Researchers embed digital 'fingerprints' into 3D printed parts — tech may make future ghost guns more traceable

Comments

• cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Luckily we have open source firmware and we can build our own printers.

  Most ghost guns are not 3D printed so this is nothing but security theater and an invasion of privacy.

  source
• kayzeekayzee@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Given the diy-nature of almost every 3d printer, I can’t see this being very useful for identifying prints.

  source

  • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Exactly my thoughts. I got my machine in 2017 and have replaced enough parts to make a ship of Theseus argument. Most of them weren’t even due to wear, I just like rebuilding her. On top of that, every other printer I know is either all diy or kit built. I can’t imagine this will stop anyone who genuinely wants to do harm.

    source
• Alloi@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  you know how easy it is to circumvent this?

  relatively easy, its relatively easy. now you know.

  source
• zipsglacier@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Here’s the paper where they explain it. Basically, they make subtle fluctuations in layer height, adding or subtracting small amounts that are not visible to the naked eye, to encode 0s and 1s. So, maybe in principle this could run at the firmware level on your printer. Then, someone can use a microscope to read off the code from pieces of the printed part.

  I would have some doubts about how reliable this is, given the relatively large tolerances in fdm printing, but they have a section about that in the paper, so I guess they at least have thought about it.

  source

  • B0rax@feddit.org ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Fluctuations in layer height that are not visible? Dude, most printers are not even able to achieve a layer height consistency that would be invisible to the naked eye if they wanted to.

    source

    • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Plus what about adaptive layer heights that automatically change based on the features of each layer?

      source
  • BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Image

    source
  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    This has to be borderline useless as a positive identification tool, given that people can…

    1. Make their own models
    2. Run open source slicing software
    3. Inspect their own gcode
    4. Print from flashcard on a 100% offline printer with known clean firmware, such as the most common Ender 3.

    How about they just focus on other methods of apprehending violent criminals and leave hobbyists alone.

    source

    • zipsglacier@lemmy.world ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      This is right, for as long as the fdm printer hobbyists can avoid the lockdown and enshittification that some printer brands are definitely pushing. The value of this paper, for it’s authors, seems more like a proof of concept: fingerprinting is possible. And I think that’s actually it’s same value for hobbyists: the problems with a closed system and proprietary printer firmware are not hypothetical.

      source
  • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    So when I turn on variable layer height this whole thing goes out the window. Or if I post process and San the parts. Oh I know what if I use a slicer and firmware like klipper to bypass everything. No 3d printer that isn’t locked down already by closed ecosystem will never have this “code” in the parts.

    source

    • Decq@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Sand paper wouldn’t really help. They could just cut a part in half. But yeah no way in hell this will ever end up in any of the open source printer firmwares. So it’s a moot point.

      source

      • -> View More Comments