you start to break the logjam," Sebastian says."

But of course the police are exempt from the NJ requirement to purchase "personalized firearms", just like they are always exempt from requirements like microstamping technology, magazine safeties, loaded chamber indicators, and all those other innovations to allegedly make the guns safer. If you really want reliable smart guns, just pass a law that requires all law enforcement officers in the District of Columbia to carry only smart guns. Of course, this will also add about $1000 to the price of the gun (comparing the Armatix price to that of, say, a comparable Ruger SR-22) which has the added benefit of keeping guns pricier.

tyrJuly 31, 2017 11:57 PM


@Clive

The best safety comes from the cowboy
method. No ammo in the chamber until
you want to shoot.
Colt sixguns firing pin rested on the
primer of a chambered round so smart
cowboys rolled up a tendollar bill
and put it in the cylinder for carry.
They called it burying money. The
later Colt autos had a floating firing
pin that you could make fire through
inertia. So better left empty and
loaded when you wanted to shoot.

Best to assume that they are always a
danger then you avoid ugly surprises.
Firearms are pushing close to 900
years old and the debates are still on
about the technology.

The entire idea of childhood is a recent
invention that strips young people away
from the way they should learn. They need
to be with adults so they can see what is
going on and their mirror nerves will do
the rest. The idea you should be isolated
from experience until you are ready to
grow up after college is folly. Most of
the cubicle rats of today would starve
to death in a potato field through ignorance
of what the plants look like. Watching any
craftsman work and seeing how the tools are
used is a joy to the curious. It beats the
thrill of paying a giant bill based on your
ignorance.

jAugust 2, 2017 11:30 AM

somebody help me out here. unless the watch is encrypted or has some kind of wrist vein biometric scanner, can someone just...you know...take the watch and use the gun? you don't even have to hack the gun...you can just pick up the watch. with your hands. put it on. and shoot the gun.

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of IBM Resilient.