4 ms·
Actually the problem here is that it's possible to reinit the PIN when the safe is still closed... so the trick to open the safe is to reinit the PIN then send
by olivierduval 4y ago
Actually the problem here is that it's possible to reinit the PIN when the safe is still closed... so the trick to open the safe is to reinit the PIN then send the new PIN
The second problem is the possibility to open the PINpad from the outside with the safe closed.
It seem to me that those two problems could easily be fixed by the manufacturer... and I can't understand that they just didn't do it right upfront
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y agoThe second one is very hard to avoid. The safe could of course have some form of tamper detection/response, but other than that, you can't put the PIN pad in a safe, so a determined attacker will be able to open it (using tools/force if necessary).
- stavros 4y agoYou can't put the PIN pad inside, but you can put the screw inside.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y agoWhich doesn't help if you assume the attacker has a dremel.
- stavros 4y ago"Opening it with a dremel" is a completely different class of attacks from "opening it without leaving a trace".
- walls 4y agoChanging the lock code isn't really leaving without a trace.
- MiddleEndian 4y agoIf I open my hypothetical safe once a month, I may not find out that someone has changed the code for up to a month. If someone cuts it open with a dremel, I'll notice as soon as I happen to see it.
- stavros 4y agoIs it the same as taking a dremel to it?
- rozab 4y agoAs another commenter explained, the only problem here is that the pin pad is doing any logic at all. It should only be sending key presses to the internal controller safely inside the safe body, there is no reason for it to do anything else