On 22/11/2019 10:33, alan_m wrote:

It might be simpler to fit a door lock that can be operated either by
a key or by a keypad, such as some of those shown he

https://www.thearchitectsguide.com/a...ess-door-locks

The one recommended as the top pick can have up to 30 different key
codes set. That would, for example, allow you to give different carers
their own code, which could be deleted if the carers change.


Having just had a quick look how would you easily retrofit these to a
composite DG door that has a Eurolock with the handle just above the
lock which controls the full length door locking bar?


While none of those look suitable, there are locks working on the same
principle that are made specifically for your application. If you like
the idea, I recommend visiting an independent locksmith and asking what
they recommend. They will know which ones are good and which ones are
doubtful.


--
Colin Bignell

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 November 2019 14:17:12 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 22/11/2019 13:28, whisky-dave wrote:

Some devices can the cheaper ones. But why are we seucuring the door
from others is the important thing here, and it;s not like no one has
ever gained access without the correct key to any place, it;s just what
effort you need to take to eliminate such a thing and in most cases I
doubt many people carry a dead finger around with them, or have access
to the latex and a suitable finger.
Face recognicion is another option, I've heard in the USA they are
looking into guns that can only be fired after face recogniction has
been used.
I'm expecting some idiot to blow their own face off.


And possible after all the electronic security the interlock will be a
simple relay contact that can be bypassed with a bit of wire.

Yes, like they do on star trek and other such things
where they use brut force to rip off the keybad
consule and then join a couple of wires together.

Trivial to design it so that cant work.


The law abiding will use the face recognition while the criminal
fraternity and US kids "borrowing" firearms will look on Youtube and
find the bypass.

or find an easier target.
I;m not sure how often this sort of thing gets bypassed.


Much like the popular home safes with an electronic keypad where the
lock relay can be defeated simply by placing a magnet in the top left
corner of the door to trigger the relay.

My dad had two of those, where he kept spare cash, which amounted to
nearly £500
He used his DoB as the combination.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 05:20:34 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Trivial to design it so that can¢t work.

What could be more trivial than your insipid trolling, you nym-shifting,
auto-contradicting senile idiot?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Martin Brown wrote:

looks more like an external mains socket than a key safe.

Installing a key safe inside the shell of an IP6x mains socket might make
it look less obvious

But could well be a problem for the carer who needs to know where it is.

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 November 2019 11:53:57 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
I guess we'll just have to wait for finger print access to such things,
should be too long, suprised I haven't seen such a thing on dragons den.


I believe that fingerprint readers can be fooled with either a latex
impression or a dead finger.

The best of them cant be and facial recognition is even better
with the best of those. Works in the dark too surprisingly enough.

Rod Speed wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...

Recommendation for key safe required. This is the type to be fitted
outside of a front door and holds the front door key.

This is for an elderly relative with failing sight (in one eye) so
ideally needs large easy to read numbers and a mechanism that easy to
use. It will also be used by carers visiting the property.

Currently fitted is this type
https://www.screwfix.com/p/master-lo...key-safe/77908

and IMO is completely crap. The numbers on the combination are small
and with fairly limited use are already silver on a silver background
and even I have difficulty in seeing them. The opening lever requires
thin fingers and not only has it to be pushed down but to open the box
has to be caught with a finger nail to bring it forward.

I have another type fitted somewhere on my property with small push
buttons that is slightly better but once open it is very fiddly to
close again having to re-input the code, but now with the buttons on
the hinged section section that is free. OK maybe for the occasional
use but probably not suitable for day to day use where carers may be
different people each day, and again not suitable for someone with
failing sight

Sometimes one can only judge the ease of working of some of these
equipments trying to use them on a regular basis hence a call for
recommendations.

Have you considered the alternative of an electronic front door lock that
automatically unlocks when one of the authorised mobile phones show up ?

Much more expensive but much easier to use.
Do they use NFC, my phone is fairly smart but does not have NFC.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2019 12:07, wrote:
On Friday, 22 November 2019 11:53:57 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
I guess we'll just have to wait for finger print access to such things,
should be too long, suprised I haven't seen such a thing on dragons den.


I believe that fingerprint readers can be fooled with either a latex
impression or a dead finger.

Owain


More likely in real life a dirty/greasy finger leaving a print on the
sensor.

That doesnt fool the best fingerprint sensors.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2019 12:05, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:50:12 +0000, alan_m wrote:


Recommendation for key safe required. This is the type to be fitted
outside of a front door and holds the front door key.

This is for an elderly relative with failing sight (in one eye) so
ideally needs large easy to read numbers and a mechanism that easy to
use. It will also be used by carers visiting the property.

If their sight is OK in one eye, it will make no difference.

My eyesight is OK and I sometimes have trouble with the numbers stamped
into the wheels. It even worse when using a torch - shiny chromed wheels
and shiny embossed numbers reflecting back the light.

From experience with this relative, some bad habits have also to be
addressed. Because there is a key safe at times no attempt is made to take
a door key out with them. As the numbers are difficult to see and the
dials are small often only the last digit is changed so its easier to
open. (Carers always randomise all 4 numbers on the dials).

Fark, that one needs to be microchipped and have the
equivalent of the microchip cat flap for the front door.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2019 13:28, whisky-dave wrote:

Some devices can the cheaper ones. But why are we seucuring the door from
others is the important thing here, and it;s not like no one has ever
gained access without the correct key to any place, it;s just what effort
you need to take to eliminate such a thing and in most cases I doubt many
people carry a dead finger around with them, or have access to the latex
and a suitable finger.
Face recognicion is another option, I've heard in the USA they are
looking into guns that can only be fired after face recogniction has been
used.
I'm expecting some idiot to blow their own face off.

And possible after all the electronic security the interlock will be a
simple relay contact that can be bypassed with a bit of wire.

Trivial for the system to detect that and not fire then.

The law abiding will use the face recognition while the criminal
fraternity and US kids "borrowing" firearms will look on Youtube and find
the bypass.

Trivial to make it unbypassable.

Much like the popular home safes with an electronic keypad where the lock
relay can be defeated simply by placing a magnet in the top left corner of
the door to trigger the relay.

Trivial to prevent that working too.

"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...

Recommendation for key safe required. This is the type to be fitted
outside of a front door and holds the front door key.

This is for an elderly relative with failing sight (in one eye) so
ideally needs large easy to read numbers and a mechanism that easy to
use. It will also be used by carers visiting the property.

Currently fitted is this type
https://www.screwfix.com/p/master-lo...key-safe/77908

and IMO is completely crap. The numbers on the combination are small and
with fairly limited use are already silver on a silver background and
even I have difficulty in seeing them. The opening lever requires thin
fingers and not only has it to be pushed down but to open the box has to
be caught with a finger nail to bring it forward.

I have another type fitted somewhere on my property with small push
buttons that is slightly better but once open it is very fiddly to close
again having to re-input the code, but now with the buttons on the
hinged section section that is free. OK maybe for the occasional use but
probably not suitable for day to day use where carers may be different
people each day, and again not suitable for someone with failing sight

Sometimes one can only judge the ease of working of some of these
equipments trying to use them on a regular basis hence a call for
recommendations.

Have you considered the alternative of an electronic front door lock that
automatically unlocks when one of the authorised mobile phones show up ?

Much more expensive but much easier to use.

Do they use NFC,

Nope, because quite a few mobile phones still dont have that.

my phone is fairly smart but does not have NFC.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:23:50 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

More likely in real life a dirty/greasy finger leaving a print on the
sensor.

That doesn¢t fool the best fingerprint sensors.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Auto-contradicting, senile pest! Come on, senile
Rodent, post a list of the psychiatric drugs you need to take, you
clinically insane senile asshole troll!

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:33:17 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Trivial

What could be more trivial than your absolutely idiotic trolling on all
these groups, you mentally deranged senile pest?

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 14:22:17 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I believe that fingerprint readers can be fooled with either a latex
impression or a dead finger.

The best of them cant be and facial recognition is even better
with the best of those. Works in the dark too surprisingly enough.

What is important is that the best of them can quickly recognize an idiot
like you when he shows up, senile Rodent!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 18:11:34 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Do they use NFC,

Nope

LOL!!!!!!! Did you just get another one of your tiny senile online orgasms,
you clinically insane trolling senile pest?

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:17:00 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


looks more like an external mains socket than a key safe.

Installing a key safe inside the shell of an IP6x mains socket might make
it look less obvious

But

LOL!!!!! Just what the **** is WRONG with you, you auto-contradicting senile
cretin? LOL

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:26:38 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Fark, that one needs to be microchipped and have the
equivalent of the microchip cat flap for the front door.

A microchip cat flap would look good on your stupid forehead, senile Rodent!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On 23/11/2019 05:23, Rod Speed wrote:


That doesnt fool the best fingerprint sensors.

In the case of existing key safes the mechanism or finger print
recognition is unlikely to be the "best".

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 23/11/2019 03:22, Rod Speed wrote:



The best of them cant be and facial recognition is even better
with the best of those. Works in the dark too surprisingly enough.


Only if the electronics have enough samples to compare. I log into my
laptop with facial recognition and it worked well in good lighting
however it failed repeatedly in low light. I had to give the software
around a dozen more examples of low light conditions before it became
semi reliable again under these conditions.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 23/11/2019 07:11, Rod Speed wrote:

Nope, because quite a few mobile phones still dont have that.

The Yale branded ones seem to use NFC which are operated with a small
thin fob/sticker.



--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
says...

I'd be wary of any 4 digit code...

We had an aged relative who was admitted to hospital. When a little
better he wanted some stuff, but lost his keys on admission...
We assumed warden or neighbour would have spare key. They didn't...

I got the 4 digit code at second try. I wonder how many other dwellings
in the same complex had identical or very similar codes? So the last 4
digits of his land line would probably have been more secure.

Apparently many people have set a code of a memorable year
such as DoB or marriage. So a high percentage of all
keysafes have the first two digits set to 19 meaning the
thief only has to twiddle wheels 3 and 4.

alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That doesnt fool the best fingerprint sensors.

In the case of existing key safes the mechanism or finger print
recognition is unlikely to be the "best".

No reason why it couldnt be now that its
so common on the best smartphones now.

Hard to see how the scanning of the micro
blood vessels in the finger can ever be
successfully faked if you dont have any
access to the original finger and can't
just have some mechanism to overlay
the fingerprint scanner itself and get it
that way from the original finger without
that being obvious and interfering with
the operation of the fingerprint sensor.

alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The best of them can't be and facial recognition is even better
with the best of those. Works in the dark too surprisingly enough.

Only if the electronics have enough samples to compare.

Yes, the best of them do.

I log into my laptop with facial recognition and it worked well in good
lighting however it failed repeatedly in low light.

You dont get that with iphone facial recognition
because its the source of the IR illumination of
the face. Thats why it works fine in total darkness.

I had to give the software around a dozen more examples of low light
conditions before it became semi reliable again under these conditions.

Not necessary with iphone facial recognition.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 23/11/2019 07:11, Rod Speed wrote:

Nope, because quite a few mobile phones still dont have that.

The Yale branded ones seem to use NFC which are operated with a small thin
fob/sticker.

Thats not as convenient as using the mobile phone
which most have now. The other advantage of using
the mobile phone is that it works with non Yale locks.

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 03:09:42 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


No reason why it couldn¢t be now that its
so common on the best smartphones now.

Hard to see how

Easy to see that you are a trolling piece of senile ****, Ozzietard!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 03:16:51 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Not necessary with iphone facial recognition.

Shove your idiotPhone up your senile arse, senile idiot!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 03:49:11 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


That¢s not as convenient as

Of COURSE not, you auto-contradicting, clinically insane, senile idiot! LOL

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Friday, 22 November 2019 18:20:45 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 November 2019 14:17:12 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 22/11/2019 13:28, whisky-dave wrote:

Some devices can the cheaper ones. But why are we seucuring the door
from others is the important thing here, and it;s not like no one has
ever gained access without the correct key to any place, it;s just what
effort you need to take to eliminate such a thing and in most cases I
doubt many people carry a dead finger around with them, or have access
to the latex and a suitable finger.
Face recognicion is another option, I've heard in the USA they are
looking into guns that can only be fired after face recogniction has
been used.
I'm expecting some idiot to blow their own face off.


And possible after all the electronic security the interlock will be a
simple relay contact that can be bypassed with a bit of wire.

Yes, like they do on star trek and other such things
where they use brut force to rip off the keybad
consule and then join a couple of wires together.

Trivial to design it so that cant work.

It;s a TV programme ****wit, of course they could design such things,
but that would spoil the storyline.
Jusyt like in most tuings where they capture an arch enemy they imprison them rather than just kill them.

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 11:09:27 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 23/11/2019 03:22, Rod Speed wrote:



The best of them cant be and facial recognition is even better
with the best of those. Works in the dark too surprisingly enough.


Only if the electronics have enough samples to compare. I log into my
laptop with facial recognition and it worked well in good lighting
however it failed repeatedly in low light. I had to give the software
around a dozen more examples of low light conditions before it became
semi reliable again under these conditions.

Sounds like a cheap ****ty implementation.

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 14:50:29 UTC, Alistair Tyrrell wrote:
In article ,
says...

I'd be wary of any 4 digit code...

We had an aged relative who was admitted to hospital. When a little
better he wanted some stuff, but lost his keys on admission...
We assumed warden or neighbour would have spare key. They didn't...

I got the 4 digit code at second try. I wonder how many other dwellings
in the same complex had identical or very similar codes? So the last 4
digits of his land line would probably have been more secure.

Apparently many people have set a code of a memorable year
such as DoB or marriage. So a high percentage of all
keysafes have the first two digits set to 19 meaning the
thief only has to twiddle wheels 3 and 4.

User error then.
The easy way to get around such simple people is to tell them to put the code in backwards making 19 the LAST 2 digits xx19
Still not the best solution.

On 26/11/2019 12:16, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 23 November 2019 14:50:29 UTC, Alistair Tyrrell wrote:
In article ,
says...

I'd be wary of any 4 digit code...

We had an aged relative who was admitted to hospital. When a little
better he wanted some stuff, but lost his keys on admission...
We assumed warden or neighbour would have spare key. They didn't...

I got the 4 digit code at second try. I wonder how many other dwellings
in the same complex had identical or very similar codes? So the last 4
digits of his land line would probably have been more secure.

Apparently many people have set a code of a memorable year
such as DoB or marriage. So a high percentage of all
keysafes have the first two digits set to 19 meaning the
thief only has to twiddle wheels 3 and 4.

User error then.
The easy way to get around such simple people is to tell them to put the code in backwards making 19 the LAST 2 digits xx19
Still not the best solution.

Parents' house in France (now sold) had the combination 1815 (Battle of
Waterloo).

SteveW

On 26/11/2019 21:31, Steve Walker wrote:
On 26/11/2019 12:16, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 23 November 2019 14:50:29 UTC, Alistair TyrrellÂ* wrote:
In article ,
says...

I'd be wary of any 4 digit code...

We had an aged relative who was admitted to hospital. When a little
better he wanted some stuff, but lost his keys on admission...
We assumed warden or neighbour would have spare key. They didn't...

I got the 4 digit code at second try. I wonder how many other dwellings
in the same complex had identical or very similar codes? So the last 4
digits of his land line would probably have been more secure.

It is a common vulnerability.

Apparently many people have set a code of a memorable year
such as DoB or marriage. So a high percentage of all
keysafes have the first two digits set to 19 meaning the
thief only has to twiddle wheels 3 and 4.

User error then.
The easy way to get around such simple people is to tell them to put
the code in backwards making 19 the LAST 2 digits xx19
Still not the best solution.

Parents' house in France (now sold) had the combination 1815 (Battle of
Waterloo).

The other thing to watch on the push button models of keysafe is that it
doesn't matter what *order* you press the buttons in so long as you only
press the right ones. This makes a 4 digit code a bit weak.

You can set a five digit code on such devices which makes it secure
enough (although not if you set a pair to 1,9).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 27/11/2019 18:12, Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/11/2019 21:31, Steve Walker wrote:
On 26/11/2019 12:16, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 23 November 2019 14:50:29 UTC, Alistair TyrrellÂ* wrote:
In article ,
says...

I'd be wary of any 4 digit code...

We had an aged relative who was admitted to hospital. When a little
better he wanted some stuff, but lost his keys on admission...
We assumed warden or neighbour would have spare key. They didn't...

I got the 4 digit code at second try. I wonder how many other
dwellings
in the same complex had identical or very similar codes? So the last 4
digits of his land line would probably have been more secure.

It is a common vulnerability.

Apparently many people have set a code of a memorable year
such as DoB or marriage. So a high percentage of all
keysafes have the first two digits set to 19 meaning the
thief only has to twiddle wheels 3 and 4.

User error then.
The easy way to get around such simple people is to tell them to put
the code in backwards making 19 the LAST 2 digits xx19
Still not the best solution.

Parents' house in France (now sold) had the combination 1815 (Battle
of Waterloo).

The other thing to watch on the push button models of keysafe is that it
doesn't matter what *order* you press the buttons in so long as you only
press the right ones. This makes a 4 digit code a bit weak.

Theirs was the type with four rotary selectors.

SteveW

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:12:30 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 26/11/2019 21:31, Steve Walker wrote:
On 26/11/2019 12:16, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 23 November 2019 14:50:29 UTC, Alistair Tyrrell* wrote:
In article ,
says...

I'd be wary of any 4 digit code...

We had an aged relative who was admitted to hospital. When a little
better he wanted some stuff, but lost his keys on admission...
We assumed warden or neighbour would have spare key. They didn't...

I got the 4 digit code at second try. I wonder how many other dwellings
in the same complex had identical or very similar codes? So the last 4
digits of his land line would probably have been more secure.

It is a common vulnerability.

Apparently many people have set a code of a memorable year
such as DoB or marriage. So a high percentage of all
keysafes have the first two digits set to 19 meaning the
thief only has to twiddle wheels 3 and 4.

User error then.
The easy way to get around such simple people is to tell them to put
the code in backwards making 19 the LAST 2 digits xx19
Still not the best solution.

Parents' house in France (now sold) had the combination 1815 (Battle of
Waterloo).

The other thing to watch on the push button models of keysafe is that it
doesn't matter what *order* you press the buttons in so long as you only
press the right ones. This makes a 4 digit code a bit weak.

You can set a five digit code on such devices which makes it secure
enough (although not if you set a pair to 1,9).

What do you mean by "secure enough"?
The number of combinations of 4 digits is (10x9x8x7)/(4x3x2)=210.
For 5 digits it's (10x9x8x7x6)/(5x4x5x2)=252, which is hardly better.

There are videos of how to crack the code in seconds by feel, but I've
tried them on a new keysafe without success. The methods probably work
if the keysafe has been in use for years with the same combination and
the grooves have been worn into sloppiness.

It wouldn't take too long to try all 210 combinations of 4 digit
codes, bearing in mind that it doesn't matter what order you press the
buttons.
--
Dave W

On 27/11/2019 22:17, Dave W wrote:

What do you mean by "secure enough"?
The number of combinations of 4 digits is (10x9x8x7)/(4x3x2)=210.
For 5 digits it's (10x9x8x7x6)/(5x4x5x2)=252, which is hardly better.

A lot of push button models have more buttons than the 0 to 9 digits.
Mine also has a hash and a star button that can be part of the
combination. Other models have equivalent extra buttons although I have
seen some cheap ones without additional buttons.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 27/11/2019 22:17, Dave W wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:12:30 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

The other thing to watch on the push button models of keysafe is that it
doesn't matter what *order* you press the buttons in so long as you only
press the right ones. This makes a 4 digit code a bit weak.

You can set a five digit code on such devices which makes it secure
enough (although not if you set a pair to 1,9).

What do you mean by "secure enough"?
The number of combinations of 4 digits is (10x9x8x7)/(4x3x2)=210.
For 5 digits it's (10x9x8x7x6)/(5x4x5x2)=252, which is hardly better.

Most of the ones I have come across are a hexadecimal 16 digit matrix.
So it is actually:

16x15x14x13/24=1820 for 4 digits
and
16x15x14x13x12/120=4368 for 5 digits

There are videos of how to crack the code in seconds by feel, but I've
tried them on a new keysafe without success. The methods probably work
if the keysafe has been in use for years with the same combination and
the grooves have been worn into sloppiness.

If it gets worn then a skilled operator can feel for the combination.

It wouldn't take too long to try all 210 combinations of 4 digit
codes, bearing in mind that it doesn't matter what order you press the
buttons.

Exactly. But the digits are chosen from 16 so it isn't quite that bad.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:00:54 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 27/11/2019 22:17, Dave W wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:12:30 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

The other thing to watch on the push button models of keysafe is that it
doesn't matter what *order* you press the buttons in so long as you only
press the right ones. This makes a 4 digit code a bit weak.

You can set a five digit code on such devices which makes it secure
enough (although not if you set a pair to 1,9).

What do you mean by "secure enough"?
The number of combinations of 4 digits is (10x9x8x7)/(4x3x2)=210.
For 5 digits it's (10x9x8x7x6)/(5x4x5x2)=252, which is hardly better.

Most of the ones I have come across are a hexadecimal 16 digit matrix.
So it is actually:

16x15x14x13/24=1820 for 4 digits
and
16x15x14x13x12/120=4368 for 5 digits

There are videos of how to crack the code in seconds by feel, but I've
tried them on a new keysafe without success. The methods probably work
if the keysafe has been in use for years with the same combination and
the grooves have been worn into sloppiness.

If it gets worn then a skilled operator can feel for the combination.

It wouldn't take too long to try all 210 combinations of 4 digit
codes, bearing in mind that it doesn't matter what order you press the
buttons.

Exactly. But the digits are chosen from 16 so it isn't quite that bad.

Most of the ones I have come across have only 10 buttons!
--
Dave W

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:02:59 +0000, alan_m wrote:

Have you considered the alternative of an electronic front door
lock
that automatically unlocks when one of the authorised mobile
phones
show up ?

Much more expensive but much easier to use.

Technophobe owner of property who sometimes has trouble using a mobile
phone (assuming that is not left on a table on charge) ...

B-)

But doesn't rule out an electronic keypad and lock.

... also forgets to take a key.

I guess removing any latch so that the door had to be physically
locked on exit (thus ensuring user had key) wouldn't work as they'd
also forget that door needs locking.

though that's still the default for old folk likely to forget

leaving the door unlocked is seen as the least worse option

tim

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 November 2019 11:53:57 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
I guess we'll just have to wait for finger print access to such things,
should be too long, suprised I haven't seen such a thing on dragons den.


I believe that fingerprint readers can be fooled with either a latex
impression or a dead finger.


I think if you know that the householder is dead then wanting to avoid a
destructive break in isn't going to be necessary

tim

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 23/11/2019 05:23, Rod Speed wrote:


That doesnt fool the best fingerprint sensors.

In the case of existing key safes the mechanism or finger print
recognition is unlikely to be the "best".

I think that's likely to be case for any domestic implementation

tim

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 November 2019 12:07:25 UTC, wrote:
On Friday, 22 November 2019 11:53:57 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
I guess we'll just have to wait for finger print access to such things,
should be too long, suprised I haven't seen such a thing on dragons
den.


I believe that fingerprint readers can be fooled with either a latex
impression or a dead finger.

Some devices can the cheaper ones. But why are we seucuring the door from
others is the important thing here, and it;s not like no one has ever
gained access without the correct key to any place, it;s just what effort
you need to take to eliminate such a thing and in most cases I doubt many
people carry a dead finger around with them, or have access to the latex
and a suitable finger.
Face recognicion is another option, I've heard in the USA they are looking
into guns that can only be fired after face recogniction has been used.

implementing "owner" recognition for gun triggering has been considered by
military for at least 20 years.

It all fails to solve the scenario of what happens if trouper A needs to
"borrow" the gun of (dead/incapacitated) Trooper B in hurry, in a
battlefield scenario

tim