3 ms·

There is no reason to believe that an nfc controled lock is any less secure than a traditional physical tumbler lock. In fact, if set up correctly (well sealed

There is no reason to believe that an nfc controled lock is any less secure than a traditional physical tumbler lock. In fact, if set up correctly (well sealed pannel, sound generation of keys, etc), it could be significantly more secure since well set up cryptography is a hell of a lot harder than simple lock picking.

Piskvorrr 13y ago
That's a big "if". Big enough to be implausible - even nuclear missiles were sitting in the silos for years with launch code set to "000000"; what makes you think that hotels will care more about their security? See e.g. this: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/hotel_door_lock.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/hotel_door_lo... Moreover, the electronic mechanism pretty much never opens the lock: it activates a relay, which opens ... drum roll ... the physical lock. So the old, mechanical lock vulnerabilities are preserved, and new electronic ones added on top. What could posibly go wrong?
- QSIITurbo 13y ago
  "mechanical lock vulnerabilities are preserved" I've never been to a hotel that uses an ordinary key since those can be easily replicated, so that point is moot: all the electronic locks (most common these days) already have this "vulnerability" ("so why put a lock there in the first place?"). Second, since this system is being developed to use a smartphone, the security is easier to manage than a PIN code (such as 000000...). One can use centralised key-servers, etc. Third, the company making these locks (the physical part) is ASSA Abloy, which is an extremely reputable lock company instead of the one in your link.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    >Third, the company making these locks (the physical part) is ASSA Abloy, which is an extremely reputable lock company instead of the one in your link. Fair enough, maybe they thought about the physical side then; Abloy make what is arguably the best mechanical lock in the world. Still doesn't mean the authentication side is secure though.
  - QSIITurbo 13y ago
    "Still doesn't mean the authentication side is secure though." It doesn't mean it cannot be made secure, either.

Piskvorrr 13y ago

That's a big "if". Big enough to be implausible - even nuclear missiles were sitting in the silos for years with launch code set to "000000"; what makes you think that hotels will care more about their security? See e.g. this: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/hotel_door_lock.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/hotel_door_lo... Moreover, the electronic mechanism pretty much never opens the lock: it activates a relay, which opens ... drum roll ... the physical lock. So the old, mechanical lock vulnerabilities are preserved, and new electronic ones added on top. What could posibly go wrong?

QSIITurbo 13y ago
"mechanical lock vulnerabilities are preserved" I've never been to a hotel that uses an ordinary key since those can be easily replicated, so that point is moot: all the electronic locks (most common these days) already have this "vulnerability" ("so why put a lock there in the first place?"). Second, since this system is being developed to use a smartphone, the security is easier to manage than a PIN code (such as 000000...). One can use centralised key-servers, etc. Third, the company making these locks (the physical part) is ASSA Abloy, which is an extremely reputable lock company instead of the one in your link.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  >Third, the company making these locks (the physical part) is ASSA Abloy, which is an extremely reputable lock company instead of the one in your link. Fair enough, maybe they thought about the physical side then; Abloy make what is arguably the best mechanical lock in the world. Still doesn't mean the authentication side is secure though.
- QSIITurbo 13y ago
  "Still doesn't mean the authentication side is secure though." It doesn't mean it cannot be made secure, either.