Extremely useful knowledge

[Hurlshort]

I just found out an amazing trick for if you lock your keys in your car. This only works on cars with the remotes that unlock doors, but if someone else has the remote, they can unlock the door through your cell phone. Let me go step by step here:

 

1. Call whoever has your remote.

 

2. Have them hold the remote up to the phone, and hold your phone close to the door.

 

3. When they hit unlock, it should unlock the door, even if they are a 1000 miles away!

 

My wife and I plan on trying it tomorrow. It's something I never would have thought of, and I tend to lock my keys in my car at least once a year.

[Bokishi]

I'm sceptical, so you go ahead and try it tommorow.

[Fenghuang]

I'm sceptical, so you go ahead and try it tommorow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Diamond]

It could be theoretically possible due to interference, when mechanical sound waves from phone speaker are converted to electromagnetic signal, remote's signal could interfere with phone's converted signal. Same with the door lock and the phone on the other end.

[Petay]

I'm sceptical, so you go ahead and try it tommorow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely wouldn't it only work if it was activated by sound or something from the remote? I didn't know phones could actually transmit any other wave than sound waves...

[Diamond]

No, electromagnetic waves of remote would not mix in the sound waves (at least directly), but sound from the microphone goes through the wire to the phone's cirtuit boards to be digitized, and at that moment, remote's signal would interfere with analogue signal that is travelling along the wire from the microphone. Hence digital signal from the remote would be treated as analogue sound signal by phone's ADC and get transmitted to the other end.

 

EDIT: everytime I said "speaker", I meant "microphone".

Edited August 27, 2006 by Diamond

[Petay]

I'm not sure I follow that entirely, but does that mean if someone's phone were to be struck by lightning on the other end of the line then something would come out your side?

 

(sorry for derailing, etc, etc)

Edited August 27, 2006 by Petay

[Diamond]

I'm not sure I follow that entirely, but does that mean if someone's phone were to be struck by lightning on the other end of the line then something would come out your side?

 

(sorry for derailing, etc, etc)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you ever hear your sound speakers buzzing when you happen to receive an incoming call on your mobile lying nearby? Well that's almost the same thing (just different kind of signal).

 

And no, lightning will just burn the phone. :D

[metadigital]

In 1956 Robert Adler developed "Zenith Space Command", a wireless remote. It was mechanical and used ultrasound to change the channel and volume. When the user pushed a button on the remote control it clicked and struck a bar, hence the term "clicker". Each bar emitted a different frequency and circuits in the television detected this noise. The invention of the transistor made possible cheaper electronic remotes that contained a piezoelectric crystal that was fed by an oscillating electric current at a frequency near or above the upper threshold of human hearing, though still audible to dogs. The receiver contained a microphone attached to a circuit that was tuned to the same frequency. Some problems with this method were that the receiver could be triggered accidentally by naturally occurring noises, and some people, especially young women, could hear the piercing ultrasonic signals. There was even a noted incident in which a toy xylophone changed the channels on these types of TVs since some of the overtones from the xylophone matched the remote's ultrasonic frequency.

...

In the early 1980s, when semiconductors for emitting and receiving infrared radiation were developed, remote controls gradually switched to that technology which, as of 2006, is still widely used. Remotes using radio technologies, such as Bose Audio Systems and those based on Bluetooth also exist.

...

A remote keyless system is a system designed to remotely lock, or unlock, access to premises or automobiles.

 

In the case of automobiles it duplicates all of the features of a standard car key with the added convenience of operating the power door locks, eliminating the need to physically manipulate a key into a lock as well as being able to do so at a distance. A remote keyless system can include both a remote keyless entry system (RKE) and a remote keyless ignition system (RKI). It works on the same principle as some television remote controls

[SteveThaiBinh]

How far are we from fingerprint technology for cars, front doors and the like?

 

I'm useless with keys. I don't usually lock myself out of things, but I can never find them in the morning.

[Diamond]

How far are we from fingerprint technology for cars, front doors and the like?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you say "fingerprint technology", you mean biometrics, right? It has its own problems. For example, unlike keys, you leave your fingerprints everywhere.

[SteveThaiBinh]

When you say "fingerprint technology", you mean biometrics, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Umm, I guess. Or eye-scans maybe, if fingerprints are too easy to copy/fake. I've heard that all this stuff is years from being workable, but I've also heard that Australian immigration are already using it.

Edited August 27, 2006 by SteveThaiBinh

[Fenghuang]

I'm pretty sure I saw fingerprint tech in one of the newer luxury cars awhile back. Maybe a fancy Nissan?

 

Anyhow, they aren't easy to fake if the scanner's good. The cheap ones, only scan the surface and they're easy to fake out. The good ones go and scan all three layers of skin and they're near impossible to fake out. Handprint scanners are even better, as they scan the individual veins in your hand.

[metadigital]

IBM have had biometric-restricted (read: fingerprint scanners) access to their laptops for a few years now.

[Checkpoint]

but I've also heard that Australian immigration are already using it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never know what to think when it turns out the future's actually already here.

 

The stuff Jim's talking about sounds pretty safe, though. Couldn't that be taken a step further, like having a "password" of sorts where you'd scan a very specified part of your hand as well to make it even more difficult to crack?

[Fenghuang]

Just encode it with each print then have the end user make up a key using fingertaps. Add more taps for more security, keep them in your head, easier to remember than computer passwords since there's an active component.

[metadigital]

but I've also heard that Australian immigration are already using it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never know what to think when it turns out the future's actually already here.

 

The stuff Jim's talking about sounds pretty safe, though. Couldn't that be taken a step further, like having a "password" of sorts where you'd scan a very specified part of your hand as well to make it even more difficult to crack?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. That is called multifactor authentication.

The authentication factors for humans are generally classified into three cases:

1. Something the user is (e.g., fingerprint or retinal pattern, DNA sequence (there are assorted definitions of what is sufficient), voice pattern (again several definitions), signature recognition, unique bio-electric signals produced by the living body, or other biometric identifier)
    
   
2. Something the user has (e.g., ID card, security token, software token or cell phone)
    
   
3. Something the user knows (e.g., a password, a pass phrase or a personal identification number (PIN))
   

A bank debit card is an example of two factor authentication.

Two-factor authentication (T-FA) is any authentication protocol that requires two independent ways to establish identity and privileges. This contrasts with traditional password authentication, which requires only one factor (knowledge of a password) in order to gain access to a system.

 

Common implementations of two-factor authentication use 'something you know' as one of the two factors, and use either 'something you have' or 'something you are' as the other factor. Using more than one factor is also called strong authentication; using just one factor, for example just a password, is considered by some weak authentication. A common example of T-FA is a bank card (credit card, debit card); the card itself is the physical item, and the personal identification number (PIN) is the data that goes with it. See Chip and PIN for more information on this. Two-factor authentication is a form of strong authentication. Strong authentication also includes multi-factor that do not include a physical factor (card or dongle). The multiple factors can both be online for strong authentication.

 

According to proponents, T-FA could drastically reduce the incidence of online identity theft, and other online fraud, because the victim's password would no longer be enough to give a thief access to their information. However, Bruce Schneier argues T-FA is still vulnerable to trojan and man-in-the-middle attacks.[1]

 

Deployment of T-FA tools such as smart cards and USB tokens appears to be increasing. More organizations are adding a layer of security to the desktop that requires users to physically possess a token, and have knowledge of a PIN or password in order to access company data. However, there are still some drawbacks to two-factor authentication that are keeping the technology from widespread deployment. Some consumers have difficulty keeping track of one more object in their life. Also many two-factor authentication solutions are proprietary and protected by patents. The result is a substantial annual fee per person protected and a lack of interoperability.

[kalimeeri]

IBM have had biometric-restricted (read: fingerprint scanners) access to their laptops for a few years now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are also a couple of companies who manufacture them (APC is one) for general PC use. Does a good job for passwords. Nice desktop conversation piece or drawer place-holder mostly, because the software only works in IE-based apps. Meh.

[Atreides]

I dunno. I wouldn't like yakuza to chop off my fingers to get my stuff.

[metadigital]

That's a fallacy: the dead flesh doesn't react to the sensor correctly.

[Craigboy2]

I'm pretty sure I saw fingerprint tech in one of the newer luxury cars awhile back.  Maybe a fancy Nissan? 

 

Anyhow, they aren't easy to fake if the scanner's good.  The cheap ones, only scan the surface and they're easy to fake out.  The good ones go and scan all three layers of skin and they're near impossible to fake out.  Handprint scanners are even better, as they scan the individual veins in your hand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What if you cut off the guy's hand and use that?

 

EDIT: NVM

Edited August 27, 2006 by Craigboy2

[Checkpoint]

That's why you'd have the "password" procedure to go with the prints.

[Petay]

Super-genius scientists: 1

 

Yakuza: 0

 

Edit: NVM

Edited August 27, 2006 by Petay

[Craigboy2]

Super-genius scientists: 1

 

Yakuza: 0

 

Craigboy read up one post!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read my NVM.

[Judge Hades]

That's a fallacy: the dead flesh doesn't react to the sensor correctly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What if they force your hand onthe sensor then after it gives them access then they chop off your hand?