full-disclosure - Re: Digital Mechanical Lock Unsafe

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <0420B19A-848A-4E9F-AB35-CFFD26C69ACD@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:04:38 -0800
From: Andrew Farmer <andfarm@...il.com>
To: Clark Mills <c.mills@...kland.ac.nz>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Digital Mechanical Lock Unsafe

On 11 Feb 07, at 15:39, Clark Mills wrote:
> The model of lock that this article is based on is a Lockwood DX  
> DIGITAL LOCK. I'd expect all similarly styled locks to be similarly  
> flawed.

Nope, it's probably just that model. The digital-mechanical locks  
that I've seen are dependent on both the sequencing of buttons  
pressed (1,2,3 vs. 2,1,3) and the combinations in which buttons are  
pressed. Some can use codes which include button "chords" (1+2,3 vs.  
1,2+3).

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/