Knock-detecting locks

[wylk]

I still think it is a good idea but it needs to be worked with better electronics.

This is why I'm skeptical and old-fashioned about locks. I prefer mechanical ones, though I have an X-07 on a display stand (and only for display). I tell people "electronic locks have no soul".

[Dean Nickel]

As with anything workmanship is something we are losing. You look at locks made in 1900 and then locks made in 2000 and you will see that the locks made 100 years ago are better made and will last over time. Today I am lucky to get a lock that will last 25 years. House locks you are lucky if they last 5-10 years. The electronic locks would work better and last longer if the engineers were trained to build for rough handling like heavy traces and better protection of wires and such. Not the "lets see how cheap we can make it".

Electronics is here just like the dial safe lock of 160 years ago. In time they will work out some of it.... but I don't think to the same level as they did on the dial locks.

[wylk]

The electronic locks would work better and last longer if the engineers were trained to build for rough handling like heavy traces and better protection of wires and such.

They also need to design security devices with security in mind. There have been too many successful supermagnet attacks, see The $300 Lock You Can Break in Seconds - Forbes for example. Or even paper clips: Defcon Lockpickers Open Card-And-Code Government Locks In Seconds - Forbes. Designers might eventually get it right with one particular lock, but these days a completely new product gets built and marketed before its predecessor can mature.

[Doug MacQueen]

I recently found this magnetic attack on the net and was a little surprised. But not a lot surprised. Security is a very funny thing. It can and is being argued that simply exposing methods such as these on the net is considerably altering the actual security of the device in question. And it is a good argument. Another somewhat similar example is whether or not knowing the correct procedure for dialing a combination then becomes part of the security of the devise. I have NO doubt there have been cases where burglars have come into the possession of a safe combination but lacking the correct dialing sequence have failed in gaining access. I have read that bump keys have been known for 50 years. I would say that this technique goes back way further than that but because it did not become popular knowledge it never became an issue. A method to aid in the manipulating a certain brand of very popular lock that has been around for a very long time came to my attention only recently. The evolution of locking devices is filled with examples of those that are good until they are beaten. In some cases it happens very quickly and in others a very long time. Most of the pressure on improvement used to come from the competition. Now it comes mostly from lock sport clubs. In the real world most of the serious threats were not and are still not a newly found slick method. I am not saying that you should stick your head in the sand but the reality is that locks work until they don't. Personally I have always been amazed that the Simplex has been seen used in security situations that shocked me but then again security like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[BBE]

I have read that bump keys have been known for 50 years. I would say that this technique goes back way further than that but because it did not become popular knowledge it never became an issue.

You are quite correct. Through my own research on bump keys and the technique I believe they didn't exist until just before the patent was issued in July, 1920, (a British patent).
BBE.

[thelockcollector]

I think some European manufacturers like SECU have the right idea with redundant electronic locks. LA GARD makes one as well (the 6441), but it's a rather clumsy approach with the lock being twice as thick as a standard lock and needing both a keypad and a dial. There are many ways to go about making the lock redundant. SECU just uses 2 of everything: 2 motors, 2 cables, 2 circuit boards, etc. Other designs I've seen have a lever lock as well as a motor so you remove the keypad and use a key to override the electronics. This one is a redundant boltwork design: http://www.m-locks.com/assets/files/...eningen/M4.pdf

I think the main problem at this point is that customers are buying tens of thousands of standard electronic locks and don't really care that one day it will probably fail when the safe is locked.