3 ms·

Allegedly, the robbers walked with 100M euros without cleaning the vault. Price would have to be really steep for those additional security measures for their c

by gdee 18y ago

Allegedly, the robbers walked with 100M euros without cleaning the vault. Price would have to be really steep for those additional security measures for their cost to be an issue I think. > A vault doesn't have to be impregnable, only visibly difficult to steal from. I'm pretty sure a vault in this situation has to be really impenetrable and definitely not just visibly difficult to steal from. What you're proposing is the exact situation they had. The result didn't look good.

nkurz 18y ago
I'm not quite proposing the exact situation that they had, but I am suggesting that adding more layers of physical security might not be the solution. And if indeed this was really a case of insurance fraud rather than a straight theft, perhaps the outcome was good for everyone except for the insurance company. To the extent that the vault was good enough for them to obtain insurance, the vault was good enough. To obtain better security, the motivation of the participants needs to be analyzed. Perhaps this is a problem best solved through obscurity, with two competing security teams installing two totally separate alarms systems, each standing to lose if their alarm is defeated. Or perhaps skip the alarms, and rely on threats of deadly force. But although any new insurer will properly demand the technological improvements illustrated here, it would be foolish to believe that technology alone will keep out a dedicated team of insiders with full access to the system. Real world security is not equivalent to public key encryption where security can be established by 'proof'.
- gdee 18y ago
  I fully agree with the notion that (more) technology is not always a panacea but I think it should at least be given a fair chance. That includes implementing it properly. Given that this was not the case there (at that time) I would still bet on technology going forward. And process.

by gdee 18y ago

nkurz 18y ago

I'm not quite proposing the exact situation that they had, but I am suggesting that adding more layers of physical security might not be the solution. And if indeed this was really a case of insurance fraud rather than a straight theft, perhaps the outcome was good for everyone except for the insurance company. To the extent that the vault was good enough for them to obtain insurance, the vault was good enough. To obtain better security, the motivation of the participants needs to be analyzed. Perhaps this is a problem best solved through obscurity, with two competing security teams installing two totally separate alarms systems, each standing to lose if their alarm is defeated. Or perhaps skip the alarms, and rely on threats of deadly force. But although any new insurer will properly demand the technological improvements illustrated here, it would be foolish to believe that technology alone will keep out a dedicated team of insiders with full access to the system. Real world security is not equivalent to public key encryption where security can be established by 'proof'.

gdee 18y ago
I fully agree with the notion that (more) technology is not always a panacea but I think it should at least be given a fair chance. That includes implementing it properly. Given that this was not the case there (at that time) I would still bet on technology going forward. And process.