Someone was bound to do it…instead of leaving RFID to the dogs, Yahoo! reports that someone in Vancouver has had a doctor in LA implant a tag. (What’s wrong with Vancouver’s doctors?)

Now he can login just by walking up to the computer. But can anyone else? The article doesn’t mention whether he has done anything to revent replay attacks. It does say his girlfriend thinks its a good idea. She would, of course, just like the collar she makes him wear.

Forget those cheesy Dick Tracy gadgets, the Defense Department announced that they have developed Superman-like X-Ray powers for the troops in a $1,000 2.5lb AA-battery powered device.

Next perhaps they’ll develop a scope-like version to mount on wall-piercing super-ordinance. Why bother trying to clear a room when you can sit outside in an armored box and pick off targets like fish in a barrel?

Proposals are expected this week for the new “Visi Building” technology that’s more than a motion detector. It will actually “see” through multiple walls, penetrating entire buildings to show floor plans, locations of occupants and placement of materials such as weapons caches, Baranoski said [from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Special Projects Office].

“It will give (troops) a lot of opportunity to stake out buildings and really see inside,” he said. “It will go a long way in extending their surveillance capabilities.”

What happens when the troops lose one, or even a shipment, to their enemy? Is there authentication built-in?

From a home-front perspective I can’t imagine this not being of interest to local law enforcement or federal agents, especially on stake-outs but perhaps even on routine neighborhood calls. And back to the question of authentication controls, what happens when they fall into the hands of criminals?

What length will you go to to ensure your walls aren’t transparent to the law, or law-breakers, who get their hands on these devices? Who do you trust and what controls should be in place? Lead underwear is probably just a start…

There was a big debate some months ago on the security blogs about bullet-proof designer clothes, which started a thread on whether helmets could stop bullets effectively.

I guess the answer is a definite yes, if you include the ability to deflect force and protect the user against harm.

This harrowing story from Iraq suggests that the troops find the latest technology in helmets heavy and cumbersome, but that it undeniably lowers their vulnerability. Although I understand that the story is meant in part to reassure soldiers to keep their lid on, I couldnt’ help but notice there is no mention whether the prior helmet model would have failed or done a similar job:

The round, most likely a 7.62 mm from a sniper rifle, ricocheted off the upper left side of the helmet, shredding the outside and slightly cracking the inside.

I’ll take two.

This news story is quite sad. A high school student discovers that enough people pressing the F5 key while on the school website causes a Denial of Service (DoS) condition, perhaps even on the school’s “system”. Alas, being a typical high school kid, he tells all his friends to give it a try at the same time.

What’s the response?

“It’s a crime and it is important we take this seriously … especially for school officials … it could have done a tremendous amount of damage,” said Canton City Prosecutor Frank Fronchione.

Ok, but let’s be Frank about this. I bet the prosecutor probably broke the speed limit on the way to work that morning, which also could have done a tremendous amount of damage, but mild speeding has not been established as a felony (yet?). So what’s the “reasonable” level of damage and the “reasonable” response? Can Frank explain the risk calculation that has been used to suggest that a “tremendous amount of damage” is even remotely likely, or that the remediation of the hole would cause duress? I’m not defending the student, just wondering if some of the key details of the story are missing.

My guess, based on the over-reaction of the school to the attack, is that this is one of those cases where the kid was already marked as some kind of trouble-maker with a prior record and the school has just been looking for the right function to get him out of their hair. But the details are sketchy and prosecutors are known to blow things out of proportion in order to establish a favorable bargaining position for their client.

Apologies for the puns…