3 ms·
He doesn't mention size or weight, but I was extrapolating from this line: > that look really dangerous thinking if I have these on my door I'm really safe. Th
by lucideer 10y ago
He doesn't mention size or weight, but I was extrapolating from this line:
> that look really dangerous thinking if I have these on my door I'm really safe. The thing is, they open just as easy as the other locks
which makes it sound like he's describing locks that seem secure, rather than locks that are secure (e.g. because of their look, advertising, weight, size, colour, whatever).
I could be misreading him. I'm not contradicting the text, just interpreting it. If he genuinely means that very secure locks can be opened by a monkey/beginner with a bump key then I'd take his word for it. I'm just not sure that that is what he's saying.
- pmoriarty 10y agoMy takeaway from his talk was a wide range of locks were vulnerable to bumping, including locks that were highly resistant to other attacks, including "some locks that I would never open without damaging it ever" and "most of our favorite locks" (ie. otherwise truly excellent locks). So to claim that locks that are difficult to pick are necessarily difficult to bump runs counter to the findings expressed in this talk. In fact, the findings are quite the opposite, as many locks that are difficult to pick because of the tight tolerances and high quality engineering are actually easier to bump than locks which are easy to pick.
- lucideer 10y agoI haven't listened to the talk, just read your transcription, so I'll take some time to give it a listen. It does sound very interesting in general.