43 research outputs found

    Investigating 3D Printer Residual Data

    Get PDF
    The continued adoption of Additive Manufacturing (AM) technologies is raising concerns in the security, forensics, and intelligence gathering communities. These concerns range from identifying and mitigating compromised devices, to theft of intellectual property, to sabotage, to the production of prohibited objects. Previous research has provided insight into the retrieval of configuration information maintained on the devices, but this work shows that the devices can additionally maintain information about the print process. Comparisons between before and after images taken from an AM device reveal details about the deviceโ€™s activities, including printed designs, menu interactions, and the print history. Patterns in the storage of that information also may be useful for reducing the amount of data that needs to be examined during an investigation. These results provide a foundation for future investigations regarding the tools and processes suitable for examining these devices

    Perceived Risks and Personal Motivation

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ (์„์‚ฌ)-- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ๊ณต๊ณผ๋Œ€ํ•™ ํ˜‘๋™๊ณผ์ • ๊ธฐ์ˆ ๊ฒฝ์˜ยท๊ฒฝ์ œยท์ •์ฑ…์ „๊ณต, 2019. 2. ํ™ฉ์ค€์„.์ „ํ†ต์ ์ธ ์ œ์กฐ ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋Œ€์•ˆ์œผ๋กœ ์‚ผ์ฐจ์› ํ”„๋ฆฐํ„ฐ๋Š” ์ตœ๊ทผ ๋Œ€์ค‘์œผ๋กœ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ๋งŽ์€ ์ฃผ๋ชฉ์„ ๋ฐ›๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๊ทธ๋Ÿฌ๋‚˜ ๊ธฐ์ˆ ์˜ ๋ฐœ์ „๊ณผ ๊ฐ€๊ฒฉ ํ•˜๋ฝ์—๋„ ๋ถˆ๊ตฌํ•˜๊ณ  3์ฐจ์› ํ”„๋ฆฐํ„ฐ๋Š” ์—ฌ์ „ํžˆ ํ•™์ˆ  ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฐ€ ๋ถ€์กฑํ•˜๊ณ  ์ผ๋ฐ˜์ ์ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฐ€ ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์ง€์ง€ ์•Š๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ํ˜„์žฌ์˜ ๋ฒ•๊ทœ ๋ฐ ๊ทœ์ œ๊ฐ€ ๋ถˆ์ถฉ๋ถ„ํ•˜์—ฌ ์ฑ…์ž„ ๋ฌธ์ œ ๋ฐ ์ง€์  ์žฌ์‚ฐ๊ถŒ ๋ฌธ์ œ์™€ ๊ฐ™์€ ๋ฌธ์ œ์˜ ์ฒ˜๋ฆฌ์— ์ œํ•œ์ด ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ ์ ˆํ•œ ์ „๋žต์„ ์ˆ˜๋ฆฝํ•˜๊ณ  ์—…๊ณ„๋ฅผ ํ™๋ณดํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด์„œ๋Š” ์†Œ๋น„์ž ํ–‰๋™์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ๋ณด๋‹ค ๊นŠ์€ ์ดํ•ด๊ฐ€ ํ•„์š”ํ•˜๋‹ค. ์ด ๋…ผ๋ฌธ์€ ์ธ์ง€๋œ ์œ„ํ—˜์„ฑ ๋ฐ ๋™๊ธฐ ๋ถ€์—ฌ์™€ ํ•จ๊ป˜ ํ™•๋Œ€๋œ ๊ธฐ์ˆ ์ˆ˜์šฉ๋ชจ๋ธ(TAM)์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž์˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉ ์˜๋„์— ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ์š”์ธ์„ ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ๋ชฉํ‘œ๋กœ ํ•œ๋‹ค. ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์ , ๊ธˆ์ „์ , ๋ฒ•์ , ๋ฌผ๋ฆฌ์ , ์‹ฌ๋ฆฌ์  ๋ฆฌ์Šคํฌ๊ฐ€ ์ฃผ์š” ์œ„ํ—˜์˜ ์ฐจ์›์œผ๋กœ ์„ ํƒ๋˜์—ˆ๊ณ  ์‹œ์žฅ์˜ ๋™๊ธฐ ๋ถ€์—ฌ๊ฐ€ ์‚ฌํšŒ์  ์˜ํ–ฅ์œผ๋กœ์จ ์„ ํƒ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ฐ€์ •์šฉ ์‚ผ์ฐจ์›ํ”„๋ฆฐํ„ฐ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์— ์žˆ์–ด ์†Œ๋น„์ž์˜ ์—ญํ• ์ด ๊ธฐ์กด์˜ ์ƒ์‚ฐ๋ฐฉ์‹๊ณผ ๋‹ค๋ฅด๊ธฐ ๋•Œ๋ฌธ์— 2๋‹จ๊ณ„ (๊ฐ€์ •์šฉํ”„๋ฆฐํ„ฐ ์‚ฌ์šฉ ๋ฐ ํ”„๋ฆฐํŒ…ํ•œ ์ œํ’ˆ ์‚ฌ์šฉ)์˜ ๋ถ„์„ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ๋น„๊ตํ–ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด 304 ๊ฐœ์˜ ์ƒ˜ํ”Œ์„ ์˜จ๋ผ์ธ ์„ค๋ฌธ ์‹œ์Šคํ…œ์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ์ˆ˜์ง‘ํ•˜๊ณ  ๊ตฌ์กฐ ๋ฐฉ์ •์‹ ๋ชจ๋ธ์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋Š” ๊ฐ๊ฐ์˜ ์œ„ํ—˜๋“ค์ด ์†Œ๋น„์ž๊ฐ€ ์ธ์‹ํ•˜๋Š” ์ „๋ฐ˜์ ์ธ ์œ„ํ—˜์— ๊ธฐ์—ฌํ•œ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ ์ฃผ๋ฉฐ ์ง€๊ฐ๋œ ์œ„ํ—˜์€ '๊ฐ€์ •์šฉ ์‚ผ์ฐจ์›ํ”„๋ฆฐํ„ฐ ์‚ฌ์šฉ' ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ ์‚ฌ์šฉ ์˜๋„์— ๋ถ€์ •์ ์ธ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ฃผ๊ณ  '์ธ์‡„ ๋œ ์ œํ’ˆ ์‚ฌ์šฉ'๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ ์ง€๊ฐ๋œ ์œ ์šฉ์„ฑ์— ๋ถ€์ •์ ์ธ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ค€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ์ „๋ฐ˜์ ์ธ ์œ„ํ—˜์ด ์†Œ๋น„์ž์˜ ๊ฐ€์ •์šฉ ์‚ผ์ฐจ์›ํ”„๋ฆฐํ„ฐ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์— ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ฃผ๋Š” ๊ฒฝ๋กœ๋Š” ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ž์˜ DIY ๊ฒฝํ—˜๊ณผ Identity ๋™๊ธฐ์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ ๋‹ค๋ฅด๋‹ค. ์ธ์‡„๋œ ์ œํ’ˆ์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜๋Š” ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ ์ „๋ฐ˜์ ์ธ ์œ„ํ—˜์€ ๋‚ฎ์€ ๋™๊ธฐ ๋ถ€์—ฌ ๊ทธ๋ฃน๊ณผ ๊ฒฝํ—˜์ด ์—†๋Š” ๊ทธ๋ฃน์—์„œ ์‚ฌ์šฉ ์˜๋„์— ๊ฐ„์ ‘์ ์ธ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ๋ฐ˜๋ฉด, ๋†’์€ ๋™๊ธฐ ๋ถ€์—ฌ ๊ทธ๋ฃน๊ณผ ๊ฒฝํ—˜ ์žˆ๋Š” ๊ทธ๋ฃน์€ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ฃผ์ง€ ์•Š๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค.As an alternative to traditional manufacturing methods, three-dimensional printer (3DP) has attracted considerable attention from the consumer. Despite improving technology and dropping price, however, certain aspects of 3DP remains sparse, and general use of the technology remain under-studied. In addition, current regulations and laws are insufficient and limited in handling arising problems, such as liability problems and intellectual property (IP) issues. To implement proper strategies and promote the industry, a deeper understanding of consumer behaviors is needed. Using an extended version of the technology acceptance model (TAM) with perceived risk and motivations, this paper aims to investigate the factors affecting users intention to use desktop 3DP. Performance, financial, legal, physical, and psychological risk are selected as dimensions of risk. Marketplace and identity motivations are selected as dimensions of social influence. Because 3DP meets the needs of consumers at different stages, we compare the analyzed results of two stages of 3DP use (namely, usage of 3D printers and usage of 3D printed products). A total of 407 sample questionnaires were collected through an online survey system and analyzed with a structural equation model. The results show that each facet of risk contributed to users perceived overall risk in 3DP, which in turn negatively impacted their intention to use 3DP in the stage of use of desktop 3D printers as well as users perceived usefulness of 3DP in the stage of printed product use. Furthermore, the results suggest that paths showing how overall risk affects consumers intention to use desktop 3DP differ depending on users do-it-yourself experience and users motivation of identity. Overall risk has indirect effects in the low-motivation group and in the non-experience group, while overall risk shows no effects in the high-motivation group and experienced group herein. Our research concludes with a discussion of managerial and political implications based on findings.Abstract iii Contents v List of Tables viii List of Figures ix 1. Introduction 1 2. Literature Review 4 2.1 THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTER 4 2.1.1 General Concept 4 2.1.2 Desktop 3DP 7 2.2 TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL(TAM) 9 2.2.1 General Concept 9 2.2.2 TAM in Different Stage 11 2.2.3 TAM 2 12 2.3 PROSUMPTION 14 2.3.1 General Concept 14 2.3.2 DIY(Do-It-Yourself) Behavior 15 2.4 PERCEIVED RISK 16 2.4.1 General Concept 16 2.4.2 Dimensions of Perceived Risk 18 3. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses 20 3.1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL 20 3.2 VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES 21 3.2.1 TAM 21 3.2.2 Revision of TAM 2 22 3.2.3 Perceived Overall Risk 24 3.2.4 Dimension of Overall Risk 25 3.3 STAGE COMPARISON 28 4. Research Methodology 30 4.1 DATA COLLECTION 30 4.2 SURVEY DEVELOPMENT 32 5. Result 33 5.1 RESULT OF FACTOR ANALYSIS 33 5.1.1 Desktop 3DP usage stage 33 5.1.2 Printed product usage stage 36 5.2 ANALYSIS RESULT 39 5.2.1 Desktop 3DP usage stage 39 5.2.2 Printed product usage stage 41 5.3 EFFECTS OF MODERATING VARIABLES 44 5.4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 46 5.4.1 Comparison between Stages 46 5.4.2 Group Comparison 48 6. Conclusion 49 6.1 ACADEMIC IMPLICATION 49 6.2 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 50 6.3 LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS 51 Appendix 1: Survey Sheet 60 Appendix 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Variables 75 Abstract (Korean) 78Maste

    Fiddling on the Roof: Recent Developments in Cybersecurity

    Get PDF

    3D Printing and intellectual property futures

    Get PDF
    This report contains socio-legal research conducted on the relationship between 3D printing and intellectual property (IP) at the current point in time and in potential future scenarios, through the use of horizon-scanning methods in six countriesโ€”China, France, India, Russia, Singapore and the UK - to build a rich picture of this issue, comprising both developed and emerging economies

    Internet organised crime threat assessment 2021.

    Get PDF
    corecore