• TechnologyInnovator
• EnterpriseInnovator
• SecurityInnovator
• WirelessInnovator 

• NextInnovator(at)Live.com
• No spam, subscription newsletters, solicitations, or attachments please!
• Attn: Harold Abraham, Chief Innovator

• Cyberwarfare Headline News
• Biometrics & Surveillance Headline News
• Terrorism Headline News
• Guerrilla Warfare Headline News
• Nuclear Strategy Headline News
• WMD Headline News

• Stratfor Geopolitical Report
• Stratfor Daily Podcast
• Computerworld Security Blog
• eWeek Security Blog
• Information Security
• Infoworld Zero Day Security
• Cheap Hack: Larry Seltzer's New Blog
• McAfee Avert Labs Blog
• Mike Rothman's Blog
• Network Computing Daily Blog
• NetworkWorld, Buzzblog
• Security Fix, Brian Krebs
• ZeroDay, Ryan Naraine

• Over the River
• eMarketer 
• TechnologyPundits
• Security Insights Blog 
• McAfee AudioParasitics
• Strand Consult
• Ovum
• The Eye For Innovation
• Rethink Research
• Innovation Insights
• Innoblog
• Strategy and Innovation
• The Gadgeteer
• Handheld Speech
• Ghost City

 

A sweeping series of arrests in August 2006 revealed a nefarious plot by Al Qaeda sympathizers to use improvised binary liquid explosives to bring down ten America-bound passenger jets departing the UK, whose destinations included Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Toronto, and Montreal. The plot was so horrific, security officials quickly imposed substantial carry-on limitations, and in the early days when confusion reigned, hundreds of flights were either cancelled or delayed. Two years on, and seven of the eight accused liquid bomb plotters now face a retrial. One was cleared of all charges, and seven pled guilty to creating a public nuisance. Just three of plotters were found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder; those three had pled guilty of conspiracy to cause explosions, though they argued in court that their intent was not to bring down the jetliners, but instead to cause a political spectacle.

While the outcome of the trial was certainly a disappointment to all those whose lives were disrupted by their plot, and the incalculable economic costs of so many cancelled flights, delays, lost luggage, long queues, and resulting anxiety and frustration among the traveling public, it does not mean the liquid bomb plot was any less menacing, nor that the liquid bomb threat has been alleviated. Indeed, the enduring lesson of the 2006 liquid bomb plot is that the aviation sector remains a top target to terrorists the world over, and if vulnerabilities are found in the aviation security system, terrorists will invariably take aim at those points of weakness.

Two days after the liquid bomb plot burst into the public’s imagination, the New York Times opined in its editorial titled “The Liquid Bomb Threat” that “The most frightening thing about the foiled plot to use liquid explosives to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic is that both the government and the aviation industry have been aware of the liquid bomb threat for years but have done little to prepare for it.” That would quickly change. The initial response was an outright ban on carry-on items, including liquids of all sorts; but over time these restrictions were eased, and are now generally limited to what is known as the 3-1-1 rules, with exceptions allowed for baby bottles and meds. All other bottles must be three ounces or less by volume; they must be contained in one quart-sized clear zip-locked plastic bag; with only one such bag per passenger is allowed to be carried on.

According to Doug Kahn, the chairman and CEO of Ahura Scientific, Inc., “One of the key lessons from the 2006 liquid bomb threat was a greater awareness of liquids as a potential threat. Prior to that time, most threat screening technologies at aviation checkpoints focused on plastic explosives and weapons. With this awareness was the knowledge that volume matters, and by limiting the quantity of liquids brought onto an aircraft, security agencies were able to minimize the threat, leading to the 3-1-1 policy in the US.” As described on the TSA website, the increasing acceptance of the 3-1-1 limits “demonstrates the international understanding of the threat to aviation from liquid explosives,” and today sixty countries have “currently harmonized with TSA’s rules for carrying liquids through the checkpoint.” One consequence of the 3-1-1 rule is that it reminds the public that the liquid bomb threat remains. As the TSA website notes: “You arrive at the checkpoint to the sound of a transportation security officer reminding travelers to remove liquids, gels and aerosols from carry-ons. To the seasoned traveler this is old news, but to the seasonal traveler it might be a surprise. Regardless of your personal travel experience, the international traveling community agrees – TSA’s 3-1-1 for liquids makes security sense.” Kahn noted that for the traveling public, “this was a big change which had tremendous potential to impact their travel experience in a much more personal way. That led to another key lesson that came from the 2006 threat. New technology and procedures introduced to address the liquid explosives threat can be onerous and time-consuming – for the inspectors, the public, duty-free – virtually everyone in the security chain. The importance of creating sound and effective security processes, while mitigating inconvenience to passengers, is incredibly important when developing a sustainable and widely accepted program.”

Mike Moore, the manager of transit systems at ICx Technologies, was formerly contracted to serve as program manager to the TSA’s Liquid Explosives Program, observes the liquid bomb plot primarily demonstrated “terrorists were getting more adept at not getting caught. The fact that certain liquid mixtures can be used to cause an explosion was nothing new to security experts, but terrorists tend to use what’s most readily available to them, which on a global scale had mainly consisted of more conventional bomb making ingredients like TNT. Additionally, making liquid explosives detonate at the time and place you want them to – and with enough force to cause damage – requires some chemistry expertise, which had served as somewhat of a barrier until recently.” He added that the quickly implemented 3-1-1 rule that was “adopted by many countries really does work as a basic deterrent, however inconvenient it may be,” but noted it was just “a stopgap, not a permanent solution. Security agencies must continue to explore technologies to address the category of liquid threats.”

In addition to 3-1-1 rule, there has been a renaissance in technology research in the search for solutions to liquid bomb threat. Moore pointed out that “many countries have deployed handheld devices for use at airport checkpoints which scan passenger’s bottles for threat materials. One technology replicates a dog’s olfactory senses, and ‘sniffs’ the vapors from a sealed bottle to determine if it is harmful. A reaction inside the device occurs when the chemical comes into contact with a particle of the harmful material.” An example of what might be coming down the pike, added Moore, “would be the path security agencies in many counties are aggressively taking to advance the current Checkpoint and Checked Baggage Screening equipment at airports with algorithms which can find a bottle in a person’s bag and identify if the liquid is a threat, as each mixture has a unique ‘signature.’ This process, when coupled with those aforementioned handheld devices, provides layers of security and help to streamline passenger flow.”

As Ahura Scientific’s CEO Kahn explained, “Current technology deployed for liquid explosives is geared toward detecting the presence of liquids in baggage,” and that “this is a critical first step in addressing the liquid explosives threat, but emerging technologies will go even further, providing confirmed identification of threats, not just general detection of liquids in bottles. New screening technologies can very rapidly provide an accurate, reliable identification, even through sealed glass or plastic containers. As technology continues to evolve, this could potentially alleviate the restrictions required by the 3-1-1 guidelines, without sacrificing public safety.” He described Ahura Scientific’s TruScreen solution, which was designed to “rapidly and accurately screen for specific threats” and which in its current release is “optimized for liquid explosives and provides trained operators with the ability to quickly distinguish (less than 20 seconds) between threat-listed materials, such as explosive substances and precursors, and benign substances that are safe to carry onboard an aircraft. TruScreen is very easy to use and maintain and requires no consumables.” TruScreen, he explained, “uses light and spectroscopic analysis to identify the contents of glass or plastic containers, requiring no direct contact with the substance in question. This non-invasive screening technology helps maintain uninterrupted passenger throughput at security checkpoints.” Currently, he added, TruScreen is “part of extensive laboratory and operational trials globally and is now shipping with limited availability.”

ICx Technologies’ Moore described his company’s Fido Paxpoint solution, noting it’s the “primary bottled liquid scanner deployed today,” and “uses the ‘sniffing’ technique” that he described above. To date, he observed, “TSA has deployed the Fido Paxpoint to many airports in the U.S so far.” Other technologies he mentioned are undergoing further testing by TSA before they are considered suitable for deployment, such as “raman spectroscopy, which is another handheld device that uses an infrared laser beam to identify the spectra or ‘signature’ of the liquid in the bottle.” He also described “technologies in development by national labs and private companies for liquid threat detection,” which “include the use of electromagnetic wavelengths which ‘excite’ the particles in the bottle to determine what’s inside based on the response. Also acoustic technologies can tell what’s in a container by sonically sending out a pulse through the container, and receiving a unique echo.”  Moore pointed out that a liquid bomb could bring harm not only to the aviation sector, but to other sectors as well. Liquid bombs are thus “like any other threat, in that a terrorist, if successful, can detonate it in any public venue. As their objective is typically to cause as much damage, fear and casualties as possible, all transit systems and locations with large crowds are considered vulnerable. The value of mobile, handheld liquid scanners is just that-they can be used anywhere. What’s difficult is enabling screeners to access a suspicious bottle.”

Ahura Scientific’s Kahn also commented that “the screening application may be most familiar to aviation travelers,” but added that “we’ve seen a great deal of interest for chemical identification and screening in a variety of applications. Rail and subway systems, ports and border crossings, power stations and other mission critical infrastructure, government facilities, stock exchanges, sports stadiums and high profile events all have unique security requirements which could benefit from threat screening. Operational considerations will be very different for each of these, so security personnel must have a solid understanding of their goals – and what is deemed acceptable by those using the facility.”  Kahn noted that “technology has been hampered in the past because it was typically very expensive, slow and difficult to maintain,” and that “as newer technologies emerge, these challenges are being addressed. New innovations are making equipment faster, more accurate and easier to operate.” He believes that technology “certainly has the potential to ease the boarding process for the traveling public while enhancing security and safety. TruScreen, for example, enables very fast screening of liquids without even opening the container. When used in concert with complementary technologies such as x-ray and IMS, this provides an additional layer of security with minimal impact on the public, whether it’s used to confirm the safety of milk, medications or other items allowed in greater quantities, or as a way to alleviate 3-1-1 regulations.”

Kahn described “the tremendous coordination required in order to ensure public safety in aviation,” as “airports, airlines and aviation security regulatory bodies globally must work closely together to ensure the greatest levels of security with minimal passenger inconvenience.” Kahn added, “there is no one single technology or ‘magic box’ that spans the breadth of aviation security requirements, so security authorities select complementary and confirmatory products from a number of vendors. This provides a layered approach to security screening, enabling stronger security protocols than could be possible from a single vendor.” He noted that “global aviation security agencies have been extremely thorough in their evaluation of technology and the acceptable level of passenger inconvenience through operational trials, showing a high level of concern for both accuracy and passenger experience.”

In addition to taking a layered approach, ICx Technologies’ Moore believes that “expandability is the key. The direction that liquid screening, as well as screening for all other types of threats, is heading that the technologies will apply an easily-expandable library of threats to screen against. Therefore if a new threat is developed by a terrorist group, a few lines of code adding that threat to the device’s library can be transmitted over the Internet to all of the equipment across entire countries with the click of a button.” Moore noted that “factors such as cost and the speed of technological development will keep these capabilities from being deployed everywhere large crowds may be, and even now we see terrorists changing their tactics, as in Mumbai. So the agencies study the intelligence reports and respond according to an assessment of risk, which is the really the only practical approach.”