Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Semi-OT: Killing RFID credit card?

L

Lostgallifreyan

Jan 1, 1970
0
You might be on the right lines there, gas igniters usually use a high
current gas discharge tube or a thyristor to dump the charge in a
capacitor into a HV pulse transformer, it might be possible to damage
the card's transceiver by dumping the charge into a few turns pressed
against the antenna.

I got the idea from an accident with a HeNe laser I was trying to make
pulses from with one. Worked once, tube laster for years, but I recently
tested one carelessly, the arc hit glass discharging into the gas inside. I
noticed a lack of lasing pulses, so started playing around, knowing it was
dead and suspecting why. The gas flashes became pinkish, then blusish, then
blue, then negligible as the tube pressure went up to air in minutes. The
glass had several very tiny neat holes, they looked like minute bubble
flaws. I bet the plastic card might not show anything if you killed the
chip with a single spark. As you say, high current, and a very clean very
tiny puncture. A pulse laser finely focussed could do no better, probably.
 
I

ian field

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael A. Terrell said:
I've heard that about a lot of British food. :(


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Not enough lard for American tastes!
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
ian said:
Not enough lard for American tastes!



Lard? I remove as much fat from my food as possible, whether animal
or vegetable. Do you want a couple gallons of orange lard to make soap?

I cook almost all of my meals because of my health. My cholesterol
is within the normal range, without medicine. I have cooked almost all
of my meals for over 35 years.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
martin said:
British food is now officially Indian, things have changed


Its not PC to microwave Indians.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
H

Homer J Simpson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Is there a simple method to kill the RFID side of the card without
harming the magstripe? I've tried flexing it to break the bond wires,
but this hasn't worked (I have 13MHz readers, so I can see the card
powering up).

Wrap it in aluminium foil except when you want to use it.
 
T

Tom Lucas

Jan 1, 1970
0
ian field said:
Fries (chips in English) are absolutely revolting microwaved.

Until McCain revolutionised the world with Micro Chips ;-)

A notable quote from the instructions: "Shake the box to seperate the
chips - extra space has been allowed for this." Explains why there are
only three chips in the box.
 
I

ian field

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom Lucas said:
Until McCain revolutionised the world with Micro Chips ;-)

A notable quote from the instructions: "Shake the box to seperate the
chips - extra space has been allowed for this." Explains why there are
only three chips in the box.
Just as well - they taste like papier-mache anyway!
 
I

ian field

Jan 1, 1970
0
Homer J Simpson said:
Wrap it in aluminium foil except when you want to use it.
Some car accessory shops sell rolls of self adhesive bright aluminium foil
trim strip, this mightbe used to mask the antenna, alternatively a more
covert method might be paint on a shorted turn with silver loaded paint.
 
T

Tom Lucas

Jan 1, 1970
0
ian field said:
Just as well - they taste like papier-mache anyway!

They're alright if you take them out of the box and deep fry them.
 
K

Kevin G. Rhoads

Jan 1, 1970
0
Some nice spark discharges to the vicinity of the RFID chip
should fry it. Cap discharge will provide short sparks w/o
significant currents. THe mag stripe is more sensitive to
magnetic fields so you would erase that with a bulk eraser
without affecting the RFID chip. To do the reverse, high
E fields which are allowed to collapse by transient arcing
through the semiconductors of the RFID chip. Magstripe
won't give a flying flake about any of that.

One of those joke circuits, with an interrupted current
through an inductor could be used, provided you keep the
circuit WELL away from the card and lead the output over
with a wire.

Otherwise, wait until winter, walk across a wool rug
and put the card, RFID chip closest, on the door knob.
 
K

Kevin G. Rhoads

Jan 1, 1970
0
protections for _credit_ cards are fairly robust, but _debit_ cards
are not so well protected. Additionally, if someone scammed my credit
card, I'd simply not be able to use that card for a while. If someone
scams my debit card, my checks will start bouncing, which affects
every bill I pay.

And the response is -- JUST DON'T USE A DEBIT CARD, EVER.

Debit cards are not "not so well protected" they are NOT protected
at all. There is no law or regulation in the USofA, and I doubt
EU or British systems are much better, which protects the user
from fraud.

We don't have one, so far we've been able to get ATM cards which
are NOT pseudo-credit cards. Although it has taken some yelling
with at least one bank.

Debit cards - just say "Hell NO!"
 
L

Lostgallifreyan

Jan 1, 1970
0
Some nice spark discharges to the vicinity of the RFID chip
should fry it. Cap discharge will provide short sparks w/o
significant currents. THe mag stripe is more sensitive to
magnetic fields so you would erase that with a bulk eraser
without affecting the RFID chip. To do the reverse, high
E fields which are allowed to collapse by transient arcing
through the semiconductors of the RFID chip. Magstripe
won't give a flying flake about any of that.

One of those joke circuits, with an interrupted current
through an inductor could be used, provided you keep the
circuit WELL away from the card and lead the output over
with a wire.

Otherwise, wait until winter, walk across a wool rug
and put the card, RFID chip closest, on the door knob.

Wrong, and badly confused. The pulse coil gas ignitors put out a high
current, yet you say that capacitor based systems do not. Static charges
from a carpet have higher voltages, smaller currents, and are less likely
to work, yet you say this will do it.
You've totally ignored existing posts which have a better grasp, then
spread nothing but confusion as if you're the first person to even think of
a spark as a method.
Your tone talks like the A Team flying in to fix it with a swagger, but if
you can't walk the walk, why bother? Even the A Team looked at what they
were going into first. And they were funnier.
 
K

Kevin G. Rhoads

Jan 1, 1970
0
Your tone talks like the A Team flying in to fix it with a swagger, but if
you can't walk the walk, why bother?

I read your post. All your feed-back to me could be applied to what you
posted pretty much unchanged -- if I wanted to do that. Besides which
you offered pretty much no technical advice at all, just critiques (and
in my opinion, not very good ones -- you take my words out of context
and twist them to mean something else and then criticise that newly
created meaning, e.g., "The pulse coil gas ignitors put out a high
current, yet you say that capacitor based systems do not." No, I didn't
say that. I never mentioned gas ignitors. I never mentioned pulse
coils. You brought all of that yourself. Then you criticised the result.
You didn't respond to what I wrote, but some fantasy you created that
has perhaps a vague resemblance to my writing.)

As for assuming that I have stupidly ignored prior posts, I don't think
the evidence supports that. My news reader didn't show lots of other
replies when I replied. Of course, you, in your Gallimaufrean near-
omniscence, just missed that, I suppose.

If you (generic, not you in specific) WANT to read stupidity into a post,
you (still generic) can always find it. So, why do you (specific, not
generic) chose to do so?

I am not impressed by your criticism; I find most of it off base
and irrelevant. I do see, and thank you for pointing out, that
there were places I could have well been clearer. Perhaps I made
the assumption that all readers would have some ability at logic,
not to mention the ability to actually read what was written, both
are clearly mistakes for UseNet -- as you have made so abundantly
clear.

My apologies for stressing your understanding beyond what it could
deal with. I begin to understand how you could have lost your way
back to Gallimaufry (?sp). I hope you will recover soon from
whatever injury or illness so limited you to mere human levels.
Perhaps you will find your misplace Tardis, and return for the
medical treatment you need to return to your ordinary near-omniscience.
Since that beyond human understanding that you expect of yourself
is so clearly lacking.

Sincerely
(no illusions of beyond human competence and understanding)
Kevin
 
L

larwe

Jan 1, 1970
0
back to Gallimaufry (?sp). I hope you will recover soon from

How dare you post in c.a.e without a complete and encyclopedic
knowledge of Doctor Who? Knowledge of the Sylvester McCoy years is of
course optional, and any knowledge of the so-called followon products
after McCoy actually earns negative points; those new products are
mere merchandising with no hint or flavor of the Doctor Who mythos.
 
K

Kevin G. Rhoads

Jan 1, 1970
0
How dare you post in c.a.e without a complete and encyclopedic
knowledge of Doctor Who?

Sorry, just clueless, I guess. I really haven't considered
much past Tom Baker to be ... well anything.
 
M

msg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Kevin said:
Sorry, just clueless, I guess. I really haven't considered
much past Tom Baker to be ... well anything.

Seconded.

Regards,

Michael
 
L

larwe

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sorry, just clueless, I guess. I really haven't considered
much past Tom Baker to be ... well anything.

I doff my hat to you, sir, as a purist. There aren't enough such
people in the world.
 
T

Tom Lucas

Jan 1, 1970
0
larwe said:
How dare you post in c.a.e without a complete and encyclopedic
knowledge of Doctor Who? Knowledge of the Sylvester McCoy years is of
course optional, and any knowledge of the so-called followon products
after McCoy actually earns negative points; those new products are
mere merchandising with no hint or flavor of the Doctor Who mythos.

McCoy had the foxiest assistant (Sophie Aldred).
 
L

larwe

Jan 1, 1970
0
On May 2, 10:32 am, "Tom Lucas"
McCoy had the foxiest assistant (Sophie Aldred).

(picture me as Dogbert, waving paw) - Bah. Nicam = not the true rubber-
monsters-and-cardboard-props design philosophy of Doctor Who.

Besides, I'd back Leela in a face-off any day.
 
Top