Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security IT Technology

Only Three of the Top 100 International Airports Pass Basic Security Checks (zdnet.com) 39

Posted by msmash from the security-woes dept.
Only three of the world's Top 100 international airports pass basic security checks, according to a report published last week by cyber-security firm ImmuniWeb. From a report: The three are the Amsterdam Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands, the Helsinki Vantaa Airport in Finland, and the Dublin International Airport in Ireland. According to ImmuniWeb, these three "may serve a laudable example not just to the aviation industry but to all other industries as well." The three are the only airports that passed a long list of security tests that involved checks of their public websites, official mobile applications, and searches for leaks of sensitive airport or passenger data in places like cloud services, public code repositories, or the dark web.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Only Three of the Top 100 International Airports Pass Basic Security Checks More

Only Three of the Top 100 International Airports Pass Basic Security Checks

Comments Filter:

  • I thought they meant guns (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smoot123 ( 1027084 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @03:30PM (#59686190)

    When I saw the headline, I assumed they meant physical security (knives, bombs, guns, nail clippers). Perhaps the headline should mention "information security" or "network security"?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by amorsen ( 7485 )

      Don't worry, none of them pass basic physical security checks. They keep letting the fake guns through that are used for testing.

      However, while there has been hijackings after 9/11, none of them have AFAIK killed anyone or achieved the (rather diverse) aims of the hijackers, so I am not going to complain too loudly about the security theatre.

      • A secure airport is closed to the public, and even then, it's not all that secure [militarytimes.com]

        • A secure airport is closed to the public...

          A secure computer is turned off, encased in lead, and launched at escape velocity. Everything else is a compromise.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by VAXcat ( 674775 )
        I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. Since I've had it, there haven't been any tiger attacks anywhere near me! The ridiculous TSA security theater isn't stopping or reducing the severity of terrorist attacks - it's cockpit security and the fact that, since 9/11, anyone who tries to highjack a plane would be ripped into little tiny bits by the passengers. Giving credit to the TSA is a joke..

        • anyone who tries to highjack a plane would be ripped into little tiny bits by the passengers.
          And how would unarmed passengers do that? /facepalm

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            And how would unarmed passengers do that?

            If a bunch of people pile on top of someone, it's pretty easy to disarm them. And even break their neck. Sure, a few people are going to get sliced up. But the if alternative is a flight into the side of a building, enough people with risk it.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Cyberax ( 705495 )
            Blunt object trauma is a good way of subduing people.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by XXongo ( 3986865 )

            anyone who tries to highjack a plane would be ripped into little tiny bits by the passengers. And how would unarmed passengers do that? /facepalm

            Back in the naïve days when unarmed passengers used to think an armed hijacker on an airplane meant an unscheduled layover in Havana, they didn't attack a hijacker.

            Now that unarmed passengers on airplanes understand an armed hijacker means their airplane will be crashed, everybody on board will die, and there will be as much destruction as possible, yes, the unarmed passengers will attack a hijacker on the assumption "he can't get us all".

            • But you don't know that/if the hijacker plans to crash the plane ...
              A no brainer.

              And people always will behave like this: hope someone else does it.

              • Those were the old rules, but 2001/09/11 changed that. The passengers of UAL 93 meekly submitted to a hijacking under the "old rules" and ended up fighting back when they realized that their plane had been turned into a cruise missile. You don't get meek submission to hijackers anymore. If you're going to die anyway, may as well go out fighting. If my plane was under a hijacking attempt, I'd do anything to try to stop them. Don't be a pussy, and don't assume most of us would be.

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
                  YesI willsubmit, and here is way, I have no training on what to do to take down a hijacer, so ipI would orobsbly be a hindrance to others that may know what t do, ofc uf someone with thevrwquiered knowkages, who is for one reson or another, unamle todo the nececery themmselves is willing to instruct me on the spot, I will do what I can to help

            • anyone who tries to highjack a plane would be ripped into little tiny bits by the passengers. And how would unarmed passengers do that? /facepalm

              Back in the naïve days when unarmed passengers used to think an armed hijacker on an airplane meant an unscheduled layover in Havana, they didn't attack a hijacker.

              Now that unarmed passengers on airplanes understand an armed hijacker means their airplane will be crashed, everybody on board will die, and there will be as much destruction as possible, yes, the unarmed passengers will attack a hijacker on the assumption "he can't get us all".

              Not to mention the most effective thing to come out of 9/11, the pilot is going to stay behind his locked door and land safely regardless of what the hijacker is going to attempt. Even if it means landing with a passenger hold full of corpses he isn't going to hand over control of the plane.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] The attempted bomber was subdued by passengers after the bomber overpowered a flight attendant. Unarmed passengers still have arms, and hands.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            https://qz.com/485435/unarmed-... [qz.com]

            Unarmed Americans took down a terrorist with an AK-47 on a french train. Not a plane. But unarmed passengers against a gun.

            Have you ever seen the news? Unarmed passengers who don't feel they have any other choice do a pretty good job of taking out armed attackers.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            A sportcoat wrapped around your arm makes a pretty good shield against a box knife. At least long enough to thoroughly secure an adversary in close quarters.

            The shoebomber and the underwear bomber were subdued by passengers. Google "hijackers subdued by passengers" and be enlightened.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        Don't worry, none of them pass basic physical security checks. They keep letting the fake guns through that are used for testing.

        Yep, I've heard stories of people with large knives making it through, the fake guns (usually encased in clear plastic I believe), etc. I used to work on the ramp of a major airport and even had one flight I was working on have to deplane and resweep the aircraft because a passenger was putting their carryon in the overhead and had several bullets fall out.

        And I won't even get into the breaches involving employees (most accidental, some very big and intentional). Oh, and a lot of ramp/cargo employees woul

      • They keep letting the fake guns through that are used for testing.

        Reminds me of the joke I first heard in the '80s: what's the best way to smuggle guns/cocaine/people into the USA? Hide it/them in bales of marijuana.

      • None of them?

        Or just none we'll admit were hijackings?

      • Don't worry, none of them pass basic physical security checks. They keep letting the fake guns through that are used for testing.

        However, while there has been hijackings after 9/11, none of them have AFAIK killed anyone or achieved the (rather diverse) aims of the hijackers, so I am not going to complain too loudly about the security theatre.

        There was that downed airplane in Iran, last month so...

  • It's Data & Web Security (Score:5, Informative)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @03:30PM (#59686194)
    The headline omits a very important piece of information. This is security related to the websites of airports and other data that they might be handling, and has nothing to do with physical security, etc. that most people (including myself) are going to immediately assume when reading the headline. Even the summary doesn't get around to this until the end, when it should probably be in the first sentence to provide some immediately clarity.

    • This is /. -- they have resorted to click bait headlines. :-/

      --
      Yes, it HAS been 18 seconds since I hit reply. WTF do I need to wait 30 seconds???

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Teun ( 17872 )
      So you would expect zdnet to publish an article about physical security?

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • The major airport near me considers a single chain link fence to be enough security. And there are gates in that fence, secured with just some chain and a padlock. Beyond the gates and fence are things like parked aircraft just feet away, and huge fuel tanks not much farther. Beyond that are the taxiways and runways clogged with planes waiting to takeoff, and eventually the terminal buildings. It's a pretty standard airport. I've seen several with the same lack of security.

    I have NO idea why terrorist

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Most advanced nations understood that side of security after
      El Al Flight 432 attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] in ... 1969.
      1975 Orly Airport attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] in ... 1975.
      Heathrow mortar attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] in 1994..
      ie after that most nations really, really put some thought into the "single chain link fence"...
      ie they all have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      Every person near an airport is on CCTV well before they are "near an airport"
      Rings of

    • I have NO idea why terrorists haven't already rammed a truck through fence like that one, blown up the fuel tanks, and proceeded to the taxiways where they only have to disable the first plane in the line.

      Good question. If they haven't done it (and I agree, if you don't mind dying they sure seem doable) there must be a reason they don't consider it worth it.

      Some possibilities spring to mind. Finding suicide terrorists and getting them into the US might be harder than it seems. They might value sudden civilian deaths over property damage. They are more focused on affecting foreign populations and governments than the USA. Terrorists might realize that such an attack would likely result in a military response,

  • It's all a lie. You are no more secure today than you were on September 11th 2001. The whole system exists to give you the illusion of security, while removing any fantasy of a relaxing vacation.

  • How much of the security is over the top and only there for totalitarian police state reasons?

    Or basic anxiety disorder security checks?
    How much of it is over the top because of irrational fears?

    Also, how much of the actually nessecary security would not be necessary, if we hadn't installed dictators, and trained, armed and financed so many terrorists to get rid of them again? (And then more, to get rid of *those*. Because after all, terrorists = profit!)

Slashdot Top Deals

PURGE COMPLETE.

Close