Searching \ for '[EE]: RFID zapper' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/io/serials.htm?key=rfid
Search entire site for: 'RFID zapper'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: RFID zapper'
2006\04\01@082933 by Peter

picon face

http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/wiki/RFID-Zapper(EN)

Peter

2006\04\01@131616 by Jim Korman

flavicon
face
Peter wrote:
> http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/wiki/RFID-Zapper(EN)
>
> Peter

Should be

https://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/wiki/RFID-Zapper(EN)

Jim

2006\04\01@151247 by Dave Lag

picon face
Jim Korman wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>>http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/wiki/RFID-Zapper(EN)
>>
>>Peter
>
>
> Should be
>
> https://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/wiki/RFID-Zapper(EN)
>
> Jim
>
They both don't work as links in my browser,
it doesn't seem to pick up the missing closing bracket.
Textpaste works

D

2006\04\02@093906 by Peter

picon face

> They both don't work as links in my browser,
> it doesn't seem to pick up the missing closing bracket.
> Textpaste works

Go to:

https://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/wiki/RFID-Zapper

and click on 'here'.

Peter



2006\04\02@124240 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
This is going to be a big hit amoungst shoplifters, if it isn't allready.

Sean.

2006\04\02@164728 by Peter

picon face

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Sean Schouten wrote:

> This is going to be a big hit amoungst shoplifters, if it isn't allready.

That zapper is not good for the RFIDs used in shops afaik. Also it's
more than a few months old and I happened onto it by accident. Someone
looking for the right keywords must have discovered it a long time ago.

Imho it would be good for engineers to build one and test their designs
that are susceptible to tampering with such things. That's why I posted
the link. From what I read in the papers the underworld needs no help
with finding, or designing these things. They already have 'everything'.

Peter

2006\04\02@194450 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
On 4/2/06, Peter <spam_OUTplpTakeThisOuTspamactcom.co.il> wrote:
>
>
> That zapper is not good for the RFIDs used in shops afaik. Also it's
> more than a few months old and I happened onto it by accident. Someone
> looking for the right keywords must have discovered it a long time ago.


I have yet to explore RFID-chip datasheets, but wouldn't you think that
atleast the leading RFID manufacturers would have some sort of EMP-overload
protection (voltage clamping?) built in to their products? Especially if
their chips are designed for the harsh industry enviroments...

Sean

2006\04\02@221543 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Sean Schouten wrote:

>On 4/2/06, Peter <.....plpKILLspamspam@spam@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>  
>
>>That zapper is not good for the RFIDs used in shops afaik. Also it's
>>more than a few months old and I happened onto it by accident. Someone
>>looking for the right keywords must have discovered it a long time ago.
>>    
>>
>
>
>I have yet to explore RFID-chip datasheets, but wouldn't you think that
>atleast the leading RFID manufacturers would have some sort of EMP-overload
>protection (voltage clamping?) built in to their products? Especially if
>their chips are designed for the harsh industry enviroments...
>
>Sean
>  
>
While these things have some glitz and uniqueness, these will soon be
crackable, and
WalMart will lose a fortune on them.

Everything made is- eventually- destroyed.

--Bob

--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
attachspamKILLspamengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\03@152101 by Peter

picon face

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Sean Schouten wrote:

> On 4/2/06, Peter <.....plpKILLspamspam.....actcom.co.il> wrote:
>>
>> That zapper is not good for the RFIDs used in shops afaik. Also it's
>> more than a few months old and I happened onto it by accident. Someone
>> looking for the right keywords must have discovered it a long time ago.
>
> I have yet to explore RFID-chip datasheets, but wouldn't you think that
> atleast the leading RFID manufacturers would have some sort of EMP-overload
> protection (voltage clamping?) built in to their products? Especially if
> their chips are designed for the harsh industry enviroments...

The simplest EMP protection is that of having none. If someone zaps the
chip in an object and it is subsequently discovered that the object has
a non-responding chip then the cashier or equivalent will tap it in by
hand, by EAN or barcode, as usual. This is not a problem for the shop or
the system. Think about how many times the cashier has to tap in the EAN
because the barcode reader does not work on a product (about 5% bad
reads are valid even by barcode reader manufacturer standards for a
variety of reasons). Anybody who expects to be able to walk out of a
shop with, say, a bottle of milk, without paying, because the bottle's
barcode did not register at the cashier's needs help.

Peter

2006\04\04@104243 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Peter,

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:20:59 +0300 (IDT), Peter wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Except that they are talking about not having a cashier as such, and not scanning each item individually, but
walking through a reader-portal with a trolleyful of items, which are all RFID-read "at once".  There is
little or no advantage in replacing barcodes with RFID and then handling each item in the same way - the
advantage is in eliminating the one-at-a-time handling by a staff member.  A 5% read-failure wouldn't be
tolerated in this case - and RFID wouldn't be implemented.

When the wheel-through portal is in use, then zapping RFIDs becomes a viable method of theft.  Expect to see
some reaction from the retail trade if it starts happening!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\04@110333 by Rolf

face picon face
Howard Winter wrote:
{Quote hidden}

My local grocery store has self-serve checkouts. Take your groceries to
the system, swipe the barcodes, and place the items in bags which are on
a scale. It insists that you scan the item and place it on the scale
before you scan the next one. I was there a few days ago with my
daughter who is nearly 3 years old. She loves eating plain bread, so I
fed her a few slices from a loaf that I intended buying. When I tried to
pay for that loaf the system rejected the item with a "Please call
supervisor" error who explained to me that the weight of the partially
eaten loaf was causing the issue. He "signed" for the discrepency when I
explained the cause, and off I went.

My guess is that an RFID checkout system could use similar
counter-checks as this self serve one I know. If the weight is more than
the sum of the items that registered then sound the alarm.

Rolf

2006\04\04@161255 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
On 4/4/06, Rolf <EraseMElearrspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTrogers.com> wrote:
>
>
> My local grocery store has self-serve checkouts. Take your groceries to
> the system, swipe the barcodes, and place the items in bags which are on
> a scale. It insists that you scan the item and place it on the scale
> before you scan the next one. I was there a few days ago with my
> daughter who is nearly 3 years old. She loves eating plain bread, so I
> fed her a few slices from a loaf that I intended buying. When I tried to
> pay for that loaf the system rejected the item with a "Please call
> supervisor" error who explained to me that the weight of the partially
> eaten loaf was causing the issue. He "signed" for the discrepency when I
> explained the cause, and off I went.
>
> My guess is that an RFID checkout system could use similar
> counter-checks as this self serve one I know. If the weight is more than
> the sum of the items that registered then sound the alarm.



Having a scale would be a great solution to the problem, as long as Mr X
does not slide product right into his pocket, only to drop it into the bag
when it is lifted off of the scale. And couldn't thieves rig the scales to
'fake' a malfunction somehow? I was just thinking of a scenario where
thieves would rig all the scales with magnets or something, but I guess that
that could be solved quickly by 'zeroing' the scales. What about whacking em
hard? Surely there is something that can be done to circumvent such  a
system? Still a great system though!

Sean

2006\04\04@163913 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
> Think about how many times the cashier has to tap in the EAN
> because the barcode reader does not work on a product (about 5% bad
> reads are valid even by barcode reader manufacturer standards for a
> variety of reasons).

2006\04\04@164120 by David VanHorn

picon face
On 4/4/06, David VanHorn <dvanhornspamspam_OUTmicrobrix.com> wrote:
>
>  Think about how many times the cashier has to tap in the EAN
> > because the barcode reader does not work on a product (about 5% bad
> > reads are valid even by barcode reader manufacturer standards for a
> > variety of reasons).
>
>
Whoops..

Anyway:  5% not read rate is excessive other on frozen or irregularly
packaged goods, and the misread rate (code accepted as valid when not
matching the actual UPC) is far lower.

But the point of RFID is to drastically increase the checkout speed and
reduce manpower needed at the checkout, as well as making store inventory a
breeze.

2006\04\04@173633 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Sean Schouten wrote:
{Quote hidden}

In the systems locally here, there's four "lanes" with automated
checkouts (both grocery stores and at Home Depot), and a single checker
standing at a monitoring terminal in the middle of the overall big lane
that makes up the entry/exit paths to the four automated checkout
machines.

All of the machines have the scale "solution" mentioned previously,
which is a pain on odd-sized or bulky items.  You can't "place your item
in the bag" which the machine incessantly tells you to do.  Loudly.

The solution at Home Depot is better than the grocery store system right
now... they installed hand-held wireless optical scanners that the
checker standing at the center podium will come over with and point at
your bulky items in your cart -- they push which station you're at on
the keypad, and then scan your items, which show up on your screen, and
you can continue to scan your other items that do fit in bags.

So there's still a "human element" to it -- the center aisle checker,
but that one person is handling four lanes of "traffic".  They monitor
for the usual pickpockets and what not, but it'd probably be "easier"
for someone to wander off with a small item.  Of course, they've also
gone to completely locking up small expensive items... it's always nice
to know the people you're buying from are first and foremost worried
that you're a thief, and THEN once they've secured their product, they
want to SELL you something.  ;-)

I tend to use the self-checkout lanes for small items, and save the
big/bulky/weird items for normal checkout lanes... both because there's
someone there to help me reload the cart, and also because I don't think
these companies understand the value of me being able to talk to one of
their employees about anything I might have seen, or needed in the store.

But... along those lines... all of these large big-box retailers have
dumbed down their front-end checkers so much and dehumanized their jobs
so much, that they really don't have much interest in answering your
questions, and they CERTAINLY don't care if you have comments for
management.

They just want to keep their heads down and be IGNORED by their
management... a sure sign they're being pretty abused these days.  And
then they replace them with machines.

I'd rather the locals have a job rather than the machine engineers
somewhere else in the country, overall it's better for our local
economy... but all I can do is choose to go to the human checker to
"vote" on that one.

Nate

2006\04\05@050151 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>dumbed down their front-end checkers so much

You mean the ones we get in the UK are not as dumb as they come ???? ... ;)

2006\04\05@113942 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Nate Duehr
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:36 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [EE]: RFID zapper
>
[...]
> But... along those lines... all of these large big-box retailers have
> dumbed down their front-end checkers so much and dehumanized their
jobs
> so much, that they really don't have much interest in answering your
> questions, and they CERTAINLY don't care if you have comments for
> management.

All of them?  One is notoriously good to employees.  So much so they get
dissed by "Wall Street" for over paying their employees relative to the
industry.  And yet they remain highly profitable.

> They just want to keep their heads down and be IGNORED by their
> management... a sure sign they're being pretty abused these days.  And
> then they replace them with machines.
>
> I'd rather the locals have a job rather than the machine engineers
> somewhere else in the country, overall it's better for our local
> economy... but all I can do is choose to go to the human checker to
> "vote" on that one.

There are many that understand the difference between the local and
global economy: saving a few cents to buy non-locally often costs more
in the long run.

But when some do and some don't - the savings favor those that don't.

Ah a tangled web we weave ...



-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
spamBeGonepostmasterspamBeGonespamvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\05@122758 by Aaron

picon face


Nate Duehr wrote about Home Depot:

>All of the machines have the scale "solution" mentioned previously,
>which is a pain on odd-sized or bulky items.  You can't "place your item
>in the bag" which the machine incessantly tells you to do.  Loudly.
>  
>

Funny, last time I was at Home Depot I had the opposite problem.  The
scale would not detect the fuse when I dropped it in the bag.  No amount
of removing/redropping helped.  Putting some weight on the scale with my
hand served to elict a warning that a 'foreign object has been detecting
in the bagging area.'  What a pain.  Did I mention no normal lanes were
open?

Aaron

2006\04\05@141956 by Peter

picon face

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Howard Winter wrote:

> Except that they are talking about not having a cashier as such, and
> not scanning each item individually, but walking through a
> reader-portal with a trolleyful of items, which are all RFID-read "at
> once".  There is little or no advantage in replacing barcodes with
> RFID and then handling each item in the same way - the advantage is in
> eliminating the one-at-a-time handling by a staff member.  A 5%
> read-failure wouldn't be tolerated in this case - and RFID wouldn't be
> implemented.
>
> When the wheel-through portal is in use, then zapping RFIDs becomes a
> viable method of theft.  Expect to see some reaction from the retail
> trade if it starts happening!

a. there is a camera on the exit all the time

b. wearing biker helmets, wide brimmed hats and ski masks is likely
going to be illegal in supermarkets just like it is in pubs

c. at the merchandise volume and revenue margin processed per day in a
grocery or supermarket nobody can afford an automated system that has
the required number of nines to achieve zero errors. Even the RFID chips
themselves do not have the required number of nines, even without being
baked in the sun, frozen, falling off the pallet, soaked in brine
leaking from a cheese, covered in tomato sauce (very nice RF absorber)
and sandwiched between two metal preserve cans in someone's basket.
Remember cashiers have minimum income jobs.

d. this means that there must be means to deal with losses in the system
(probably an insurance salesman's wet dream selling insurance to these
guys).

e. replacing 8 cashiers with a single guardman who eyes the exits and
the totalizers and has some coercive means (like a button to close the
doors and a phone to call the police) could be cost effective. Such
places need a guard anyway.

Peter

2006\04\05@144247 by Peter

picon face

>>  Think about how many times the cashier has to tap in the EAN
>>> because the barcode reader does not work on a product (about 5% bad
>>> reads are valid even by barcode reader manufacturer standards for a
>>> variety of reasons).
>
> Anyway:  5% not read rate is excessive other on frozen or irregularly
> packaged goods, and the misread rate (code accepted as valid when not
> matching the actual UPC) is far lower.

Who cares why. Two items out of ten checked out do not read right and
must be repeated (several times). One in ten must be typed by hand. One
in twenty may have been registered wrong in the first place. Oil on the
package, smeared paint, wet, torn, less than perfect lighting, it all
adds up. It's not just the reader. The point is, that if the cashier
types all the numbers in, he/she will make *more* mistakes than the
barcode reader. Therefore the barcode+cashier system is better than the
cashier, at a cost. Same with RFID or whatever.

> But the point of RFID is to drastically increase the checkout speed and
> reduce manpower needed at the checkout, as well as making store inventory a
> breeze.

And it will stop global warming and revive the dodo bird. Can you give
an example of an instance in history when a large scale problem's
technical solution was switched from a simple one to a complex one, and
things got better ? Especially when the technology was very new ?

Peter

2006\04\05@145545 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>
> And it will stop global warming and revive the dodo bird. Can you give an
> example of an instance in history when a large scale problem's technical
> solution was switched from a simple one to a complex one, and things got
> better ? Especially when the technology was very new ?


Well, yes.  Anyone remember the little booklets that they used to look up
your credit card number in?   In 1983, Verifone started rolling out 4 MHz
Z-80 systems with a modem, card reader, display, and keyboard (for damaged
magstripes and user entry)   This allowed much faster update of hot card
lists, significantly lower fraud losses, and no more manually processing
paper credit card receipts.



--
> Feel the power of the dark side!  Atmel AVR

2006\04\05@155434 by andrew kelley

picon face
On 4/5/06, David VanHorn <TakeThisOuTdvanhornEraseMEspamspam_OUTmicrobrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > And it will stop global warming and revive the dodo bird. Can you give an
> > example of an instance in history when a large scale problem's technical
> > solution was switched from a simple one to a complex one, and things got
> > better ? Especially when the technology was very new ?

Electronic Fuel Injection? ABS brakes? Electronic Ignition?

--
andrew

2006\04\05@160301 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
voting machines!

On 4/5/06, andrew kelley <RemoveMEleetslackerspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/5/06, David VanHorn <dvanhornEraseMEspam.....microbrix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And it will stop global warming and revive the dodo bird. Can you give
> an
> > > example of an instance in history when a large scale problem's
> technical
> > > solution was switched from a simple one to a complex one, and things
> got
> > > better ? Especially when the technology was very new ?
>
> Electronic Fuel Injection? ABS brakes? Electronic Ignition?
>
> --
> andrew
>
> -

2006\04\05@192847 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
andrew kelley wrote:

>>> Can you give an example of an instance in history when a large scale
>>> problem's technical solution was switched from a simple one to a
>>> complex one, and things got better ? Especially when the technology
>>> was very new ?
>
> Electronic Fuel Injection? ABS brakes? Electronic Ignition?

Hm... I'm pretty sure all three of these technologies were not exactly new
(in their implementation) when they were introduced large-scale and went
through testing the POS systems can only dream of.

Gerhard

2006\04\05@193506 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Marcel Birthelmer wrote:

>>>> Can you give an example of an instance in history when a large scale
>>>> problem's technical solution was switched from a simple one to a
>>>> complex one, and things got better ? Especially when the technology
>>>> was very new ?

> voting machines!

You did forget the smiley, didn't you? Or do you work for one of the
companies that make them? Or what exactly got better (I mean of the things
that are essential to voting)?

Gerhard

2006\04\05@194200 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
I figured the smiley face was implied by the sheer absurdity of that
statement.
- Marcel

2006\04\06@103516 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Marcel Birthelmer
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:03 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [EE]: RFID zapper
>
> voting machines!

Nice one of that is both a valid and a counter example.


> On 4/5/06, andrew kelley <RemoveMEleetslackerspam_OUTspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/5/06, David VanHorn <RemoveMEdvanhornTakeThisOuTspamspammicrobrix.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And it will stop global warming and revive the dodo bird. Can
you
> give
> > an
> > > > example of an instance in history when a large scale problem's
> > technical
> > > > solution was switched from a simple one to a complex one, and
things
> > got
> > > > better ? Especially when the technology was very new ?
> >
> > Electronic Fuel Injection? ABS brakes? Electronic Ignition?
> >
> > --
> > andrew
> >
> > --

2006\04\06@131957 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 4/4/06, Nate Duehr <EraseMEnatespamspamspamBeGonenatetech.com> wrote:
> I'd rather the locals have a job rather than the machine engineers
> somewhere else in the country, overall it's better for our local
> economy... but all I can do is choose to go to the human checker to
> "vote" on that one.

I understand your point, but if it were possible to provide said
cashier of a better job, then wouldn't it be good to leave the
cashiering job to a machine?

This  ignores:
* whether a better job is available
* whether the cashier enjoys being a cashier (ie, maybe there is no
better job regardless of pay/benefits)
* whether the cashier wants to learn a different job or skill

Be that as it may, I've never met someone who wanted to grow up to be
a cashier.  Or a janitor.  Etc.

There are lots of jobs that could be done with technology.  They would
displace *current* workers, but do you believe they would displace
future workers?  Do we want to turn our back on technology that may
remove burdens from future generations because it displaces current
workers?

Barcodes eliminated a lot of jobs.  RFID will likely eliminate a few
more, especially if retailers choose to use the "push cart through
scanner" method of checking out.  Imagine having only four checkout
stations in the huge stores - it takes only 15 seconds to push your
cart through, swipe your credit card, and grab your receipt.

Retail shrinkage (revenue loss due to shoplifting, etc) will go up,
but in low cost small goods stores the savings will be more than made
up by cutting staff - staff which often causes or allows more loss
than it catches.  Notice that the checkout cameras are pointed at and
focussed on the cash drawer and cashier - not the customer.

Back on subject, though:

This zapper, along with the RFID copier
http://cq.cx/proxmarkii.pl
and a variety of RFID detectors should be in every RFID developer's toolkit.

-Adam

2006\04\06@162005 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
William Killian wrote:

>> voting machines!
>
> Nice one of that is both a valid and a counter example.

The original question was:

 Can you give an example of an instance in history when
 a large scale problem's technical solution was switched
 from a simple one to a complex one, and things got better ?

Keyword here is "better" :)  Since you say that this is a valid example, I
assume you know of a few examples where things got better with voting
machines. Assuming you're not talking about the balance sheets of the
vendors... where did something get better with voting machines?

Gerhard

2006\04\07@122547 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Peter,

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 21:42:45 +0300 (IDT), Peter wrote:
>...
> Can you give
> an example of an instance in history when a large scale problem's
> technical solution was switched from a simple one to a complex one, and
> things got better ? Especially when the technology was very new ?

I don't know whether this counts as "large scale", but in about 1967 the Victoria Line opened on the London
Underground.  For the 80-odd years of electric underground trains up to that point trains were driven by the
driver, by hand, and signalling used the "block" system, where a train could not enter a block (protected by a
signal) until the previous train had vacated it.  This gave a large spacing between trains, and a maximum
speed of 35mph.  

The Victoria Line introduced automatic trains - there is still a driver, but his job is to open and shut the
doors, and signal the train to start, and to stop it in an emergency (people jumping in front of the train,
for example) and he can drive it the old way if needed, but driving between stations, keeping a safe spacing
from the train in front, and stopping at the next station is al under automatic control.  The speed limit is
increased to 56mph, and with much smaller gaps between the trains - they arrive at a rate of about one a
minute during the Rush Hour - no hand-driven line can match this rate.

This "New technology" is now nearly 40 years old, and I don't believe there has ever been an accident caused
by it, and in the same time there have been a number of accidents on other lines caused by driver error.

So the automation has resulted in faster, more frequent trains, and improved safety.  I reckon that's better!  
:-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\07@122732 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Marcel,

Making things better...

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 13:03:00 -0700, Marcel Birthelmer
wrote:

> voting machines!

Not from what I hear from our side of the pond!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\08@122505 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>  Can you give an example of an instance in history when
>  a large scale problem's technical solution was switched
>  from a simple one to a complex one, and things got better ?


Delta project.


       Russell McMahon


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...