Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 101 posts

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#51

Post by ams6110 »

mahyarm wrote: post #38
DrJ wrote: post #3

I wish we could get rid of the TSA and spend that resources somewhere else, CIA, FBI, NSA, hell send it to DoE, NSF, maybe fund (more) research in practical(?) renewable energy. But killing the TSA is never going to happen. No career politician is going to commit political harikiri to shut it down. - I do not mind the free hand rubs at the airports though.

Before the TSA, we had xray luggage scanners and metal detectors world wide. Now how the majority of the public interacts with the TSA at airports, you go through a metal detector or body xray and xray luggage scanners. What else has changed?

We had xray inspection of carry-on luggage. Checked bags, and especially cargo, didn't really get inspected at all, before 9/11.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#52

Post by shareme »

DanBC wrote: post #37
nathanb wrote: post #22

I'm a little disappointed with the article when compared to my expectations given the title. Besides using a fraudulent boarding pass, the journo didn't "test" the TSA in any meaningful way. This wasn't like the experiment where a guy got a gun on a plane using his wheelchair, for example. While the article has great information and I agree with almost all of it, I would like to see people demonstrating the uselessne…

Attempting to get a weapon on board a plane carries a risk of being shot. In the head. I'm not that surprised that people don't try it.

you do not have to sneak a 'weapon' on board a plane to bring it down..911 attacks was mainly focused on social engineering to get victims to cooperate with terrorists..if there was no cooperation attacks would have not succeeded

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#53

Post by miles_matthias »

The article didn't mention what happened when they tried to use the photoshopped boarding pass to board. Maybe they had another real boarding pass somewhere else? Maybe they didn't actually board a plane?

Their system makes sure you're supposed to be on the plane when they scan your boarding pass to get on the plane right?

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#54

Post by po »

miles_matthias wrote: post #53

The article didn't mention what happened when they tried to use the photoshopped boarding pass to board. Maybe they had another real boarding pass somewhere else? Maybe they didn't actually board a plane? Their system makes sure you're supposed to be on the plane when they scan your boarding pass to get on the plane right?

They didn't try to use it to board the plane, he just wanted to show that you don't actually have to buy a plane ticket to be waved into the 'secure' area of the airport.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#55

Post by miles_matthias »

po wrote: post #54
miles_matthias wrote: post #53

The article didn't mention what happened when they tried to use the photoshopped boarding pass to board. Maybe they had another real boarding pass somewhere else? Maybe they didn't actually board a plane? Their system makes sure you're supposed to be on the plane when they scan your boarding pass to get on the plane right?

They didn't try to use it to board the plane, he just wanted to show that you don't actually have to buy a plane ticket to be waved into the 'secure' area of the airport.

That's what I thought. I just didn't see them be explicit about that.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#56

Post by Osiris »

You don't even need photoshop to modify your boarding pass.

(These steps work with Opera, I'm not sure about other browsers) 1. Go to print your boarding pass 2. View source 3. Modify any information (such as adding something to show First Class/A-List/etc) 4. Click Apply Changes to make the changes to the HTML show up in the page 5. Click Print

A perfect boarding pass with any information you want.

What could someone do that's on the watch list? By a ticket under an assumed name, then print out two boarding passes, one with their real name that matches their ID, then another with the assumed name.

Since the no-fly list check is only done when the ticket is purchased, use the real ID with real name boarding pass at security to get through (they won't check you against the list). At the gate, go ahead and give them the real boarding pass with the fake name (they won't check your ID at that point).

* I am in no way advocating that you do this, just that it's possible and demonstrates a weakness in security

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#57

Post by apaprocki »

Osiris wrote: post #56

You don't even need photoshop to modify your boarding pass. (These steps work with Opera, I'm not sure about other browsers) 1. Go to print your boarding pass 2. View source 3. Modify any information (such as adding something to show First Class/A-List/etc) 4. Click Apply Changes to make the changes to the HTML show up in the page 5. Click Print A perfect boarding pass with any information you want. What could someon…

Do you have references that the list is only checked at purchase time? As for the security hole.. you have a credit card under the assumed name as well? If they were smart they could simply flag first time fliers and anyone who flies under a ticket purchased by someone else for extra checks. Cash ticket purchases require real ID at the ticket counter or Western Union and presumably you'd get checked there as well.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#58

Post by cgs1019 »

DanBC wrote: post #37
nathanb wrote: post #22

I'm a little disappointed with the article when compared to my expectations given the title. Besides using a fraudulent boarding pass, the journo didn't "test" the TSA in any meaningful way. This wasn't like the experiment where a guy got a gun on a plane using his wheelchair, for example. While the article has great information and I agree with almost all of it, I would like to see people demonstrating the uselessne…

Attempting to get a weapon on board a plane carries a risk of being shot. In the head. I'm not that surprised that people don't try it.

I've always been amazed that with all the effort to keep "dangerous" objects off the plane, they still hand out aluminum soda cans which can easily be crushed/bent/torn into quite dangerously sharp forms. Why bother carrying a weapon on board when they're provided free of charge in flight?

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#59

Post by aeturnum »

pitdesi wrote: post #4
DrJ wrote: post #3

I wish we could get rid of the TSA and spend that resources somewhere else, CIA, FBI, NSA, hell send it to DoE, NSF, maybe fund (more) research in practical(?) renewable energy. But killing the TSA is never going to happen. No career politician is going to commit political harikiri to shut it down. - I do not mind the free hand rubs at the airports though.

Completely agree with you, except for one point... Ron Paul (a republican candidate for president) wants to abolish the TSA: http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/tsa/188271-ro... This is not a place for political discussion (so please don't make it one, people!), but he certainly qualifies as a career politician, having been in congress 35 years. EDIT: lots of downvotes... I'm just stating a fact in respons…

I think the downvotes may be because you don't note the difference between saying you support a thing and actually pushing something through.

It's quite easy to say you support something that will never get to the floor and score political points - many politicians use this technique to score points with their "base." Ron Paul, in particular, has a number of professed views which are untested. Until Mr. Paul has enough political capital to disband the TSA and does so, it's disingenuous to credit with doing it.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#60

Post by akira2501 »

shareme wrote: post #52
DanBC wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to get a weapon on board a plane carries a risk of being shot. In the head. I'm not that surprised that people don't try it.

you do not have to sneak a 'weapon' on board a plane to bring it down..911 attacks was mainly focused on social engineering to get victims to cooperate with terrorists..if there was no cooperation attacks would have not succeeded

What? The attackers had an easier time because hijackings didn't usually involve flying into a building / killing everyone on board.

Prior to 9/11 most hijackings were about taking hostages, flying to a friendly country, then awaiting your ransom. As a passenger, your job was just to sit tight, don't do anything stupid, and wait for the resolution. The hijackers didn't have to socially engineer anything, they just relied on the assumptions of the time.

After 9/11, passengers got more aggressive. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were shut down and restrained by alert passengers.

Post reply on HN