help button home button JAMIA Hate scrolling?
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH

First published August 23, 2006 as JAMIA PrePrint; doi:10.1197/jamia.M2143
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2006;13(6):601-607
© 2006 American Medical Informatics Association


A more recent version of this article appeared on November 1, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Appendices
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
M2143v1
13/6/601    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Halamka, J.
Right arrow Articles by Westhues, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Halamka, J.
Right arrow Articles by Westhues, J.

Submitted on May 10, 2006
Accepted on August 7, 2006

The Security Implications of VeriChip Cloning

John Halamka MD1*, Ari Juels2, Adam Stubblefield3, and Jonathan Westhues3

Affiliation of the authors: 1 Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; 2 RSA Laboratories, Bedford, MA; 3 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

The VeriChipTM is an Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tag produced commercially for implantation in human beings. Its proposed uses include identification of medical patients, physical access control, contactless retail payment, and even the tracing of kidnapping victims. As we explain, the VeriChip is vulnerable to simple, over-the-air spoofing attacks. In particular, an attacker capable of scanning a VeriChip, eavesdropping on its signal, or simply learning its serial number can create a spoof device whose radio appearance is indistinguishable from the original. We explore the practical implications of this security vulnerability. We argue that: 1. The VeriChip should serve exclusively for identification, and not authentication or access control. 2. Paradoxically, for bearer safety a VeriChip should be easy to spoof; an attacker then has less incentive to coerce victims or extract VeriChips from victims' bodies.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 1994 by the American Medical Informatics Association.