3D printers leave hidden ‘fingerprints’ that reveal part origins

Comments

• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Bold of you to assume my prints come out the way they’re supposed to.

  source

  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Or consistent.

    source
  • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    From what I can tell from the article, that’s exactly the point. This is not about manufacturer-sanctioned intentional fingerprinting but about every printer making slightly different mistakes by accident that just happen to be consistent enough to be recognizable.

    source

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Bold of you to assume the mistakes my printer makes are in any way consistent.

      source
  • MissJinx@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I have one of those generic chinese printers. Good luck printing anything on it.

    source
• n3cr0@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  On my printers, each print looks differently. The prints sometimes also fail for various reasons. Add a constant process of modifications and I doubt someone can find enough unique features on the prints, to recognise the correct printer.

  source
• papalonian@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Reading the article, it seems like the intent of this technology is much more geared toward manufacturing supply chains, rather than saying “this part came from John Doe’s Ender 3”. As many people have pointed out, consumer/ hobbyist grade 3D printers aren’t nearly consistent enough to produce anything resembling something as unique as a true “fingerprint”, and when you consider that most printers are modified in some way… There’s just zero possibility of it being used in that way.

  The only way I could see it being used in that way is trying to prove that this printer printed this part; if they have the printed part, and it hasn’t been post-processed at all (sanded, treated, etc), they could reprint the same part on the printer in question and see if it’s “fingerprint” is the same. But I’d be pretty surprised if this tech could even reliably say, “this part came from an Ender, this part came from a Neptune, and this one from came from a P1”.

  source

  • raltoid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Yeah this is basically just quality control geared towards mass 3d printed parts.

    source
  • squaresinger@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I wish my printer was consistent enough between two prints for proving that two parts came from the same printer.

    source
• alleycat@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The technology could also be used to track the origins of illicit goods.

  Does that mean ghost guns? That was my first thought when I heard of this tech.

  source

  • einlander@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    My speculation says yes.

    source
  • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    They’d need Access to the suspect’s printer, to print more copies for comparison in order to tell, though, from how the article describes it.

    Similar to how they match bullets to the gun that fired it. It’s not like it prints a serial number QR code on it or anything

    source
• SW42@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Those eyes are staring right into my soul

  source
• pianoplant@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  This seems like very standard ML. I’m not surprised it works, but also it likely takes a huge amount of training data (i.e. print samples) to recognize a specific machine.

  So it’s interesting and useful, but not as impressive or useful as the article makes it seem.

  source