3 ms·

I feel like if this were to be replaced by a digital solution it would be essential that multiple vendors would be used. There was a big vulnerability that occ

I feel like if this were to be replaced by a digital solution it would be essential that multiple vendors would be used. There was a big vulnerability that occurred with hotel locks that seems like it would have been mitigated by multiple vendors. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/hotel_door_lock.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/hotel_door_loc...

buro9 14y ago
Given when such keys need to be used, a digital solution would also need to work in emergencies such as flooding, fire, and partial destruction (door and lock internals fine, outer lock and door severely damaged). I imagine that it's easier just to stick with the good old master keys. I've long believed that most locks are not there to stop professionals, they're just there to stop the opportunist. If you're at peace with this then there's little advantage spending an extremely large amount of money putting in place a sub-standard digital solution. The existing system is good enough.
- bjxrn 14y ago
  I've heard it before: "Locks are there to keep honest people honest." The lock on your front door won't stop someone breaking into your house. Or rather: your lock likely isn't the weakest point when it comes to keeping people out. However, with the master keys it's not just about getting into places where you shouldn't be able to go, it's also about more or less locking a whole place down by disabling elevators. I can imagine you could put something a bit more complex to disable something which already requires electronics to function.
  - precisioncoder 14y ago
    Yeah, I guess master key usage is just a little too broad. Opening doors doesn't seem like a huge issue, but I would at least require a supplementary password entry for crucial functionality like disabling elevators.
    - buro9 14y ago
      And in those life and death situations that emergency workers are involved in... would you accept the loss of a life because the emergency worker couldn't get hold of the password in time to save someone? As I said... it's good enough.
      - nathan_long 14y ago
        Yeah, the question is really which potential harm is larger: unauthorized access, or the possible failure of authorized access? Then you need to ensure the system is more likely to fail in the less dangerous direction. Sounds like physical keys do that.
      - precisioncoder 14y ago
        A second layer of protection for critical features that could cost lives is always a good idea. Have to balance authorized people using them with preventing unauthorized people from causing chaos, maybe a standardized pass code that changed once a month and all rescue workers received. If for instance 3d printers become household items and the key pattern is widely distributed online it could end up being a big problem.
- mikeash 14y ago
  Do most locks really need to work in emergencies? My house has no master key, after all. If the fire department needs to get inside, they will break the door down. That is the universal master key for any situation, and my understanding is that fire departments are well equipped for this. Why not simply not have a master key, with the understanding that the door will be destroyed in the event of an emergency?
  - andylei 14y ago
    sometimes master keys operate things like elevators and control panels
    - mikeash 14y ago
      I wonder if that could be solved with a similar sort of design. Instead of a lock with a master key, how about a "break in case of fire" cover on the elevators? You could still have a lock and building-specific keys for non-emergency uses.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        Targets for vandalism and other shenaniganery. How often have you heard of someone picking the lock to a knox box or an elevator control panel? (Probably not very) How often have you heard of someone hitting the alarm or screwing around with the emergency options? (Probably more)
        mikeash 14y ago
        Well, unlike standard fire alarms, these don't need to be easy to break into. Since they're for use by the fire department in an emergency, you can assume that whoever uses them will have access to axes and a willingness to use them.

buro9 14y ago

Given when such keys need to be used, a digital solution would also need to work in emergencies such as flooding, fire, and partial destruction (door and lock internals fine, outer lock and door severely damaged). I imagine that it's easier just to stick with the good old master keys. I've long believed that most locks are not there to stop professionals, they're just there to stop the opportunist. If you're at peace with this then there's little advantage spending an extremely large amount of money putting in place a sub-standard digital solution. The existing system is good enough.

bjxrn 14y ago
I've heard it before: "Locks are there to keep honest people honest." The lock on your front door won't stop someone breaking into your house. Or rather: your lock likely isn't the weakest point when it comes to keeping people out. However, with the master keys it's not just about getting into places where you shouldn't be able to go, it's also about more or less locking a whole place down by disabling elevators. I can imagine you could put something a bit more complex to disable something which already requires electronics to function.
- precisioncoder 14y ago
  Yeah, I guess master key usage is just a little too broad. Opening doors doesn't seem like a huge issue, but I would at least require a supplementary password entry for crucial functionality like disabling elevators.
  - buro9 14y ago
    And in those life and death situations that emergency workers are involved in... would you accept the loss of a life because the emergency worker couldn't get hold of the password in time to save someone? As I said... it's good enough.
    - nathan_long 14y ago
      Yeah, the question is really which potential harm is larger: unauthorized access, or the possible failure of authorized access? Then you need to ensure the system is more likely to fail in the less dangerous direction. Sounds like physical keys do that.
    - precisioncoder 14y ago
      A second layer of protection for critical features that could cost lives is always a good idea. Have to balance authorized people using them with preventing unauthorized people from causing chaos, maybe a standardized pass code that changed once a month and all rescue workers received. If for instance 3d printers become household items and the key pattern is widely distributed online it could end up being a big problem.
mikeash 14y ago
Do most locks really need to work in emergencies? My house has no master key, after all. If the fire department needs to get inside, they will break the door down. That is the universal master key for any situation, and my understanding is that fire departments are well equipped for this. Why not simply not have a master key, with the understanding that the door will be destroyed in the event of an emergency?
- andylei 14y ago
  sometimes master keys operate things like elevators and control panels
  - mikeash 14y ago
    I wonder if that could be solved with a similar sort of design. Instead of a lock with a master key, how about a "break in case of fire" cover on the elevators? You could still have a lock and building-specific keys for non-emergency uses.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      Targets for vandalism and other shenaniganery. How often have you heard of someone picking the lock to a knox box or an elevator control panel? (Probably not very) How often have you heard of someone hitting the alarm or screwing around with the emergency options? (Probably more)
      - mikeash 14y ago
        Well, unlike standard fire alarms, these don't need to be easy to break into. Since they're for use by the fire department in an emergency, you can assume that whoever uses them will have access to axes and a willingness to use them.