Smart Gun Hacked, Fires using Magnets

[terryg]

Hey guys,

It has been a while since I posted. But when I read this article, I had to let you all know about it.

https://www.wired.com/story/smart-gun-fire-magnets/

Score:
Armatix IP1 Smart Watch - 0
Hacker - at least 5 or 6 points as he hacked it in multiple ways

[parabelum]

Well darn, so much for me hoping for a safer EDC

I'm really bummed out now.

[Flightmare]

Magnets huh? Doesn't make it a very "attractive" offering, does it?

[Syntyr]

I figured this hunk of junk was susceptible to a magnet attack but kudos to the hacker as he went all out. Figured out how to boost the signal and extend the tokens range. How to jam the signal and the magnet attack.

[treadlightly]

A little time with a file (or a blob of JB Weld to hold that firing pin block back) would be a more permanent solution, so this really won't work to keep a stolen gun from doing bad things in criminal hands.

Better, maybe, to use accelerometers like in smart phones. If the gun is tilted more than 15 degrees, it wouldn't fire. That would stop a lot of gang shootings, wouldn't it?

[strogg]

This "smart" gun doesn't seem so smart now, does it? I can think of much better ways to make this less susceptible to hacking, but no matter what, it'll still be an electronic device, meaning one more thing that can go wrong with the gun to prevent it from firing. Just like my cars, I like things to be manually and mechanically operated. These smart devices seem nifty, but to me, they aren't any better than before.

[Jusme]

Any "smart" gun can be hacked to disable all of it's purported safety features. Not to mention, in the heat of the moment, I want a gun, that I can pick up, and fire, without worrying that I may not have, my "magic bracelet" or "secret decoder ring", on. Additionally, I don't want to have to worry, that my battery is dead, and hope the bad guy will give me time to run to the store to buy a replacement.
I don't foresee, many companies, attempting to manufacture these types of guns, because they already know, that there is no real market for them.

I'm glad this guy showed the fallacy of such technology, and I agree with him, that if someone wants to spend their money on one(?), they should get what was promised to them.

[LucasMcCain]

Well gee, the smart gun technology has problems? That's really too bad. I was so looking forward to having a gun that the government could remotely disable whenever they want. Not to mention that as soon as they get the kinks worked out on smart guns, they can just make all these non-smart guns illegal. That would be really great too. I mean, there are just so many great reasons to develop smart guns. ::sarcasm mode off::

[Soccerdad1995]

If they ever perfected this technology, and it was based on something innate to the user like fingerprints instead of bracelets or rings, and there was a way to make a gun readily accessible to others at my choosing, and I could convince my wife that it was now safe to leave a loaded "smart" gun sitting on the night stand with no risk of our kids or their friends being able to shoot it, then I might be tempted to buy exactly one such handgun and one such AR or HD shotgun. But even in this fantasy scenario, I would want all my other guns to be the traditional "dumb" variety.

So yes, there would be a very limited market. But it would be nice to be able to just leave loaded shotguns, rifles, and handguns in strategic places throughout your home. Ironically, having guns out in the open might be a way to get the sheeple more comfortable with the sight of them, which in turn could lead to less restrictions on OC.

[Middle Age Russ]

Solution: "Smart" Gun
Problem Statement: Guns (tools) should only operate (perform their function) when acted on by the "correct" person.

The problem statement is a result of the "guns are dangerous" line of thinking. Guns are tools that CAN BE dangerous to the innocent if used by someone inappropriately or offensive -- as opposed to defensive -- ends. Guns in the hands of folks with good intentions SHOULD BE dangerous to those who seek to harm others. There is no technology currently available, or foolproof, that can discern the intent of a person. Therefore, the development of so-called smart guns misses the point entirely.

[Soccerdad1995]

Solution: "Smart" Gun
Problem Statement: Guns (tools) should only operate (perform their function) when acted on by the "correct" person.

The problem statement is a result of the "guns are dangerous" line of thinking. Guns are tools that CAN BE dangerous to the innocent if used by someone inappropriately or offensive -- as opposed to defensive -- ends. Guns in the hands of folks with good intentions SHOULD BE dangerous to those who seek to harm others. There is no technology currently available, or foolproof, that can discern the intent of a person. Therefore, the development of so-called smart guns misses the point entirely.

You could apply the same solution and problem statement to anything else that can be dangerous if used in an inappropriate manner. Cars are another example. Yes we would all be safer if cars did not operate for other than the "correct" user, and also ensured that the user was fully awake, and was not distracted or otherwise impaired. The inappropriate use of cars kills many magnitudes more people than guns. So if this problem statement is something we want to solve, we should start there.

[Middle Age Russ]

The thing is, the inherent danger of cars, hammers and other such tools is down-played because of their utility when they are not used dangerously. Guns do not get the same pass and are simply viewed as dangerous by a lot of folks.

[Soccerdad1995]

The thing is, the inherent danger of cars, hammers and other such tools is down-played because of their utility when they are not used dangerously. Guns do not get the same pass and are simply viewed as dangerous by a lot of folks.

Yes, it's the old argument that guns "have no purpose other than to kill". To which I point out that there are some things that need killing. The cow, pig, or turkey that is supplying my lunch is one example (I haven't decided which yet). And a person who intends harm to me or my family is another example. So there is a legit alternative use for guns, just like there is for cars.

The difference is that this alternative use is very inefficient for cars. Busses, trains, etc., can all move more people, faster, and cheaper, than having everyone drive their own cars. Whereas for guns, it is hard to find a more efficient means of killing the BG who breaks into my home in the middle of the night. Alternatives like electrified doors and windows would be much more costly than the 50 cents to a dollar that a bullet would cost. Plus, electrifying all possible points of entry to my home would be extremely dangerous to members of my family, visitors, and my pets.

[Middle Age Russ]

Yes, it's the old argument that guns "have no purpose other than to kill". To which I point out that there are some things that need killing. The cow, pig, or turkey that is supplying my lunch is one example (I haven't decided which yet). And a person who intends harm to me or my family is another example. So there is a legit alternative use for guns, just like there is for cars.

This is an argument I, and I presume most others here on the forum, consider valid. There are indeed things -- animals and people -- that need killing. There are many people, though, who do not see even the defensive use of firearms as valid or appropriate. While I strive to appreciate different perspectives, I struggle mightily with the idea that the life of someone or something that attacks me or my loved ones is worth as much as the life of the one they are attacking. I can't help but think that by attacking an innocent person you are making a decision to remove yourself from civilized society -- and therefore the society and its citizens have a compelling right to see to that removal.

As already stated, "smart" guns are a poor solution to a poorly stated and improperly understood problem.

[terryg]

One thing about the article that found disconcerting (though unsurprising) was this quote:

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.

Personally, I find the ease of jamming the signal preventing it from being fired more disturbing than any trick allowing it to be fired without the watch.