5 ms·

To me, locks of any kind are just a deterrent, they aren't meant to be impossible to circumvent, there just meant to deter casual thieves. Should Yale be respo

To me, locks of any kind are just a deterrent, they aren't meant to be impossible to circumvent, there just meant to deter casual thieves. Should Yale be responsible for all the stuff stolen from a house after someone picks the lock? I don't think so.

Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
Depends on how they advertise that lock imo. If a locks manufacturer market a lock to be secure giving it a 8 out of 10 rating but that lock could be decoded without any tools in a very short period of time then I believe that the manufacturer should bear some responsibility. But then again Master Lock still exist lol... Take the 174SSD for example. Master Lock list it for $38 so not a bargain basement lock. They say it’s “best for“ For: Residential Gates & Fences, Sheds, Workshops, Garages, Storage Lockers, Tool Chests, Tool Boxes[0], the packaging boasts about its security[1] and yet it can be quickly decoded without tools[2]. Now I’m sure the people on this site are aware of the quality of Master Lock but is your avg Joe walking into the hardware store? IMO there is a point where your performance can’t back up your marketing you become libel. But in Tesla’s case I don’t think they market the security of their keyless entry/start. I would say they are aware of the security risks of the tech and is why they released an OTA update that enables the need of a passcode to start the car. The question for me then becomes, If Tesla we’re aware of this risk and added a protection against it but didn’t advise customers of the risks of keyless entry/start and the protections against it enough could they have at least a little liability? OTA Cuts both ways, Yes it allows for easy updating in the field, but it also provides a direct communication point with your customer to be able to advise them of "such new information". [0] https://www.masterlock.com/personal-use/product/174SSD https://www.masterlock.com/personal-use/product/174SSD [1] https://imgur.com/a/iaffVut https://imgur.com/a/iaffVut [2] https://youtu.be/CTLY4b3sG9E https://youtu.be/CTLY4b3sG9E EDIT: Cleared up some spelling (fucking auto correct). But I would also like to make it clear that I wouldn't expect a lock manufacturer to always be responsible for the items the lock is "protecting". For an example: You put a high security lock of your front door to protect your home, A burglar cases your joint and instead of picking the lock which will take too much time they break a window and enter your home though that instead. The lock did its job so I couldn't hold the manufacturer responsible at all. My gripe is when weak locks, or locks with known defects are being sold to the general public as "secure". If a car manufacturer said their car was safe in a crash, giving themselves a high safety score but it found out that "safe" meant that it was only deemed safe under lab conditions were the impact was at exactly 55mph but in the real world a defect meant it was hit and miss that the airbags would actually deploy in the event of a collision people would be up in arms about it, lawsuits filed, recalls issued, etc. I don't expect any lock to be 100% secure (nor any car 100% safe in a collision) but when the marketing team for a manufacturer take it on themselves to talk up the security then I don't think its wrong to expect that manufacturer to held to account when their claims don't hold up.
- Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
  Replying to self as I can no longer edit: Tesla released an update in 2017 giving users the ability to disable keyless entry. That paired with OTA I wonder if it would be wise of them to push an advisory to all cars with keyless entry still enabled advising the customer of the risk of keyless entry and asking the customer if they would like to disable it? If you have made it explicitly clear that keyless gives a convenience bump at the sacrifice of security but the customer still decides to leave keyless enabled that is a choice the customer willingly made. Just thinking outloud.
  - labawi 7y ago
    I seems to me it shouldn't be too expensive to offer a key upgrade, if the new models are safer.
    - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
      I thought a key upgrade might work if they can get the time of flight working correctly to kill of amplify attacks. But it was more an "in the mean time" fix until they release new keys with time of flight or your new service.

Crosseye_Jack 7y ago

Depends on how they advertise that lock imo. If a locks manufacturer market a lock to be secure giving it a 8 out of 10 rating but that lock could be decoded without any tools in a very short period of time then I believe that the manufacturer should bear some responsibility. But then again Master Lock still exist lol... Take the 174SSD for example. Master Lock list it for $38 so not a bargain basement lock. They say it’s “best for“ For: Residential Gates & Fences, Sheds, Workshops, Garages, Storage Lockers, Tool Chests, Tool Boxes[0], the packaging boasts about its security[1] and yet it can be quickly decoded without tools[2]. Now I’m sure the people on this site are aware of the quality of Master Lock but is your avg Joe walking into the hardware store? IMO there is a point where your performance can’t back up your marketing you become libel. But in Tesla’s case I don’t think they market the security of their keyless entry/start. I would say they are aware of the security risks of the tech and is why they released an OTA update that enables the need of a passcode to start the car. The question for me then becomes, If Tesla we’re aware of this risk and added a protection against it but didn’t advise customers of the risks of keyless entry/start and the protections against it enough could they have at least a little liability? OTA Cuts both ways, Yes it allows for easy updating in the field, but it also provides a direct communication point with your customer to be able to advise them of "such new information". [0] https://www.masterlock.com/personal-use/product/174SSD https://www.masterlock.com/personal-use/product/174SSD [1] https://imgur.com/a/iaffVut https://imgur.com/a/iaffVut [2] https://youtu.be/CTLY4b3sG9E https://youtu.be/CTLY4b3sG9E EDIT: Cleared up some spelling (fucking auto correct). But I would also like to make it clear that I wouldn't expect a lock manufacturer to always be responsible for the items the lock is "protecting". For an example: You put a high security lock of your front door to protect your home, A burglar cases your joint and instead of picking the lock which will take too much time they break a window and enter your home though that instead. The lock did its job so I couldn't hold the manufacturer responsible at all. My gripe is when weak locks, or locks with known defects are being sold to the general public as "secure". If a car manufacturer said their car was safe in a crash, giving themselves a high safety score but it found out that "safe" meant that it was only deemed safe under lab conditions were the impact was at exactly 55mph but in the real world a defect meant it was hit and miss that the airbags would actually deploy in the event of a collision people would be up in arms about it, lawsuits filed, recalls issued, etc. I don't expect any lock to be 100% secure (nor any car 100% safe in a collision) but when the marketing team for a manufacturer take it on themselves to talk up the security then I don't think its wrong to expect that manufacturer to held to account when their claims don't hold up.

Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
Replying to self as I can no longer edit: Tesla released an update in 2017 giving users the ability to disable keyless entry. That paired with OTA I wonder if it would be wise of them to push an advisory to all cars with keyless entry still enabled advising the customer of the risk of keyless entry and asking the customer if they would like to disable it? If you have made it explicitly clear that keyless gives a convenience bump at the sacrifice of security but the customer still decides to leave keyless enabled that is a choice the customer willingly made. Just thinking outloud.
- labawi 7y ago
  I seems to me it shouldn't be too expensive to offer a key upgrade, if the new models are safer.
  - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
    I thought a key upgrade might work if they can get the time of flight working correctly to kill of amplify attacks. But it was more an "in the mean time" fix until they release new keys with time of flight or your new service.