by [TC]²
A monthly column of technology rambling, rumination and reality
By: Jud Early, Corporate Vice President, Research, [TC]²
October 2005
Hello, faithful readers,
Last week, [TC]² hosted the fall meeting of AAFA's Enterprise Competitiveness Committee. For those who are unfamiliar with this committee, it is comprised of three formerly independent committees of the American Apparel and Footwear Association. The Technical Advisory Committee, which was the producer of the TAC Breakfast and Seminar at Bobbin Show for many years, the old Apparel Research Committee which became the Sewn Products Research Council, and the Quality Committee, merged to form the ECC. The meeting was well attended, and as always, it was good to see old friends, and to be able to talk about new technology and business practices to such an interested and interesting group.
I had the opportunity to discuss RFID and to bring some less than mainstream thoughts to members in attendance. I'd like to share some of the presentation with you.
Before getting to the subject at hand, I must warn that this is not an unbiased view of RFID or other socio/political aspects that surround the topic. As a technologist, I make no apologies for being pro-tech. Whatever your views regarding personal privacy, any technology in the wrong hands may present a danger to privacy and liberty. An educated population is therefore better able to contend with such a threat, and hopefully, will act in a manner that serves the public good.
Radio Frequency Identification owes its very existence to early scientists such as Michael Faraday and Guglielmo Marconi. The latter day developers are too numerous to identify and provide mention without omission of some key player. So what is this RFID that has garnered so much interest in the business and public media? Prior to the entry of the United States into World War II, as the British air squadrons returned from the continent after performing bombing raids, there needed to be some way that friendly aircraft could be identified, while not allowing the enemy to be mis-identified as a “friendly”. The use of radio technology permitted ground stations to send radio signals to airplanes returning, and to expect a radio signal in reply. Thus was born Identity Friend or Foe, the first term used to describe a radio reply sent in response to a radio enquiry. It is obvious to those who have studied history what Marconi's contribution to the technology was. Without his pioneering work in sending electromagnetic transmission through the airwaves, the invention of radio would have occurred later and would be credited to someone else. Marconi and Faraday were born almost a century apart, yet the discoveries of each added to the base of technical knowledge that made IFF and later RFID possible.
What then, did Faraday contribute? In 1831, after working for several years in the scientific field, Michael Faraday discovered the principle of electromagnetic inductance. This is the basis for today's electric motor, transformers, and other gear that uses the coupling of electromagnetic waves to increase, decrease, or isolate one part of an electronic circuit from another. It also allows the construction of huge dynamos to generate electrical energy to power modern day conveniences. The discovery that magnetic flux lines cutting the turns of a coil of wire would generate electricity was proven by moving a magnetic bar into and out of an induction coil. The diagram below shows that a galvanometer needle will swing from its position at rest in a positive direction when a magnet is moved into its field, and will swing to the negative side when the magnet is withdrawn. This is alternating current. The alternating positive and negative currents induced would present as a type of sinusoidal wave if viewed on an oscilloscope. It is the use of this principle that allows today's passive RFID tag to function with no battery for power.
A passive tag is one in which stimulation from outside generates enough power for the tag to function. A passive tag cannot be read without stimulation from an interrogator. Active tags may contain both an on-board battery to power its functions, or may be both battery powered and externally powered. Both types of tag will be addressed in this article.
Now, back to Faraday. The flashlight below is an example of the Faraday principle applied to a common household tool. You may have seen it advertised on television. Requiring no battery, the light is powered by vigorously shaking the magnet contained within, causing it to pass rapidly through the induction coil, and generating electrical voltage.
Faraday Principle Flashlight
Make note of the parts named above.
A typical passive tag
Where is the magnet?
The tag shown above is powered in similar fashion to the flashlight. Magnetic flux lines cut across the coil windings and generate electricity. The energy is applied to the capacitor which stores energy until it is needed. In this case, when the interrogator sends out its electromagnetic waves, seeking any and all tags that are in its field, the magnetic waves cut the flux lines, generating electrical voltage, which, when reaching a prescribed level, activates the radio in the tag. The radio begins to broadcast the identity of the tag, which is then sensed by an antenna that is part of the interrogator. When the tags says “it's me, tag number 1234” the antenna recognizes the signal and routes it to a client that decodes the tag number and sends it to a server, noting the time, date, location and any other application specific information needed. Thus, a passive tag, with no battery and therefore no battery failure problem can sit idle for days, months, or years, and still be available to identify the item to which it is affixed.
The highly simplified illustration above is meant to provide an overview of the type of tag that is currently being used in RFID pilots for case and pallet identification. There are many different shapes and sizes, most of which are governed by the function, along with range and signal to noise considerations.
For those involved in shipping of product, especially those using intermodal containers, a new type of tag has just concluded successful testing. It is a powered tag, one that can monitor the opening of doors, temperature, impact, and other types of intrusion. The tag uses three different types of communication, wireless phone, satellite and GPRS, using the most appropriate method where available.
More than 10,000 containers are lost each year. Of the millions in transit, the percentage may be small, but the loss could be great if the lost container is yours. Wouldn't it be good to know that the shipment you are expecting in two weeks will not arrive, and to know it in time to make alternate plans?
OOPS!
Accidents do happen. If you are shipping tee-shirts or jeans, the product is safe, but may be delayed while accident investigators and insurers determine fault. If you are shipping fine furniture, the container may now be filled with kindling. With an intermodal tag, the tag would “call home” when any unexpected event occurred, allowing the owner of the goods to know where the container has been mishandled, and where it is while it is out of the delivery cycle. This type of tag is not intended to be a one-time use tag, but may be reused many times. The cost is commensurate with the value of the shipment and the desired ability to know through whose hands the shipment has passed, and to ensure that no threat to society has been implanted during its voyage.
There is much more to write about RFID and the social and political implications. Please stay tuned for more rambling and rumination on this evolving subject.
Last month I gave my faithful readers a break from my lectures on computer security. I know you all must feel that I'm paranoid about the topic, but if we are not diligent in our efforts to secure our computers, communications and the public Internet, we will risk loss of all. I have written before about botnets and the way that your computer and mine can be taken over by crackers and crooks. The following story, courtesy of TechWeb News reports that 1.5 million computers were found to have been compromised and engaged in a single botnet. Please read and consider whether you would like your computer to be spewing spam or pornography to the world as you sleep, and even as you work at the keyboard.
Good reading, and until next month, be safe in computing and in life.
Jud
October 21, 2005
Dutch Botnet Suspects Ran 1.5 Million Machines
By Gregg Keizer
- Courtesy of TechWeb News
Dutch prosecutors who last month arrested a trio of young men for creating a large botnet allegedly used to extort a U.S. company, steal identities, and distribute spyware now say they bagged bigger prey: a botnet of 1.5 million machines.
According to Wim de Bruin, a spokesman for the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie, or OM), when investigators at GOVCERT.NL, the Netherlands' Computer Emergency Response Team, and several Internet service providers began dismantling the botnet, they discovered it consisted of about 1.5 million compromised computers, 15 times the 100,000 PCs first thought.
The three suspects, ages 19, 22, and 27, were arrested Oct. 6 on charges of threatening a U.S. firm with a denial-of-service (DoS) attack after Amsterdam-based Internet service provider XS4ALL notified authorities of unusual activity on its network. The two younger men are still in custody -- a Breda court just extended their incarceration by 30 days -- but the 27-year-old has been released pending trial, said the OM.
More arrests are likely, de Bruin said, as the investigation continues.
The trio supposedly used the Toxbot Trojan horse to infect the vast number of machines, easily the largest controlled by arrested attackers. But Simon Hania, chief technology officer at XS4ALL, told the Associated Press that even though the botnet was enormous, it was just "a drop in the ocean."
"[These things] destroy the Internet," he said.