No announcement yet.

OT: Bank Vault

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post
    Really - can you show me the variable viscous deviation wheels with all the different thickness feeler gauge material interrupting them along with sand blasted wal-mart bearings and also some brass screeching rings because iv also decided I want a constant high pitch nail on a chalkboard sound whilst all the other thousands of clicking racket is going on - boy this should be good - Dan says someone already created it so should be easy to find an example

    probably have a few more idea's in the morning too so since you already know what's in my head why don't you just post them too and I will tell you if you got them right lol this should be real good...

    LOL! You got me. I was thinking about the general ideas that he's proposed. There are some with ratchets, and some with fences that will not engage unless you pull the lever, and then it scrambles the wheels again. Many are silent until you pull the lever to open it.

    I wish I was omniscient. That would be cool. I could see tomorrow's "the-whiteboard" episode tonight.

    At the end of the project, there is a profound difference between spare parts and left over parts.

    Location: SF East Bay.


    • #62
      Originally posted by danlb View Post
      I wish I was omniscient. That would be cool. I could see tomorrow's "the-whiteboard" episode tonight.
      -Then you could tell me what the punchline's going to be, 'cause I have no idea.

      The sad part is I'm not kidding.

      Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)


      • #63
        'Anything's possible if you have no idea what you are talking about.'
        'Hey, that's not a squid, that's my wife!'
        Location: North Central Texas


        • #64

          Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)


          • #65
            Originally posted by Doc Nickel View Post
            -Horsecrap. The lock makers have been battling "crackers" like him since the concept of the combination lock was invented. Hell, Harry Houdini used to crack them in almost exactly the same way, and he died ninety years ago.

            -Mechanical drag equals wear, risking one of the prime tenets of a lock, which is utter reliability. And mechanical noise is not going to be truly random, meaning a determined and skilled person almost certainly can and will still be able to eventually determine the tumbler locations.

            Add enough noise, and maybe- maybe- you can confuse a human ear and finger. Okay, so he brings a sensitive microphone hooked to a smartphone with a simple app that filters out "average" noise and listens for the uncommon tumbler contact noise.

            -Thank you, I will.

            Sorry, take it personally if you must, but I see precisely this kind of thing every day, with everything from paintball guns to politics. Everyone "knows better", everyone sees a clear and obvious solution, and then sits back, smug in the knowledge they're right.

            Really, if the idea is so simple, patent it, and sell the patent to a lockmaker for about a quarter mil.

            -It may well 'make sense', but whether or not it'd be an effective 'counter' very much remains to be seen. If his fingers are that sensitive, how do you know he can't differentiate between "noise" and "noise+tumbler"? The key issue here is that the tumbler will always be in the same position according to the dial. The noise, especially random noise, will be all over the place. If he feels the same "noise+tumbler" at the same spot on the dial two or three times, that works just as well.

            Horse crap is extreme, I think you are fooling yourself. How many folks have ever appeared that can do what Mr Sitar does? (that we know of, anyway).

            Your mistake is to misunderstand what the safe makers were trying to do.

            Yes, they WERE trying to defeat a safecracker attacking it via a "feel"-based method. Just a different way from what you seem to imagine.

            Back then they DID have pride in a smooth high quality lock, and they certainly did not expect that anyone could feel the gates.... they relied on the smoothness and precision of the mechanism to prevent it. Pretty much the opposite of what AK is suggesting. Instead of covering up the slight change of resistance, do your best to eliminate any such thing. The whole idea of the precision-made lock was to avoid having ANY "giveaway feel" to the lock at all.

            And, for anyone else other than Mr Sitar, apparently it works...... Otherwise any drunken bum of a locksmith could do what apparently he gets paid well to do.

            So, you think you (or someone) could feel that light touch of the gates through a lot of extraneous vibration and noise? After your fingers are desensitized by feeling the other vibrations and clunks?

            OK, Looks like we have another armchair locksmith who thinks he knows that it won't work.....

            As someone who actually HAS cracked combination locks, I can tell you that as far as I can see, a mechanism to add noise and resistance to turning could completely screw up the ability to feel any tiny clicks and light touches. If it did not cover them up with fake clicks etc, it would still force the hopeful safecracker to use enough force to turn the knob that his fingers would not be ready to feel any small differences. If you watched the video, you could see that the guy was using a very light touch to turn the knob. He has to, so that clicks come through to him.

            Even on a crude lock, the feeling of the gate is not obvious, it's just more so than the mechanism of that bank vault would ever be. If you have to exert significant force, your fingers simply cannot feel small changes. It's a physiological effect based on the way your nerves work, one that would appear to be hard to avoid.

            As for DSP to extract the "correct" noise from clutter, that IS perfectly credible. The counter to it is to SUPPLY the clicks of exactly the right type. Have several additional gate setups, complete and identical to the real ones, except they do not open the lock.

            By feel or by DSP, the cracker will still have to solve those, because they are essentially indistinguishable from the real ones, same mechanism exactly. That adds enough time that the odds of being caught in the act are much better. Remember, the idea is to delay, not totally prevent.

            For added fun, make it so that if THOSE are solved, then the lock will NOT open. You have to align the correct ones, and NONE of the fake ones, to open the lock. ( I am reasonably sure that system has been made)

            That DSP approach..... it also presupposes the ability to determine the "signature" of the gate lining up. Another hurdle for the safecracker.

            "Armchair speculating"? Maybe, although you are tarred with the same brush. But there is at least reasoning, and the benefit of some lock-cracking experience behind it.
            Last edited by J Tiers; 10-05-2016, 12:14 PM.
            CNC machines only go through the motions


            • #66
              Excellent thread.
              Funny enough, I agree with everyone.

              1. It is incredibly difficult to make a Very Much Better purely mechanical "safe" with all the constraints mentioned, with the extreme reliability required.
              2. Some of the mechanical hindrances mentioned might actually work really well *if suitably implemented*.
              I think the last part (2) is the kicker - and testing for same.
              I have no idea what would work and what not.

              I have been in several industries for multi-B$+ turnover per company where the underlying tech was really weak.
              IT/telecoms/encryption/printing/invoicing/accounting are some.

              Military/aerospace tech is often the same, mostly (by $ overall).
              Most aerospace stuff is overpriced of great reliability but low tech.

              Thus, as e.g. SpaceX has shown,
              it is often possible for a new entrant to totally disrupt an industry where it was "well known by everyone" that xxx/$$ or much lower costs "cannot be done".


              • #67
                Originally posted by danlb View Post
                I wish I was omniscient. That would be cool.

                Im pretty sure your not - if you were you would have already seen the 1,000+ car pile up involving mostly Tesla's like I have already seen


                • #68
                  JT that's taking it even further to a whole nuther level of advancement - the fact of the matter is - is it can be done,

                  but we have to keep in mind that to some that's frightening to hear some people say that with conviction - it's usually always followed by lines similar to "damn kids" and "I can remember when they did not even have canned tuna" or jokes about crystal balls and the like,
                  if provoked even further the accusations will soon follow of "witchcraft and deviltry"

                  we have to be careful here - some of these folk still believe in a flat word *(after all how else do you think the water "stays put")
                  or that it's something like 4 or 5 thousand years old, we have to give them credit in the fact that they are close in a way - just shy of some zero's that's all, these things take time...


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by J Tiers View Post
                    "Armchair speculating"? Maybe, although you are tarred with the same brush. But there is at least reasoning, and the benefit of some lock-cracking experience behind it.
                    -Both you and AK are thoroughly misunderstanding what I'm saying. Boomer because I directly threatened his ego, and you because you're just looking for a fight.

                    Let me clarify: At no time did I say any of Boomer's ideas wouldn't or couldn't work.

                    My main issue here- as it is for other scenarios- is the assumption "There! I fixed your problem forever!" based on a single viewing of a single video for a single demonstration of a single type of lock.

                    Why is that an issue? Because it stops you from learning.

                    I was guilty of it myself- and still am to a certain degree, it's a hard habit to give up. But it's a bad habit; you read some little snippet of something and automatically assume you know a great deal about the entire genre`. You have a quick idea, seems reasonable to you, and further assume no one in that field has ever tried it- after all, you've never heard of it, it wasn't mentioned in the video, so it probably hasn't been done yet.

                    Certainly, in some cases that's entirely true, and certainly many little innovations have come from "outsiders" that bring in a new perspective- the proverbial "thinking outside the box". Never said or even implied otherwise.

                    But, I've found you get a very great deal more insight if you go past the first little bit of exposure to that new field, and research what has and hasn't been tried. Virtually every time I do that, I find the "first quick idea" has already long since been tried, but I learn a great deal of new material myself, and can then offer better educated and more insightful solutions.

                    I've also found, also from personal experience, that the more you argue for that that "first quick idea" the more you get 'attached' to it, for want of a better phrase, and the less likely you are to accept additional information. Boomer himself aptly demonstrated that above- Dan notes that lockmakers have already long since been trying adding "noise" (false gates and the like) to the mechanism, and Boomer, rather than accepting that, simply skips over it without acknowledgement and basically shouts "what about the viscous oil! Did they ever try that, huh, smart guy?!?"

                    He's thoroughly attached to the idea- he's engaged his ego to it - and is now refusing to accept additional information beyond it.

                    And that's not how you continue to learn.

                    Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)


                    • #70
                      Doc it's been fun - thanks for not taking it too personal

                      the viscous drive mechanism has two purposes - one is it makes no two patterns ever alike and two it is a failsafe for the lock to still work just in case the extra parts do jam somehow - dial would have allot more resistance but would still be turn-able...

                      at any rate - I think it would be easy to build and clutter up the entire mess with "like" sounds and so close together and so many and constantly varying that it would drive someone insane if they went to actually try to decipher it, I would also have a few preventatives that I already covered so someone could not disable the unit without risking the entire lock to not engage, there would be a few more things to consider but sorry do not see a problem and does not matter to me what's been tried already and what's not, that's just a defeatist attitude path that I choose to never go down - I don't take someone else's efforts to be as good as mine, iv had way too many success story's to ever consider doing that...
                      Does not matter if im not some kind of "expert" in the field - all's I can tell you is if im not - I will be in short order, esp. if it's the only thing at the time that I have to focus on...


                      • #71
                        I see the whole situation as similar to designing weapons.

                        You design one, and the "enemy" designs some way of countering it. So you redesign, or design a new one, which either counters or evades the enemy "countering" of the original weapon.

                        if you make it hard enough to get in via the door, then some other place will be attacked.

                        Here, we have a case where apparently the safe company designed a safe which was smooth enough operating that it was believed nobody could "feel" the mechanism. So, now, 50 or more yeas later, the mechanism has worn to the point it may be "readable", and/or furthermore we have a person who seems to be much better at the job than others (at least at this time).

                        The counter being suggested is twofold, bury the feelable stuff under bigger obstructions that feel like the gates lining up, or just blanket that with other "feels", and confuse the issue with another set of gates that MUST NOT be lined up if the door is to open. So, presumably the skilled operator will not be able to do the sensitive fingers trick, and even if he does, he cannot know if he is lining up the "must pass" or the "must not pass" gates.

                        Having done that, the LOCK may be uncrackable (at least at present), but there is a lot of other surface area on the vault, so, the lock does not make the vault as a whole definitely and permanently uncrackable.

                        And, it's perfectly possible that some means might be devised to see in and observe the gates, to physically see them line up. Borescope, some ultrasonic system, or ????

                        It is definitely not done forever just because the lock is made harder to crack. And I don't recall anyone saying that, either. Any method the safe folks can think of to crack the safe needs to be countered, preferably before it is implemented. That is a cycle of evolution, better locks, better thieves, even better locks, even better thieves, etc, etc.

                        Originally posted by Doc Nickel View Post
                        -Both you and AK are thoroughly misunderstanding what I'm saying. ... and you because you're just looking for a fight.
                        Silly, silly.

                        Not at all, but apparently you just don't understand that.

                        A fight?.... if you didn't enjoy a good clean argument, you wouldn't bother posting in these..... you're busted, pal....!!!!!
                        CNC machines only go through the motions