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

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#61

Post by ianferrel »

apaprocki wrote: post #57
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.

It's trivially easy to get a credit card under any name you want. Most credit cards will generously offer to give you more cards with your family members names on them. Just make up a name and you get an additional card with that name.

The bill still comes to you, but that's on the credit card company's end.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#62

Post by philwelch »

ianferrel wrote: post #61
apaprocki wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's trivially easy to get a credit card under any name you want. Most credit cards will generously offer to give you more cards with your family members names on them. Just make up a name and you get an additional card with that name. The bill still comes to you, but that's on the credit card company's end.

Here's a story about someone doing exactly that, not to buy airline tickets, but to wreak other havoc with "Michael Jackson"'s credit card: http://www.zug.com/pranks/mj/

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#63

Post by apaprocki »

philwelch wrote: post #62
ianferrel wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's trivially easy to get a credit card under any name you want. Most credit cards will generously offer to give you more cards with your family members names on them. Just make up a name and you get an additional card with that name. The bill still comes to you, but that's on the credit card company's end.

Here's a story about someone doing exactly that, not to buy airline tickets, but to wreak other havoc with "Michael Jackson"'s credit card: http://www.zug.com/pranks/mj/

I've recently ordered two additional family member credit cards (two different card processors / companies) and both of them required a SSN# for the additional member. Can anyone claim first-hand knowledge of their credit card company not requiring a SSN# for an additional cardholder?

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#64

Post by cookiecaper »

ams6110 wrote: post #46
pitdesi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

what is the cause for your downvoting Probably people reading an endorsement of Ron Paul in your post, though none is really there.

Heh, I thought it was probably the implication that Paul was a career politician although he is primarily a gynecologist. He continues to deliver babies when he's in Texas and he has spent a few terms out of office (practicing medicine) since he was first elected in the 70s. Maybe that's a self-interested assumption that exposes my own leanings, though.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#65

Post by mortenjorck »

akira2501 wrote: post #60
shareme wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

Let's not forget that the hijackers' greatest asset was a unique, tragic coincidence, covered five years ago by the very same magazine: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200...

Were it not for a scheduled drill that happened to bear just enough similarity to what was actually going on to confuse first-responders, the terrible events of that day might have been limited to the air. The chances of such a coincidence happening again are so incredibly low as to be nil.

That's what gets me—we were basically just outrageously unlucky that day. The universe rolled all ones. And we've structured our security procedures with the idea that straight ones are rolled every day.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#66

Post by gergles »

ams6110 wrote: post #50
0003 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who here did not think of Bruce Schneier after reading in the lead paragraph: "...that’s the conclusion of Charles C. Mann, who put the T.S.A. to the test with the help of one of America’s top security experts"?

I respect Bruce Schneier as an expert in cryptography and computer/network security. But nothing I've seen him say about physical security seems like anything more than obvious common sense, delivered in a sort of pompous, sarcastic tone. I also don't think the people in charge at the TSA are so stupid as to not have considered that someone might alter a boarding pass. I'm reminded of a post here a few weeks ago, I d…

Please elucidate what information could possibly excuse the fact that is trivial to completely run around the "no-fly list".

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#67

Post by X-Istence »

apaprocki wrote: post #63
philwelch wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a story about someone doing exactly that, not to buy airline tickets, but to wreak other havoc with "Michael Jackson"'s credit card: http://www.zug.com/pranks/mj/

I've recently ordered two additional family member credit cards (two different card processors / companies) and both of them required a SSN# for the additional member. Can anyone claim first-hand knowledge of their credit card company not requiring a SSN# for an additional cardholder?

I've had a Bank of America Visa Credit Card where I added a second person and the name was wrong (I had given the correct information over the phone), no SSN necessary. I have a Capital One card and no SSN was required when I got a secondary card made with my full real name on it.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#68

Post by gergles »

ams6110 wrote: post #47
spolsky wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States two people look at your boarding pass: the TSA (at the entrance to security screening), and the airline (while boarding the plane). The TSA also checks your ID. In most airports, the TSA is NOT online and merely looks at the printed boarding pass to make sure the name matches what is on your ID, your flight is for today, etc. In most cases the airline does not bother checking ID again, assuming t…

You do need a photo ID matching your ticket, but that is probably not a very high bar for a dedicated person to surmount.

Not in the US you don't. Buy a ticket under "John Doe." Retrieve boarding pass. Print a copy. While you still have it open, photoshop it (or edit the HTML, whatever) to say "Bob McTerrorist". Show your photoshopped boarding pass and your "Bob McTerrorist" license to the TSA. Clear security. Discard your photoshopped boarding pass. Retrieve the boarding pass copy from step 3 above. Present it to the gate agent and board the plane.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#69

Post by gergles »

awj wrote: post #39
yread wrote: post #26

I don't understand. The agents at the gate always check the boarding pass validity (with the code scanner) and check the name on it against my ID. I haven't tried it but i can imagine that the system wouldn't allow two boarding passes with the same code. Is it that here in Europe we do things properly or did I misunderstood the faking of the boarding pass?

A quick how-to on bypassing the TSA no-fly list: 1. Buy a plane ticket under someone else's name. Presumably yours is blocked/flagged due to the airlines being able to check the no-fly list. 2. Use that ticket to forge a boarding pass in your name. Use this, along with your official ID, at the security checkpoint. All the TSA does is read it and validate date/time/what the know of flights off the top of their head. N…

Well, it isn't really about airline security, it's about revenue protection. If you're too dumb to photoshop your boarding pass, you also have no choice but to pay the $X00 "change fee" to give your tickets to somebody else.

The airlines have significant input into the TSA's processes. Why do you think they have never objected to this (especially given that it is basically a joke?)

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#70

Post by anamax »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #28
anamax wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> teams that required thousands of dollars and weeks of specialized training. The folks who ran that training are still alive.

Yes, the civilian flight instructors in the US, I imagine they are probably still alive. What's your point?

I'm referring to the folks who planned the operation and trained the hijackers.

Do you really think that the hijackers trained themselves?

Post reply on HN