Page 2 of 3

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:26 am
by 10ringo10
MartinHewitt wrote:Pork pie? Are these locks still produced or have they vanished under Gunebo?


Antique kromer lever lock - round like the " pork pie "- so the name stuck very hard to pick & German martin

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:03 am
by MartinHewitt
That must then be the Kromer Protector. Is this a general boxmen slang for this lock or is this your name for it? This lock is still produced in very very low quantities (more like single pieces) for around 400 - 600 Euro. It sounds like the only person who can still make this lock is already retired and has to come back to the company to make these single locks. Maybe, one day, I will make an adapter to mount a Protector in a modern safe. Possible, but quite complex. Unless of course you can make something Zamak die cast. :) The two problems with the conversion is that the locks sits where two EN1300 mounting screws should go and that the bolt is to far away from the door. The first problem makes it necessary to first mount a plate and then the remaining parts to the door.

Anyway this is is not lock I recommend, because of difficulty to get, difficulty to mount and price.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:17 am
by 10ringo10
[quote="MartinHewitt"]That must then be the Kromer Protector. Is this a general boxmen slang for this lock or is this your name for it?
In the 1930s they where fitted to many safes - but well known as the " pork pie " not the most secure safe lock now

but highly sort after and very good protection at the time - look forward to seeing that martin can still buy them

second hand and from collectors - ban the zamak

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:34 am
by Oldfast
Ringo! For sure, an interesting discussion you've sparked here.

I share your sentiments - I miss seeing so much steel & brass!
No doubt, as you mentioned, it's all about the bottom line. $$

Big question is just how and to what degree has it affected security.
Some interesting points have been made here and I'll continue to
curiously follow. In the meantime... I'll keep an eye out for any
'worthy candidates' I might come across to post here :)

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:47 am
by Jaakko Fagerlund
10ringo10 wrote: direct heat on a panel with bolts mounted is a much better way - red hot plate leading to a low temp alloy

POC II GTFO - Burning the locks and doors of safes is already tried and tested -

so proof of concept as been practised for many years ... get the fuck out could be quoted GTFO for many reasons

ie : Do not believe or think impossible ... Concept its not !

In your opening post ou mentioned that those plumbers tools can be used, but haven't ever seen or heard of any viable attack vector with them. So where is the proof of concept?

Sure everything will melt if given enough heat, but in my opinion that heat is not coming from an electric hand operated plumbers tool.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:41 am
by MartinHewitt
There is a video on youtube where they open a safe by hammering onto the handle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQcsCmW8QeY

On most bolt work there is a force from the side on the lock bolt if the handle is turned, either one side or both sides. I assume it puts more stress on the lock if the force comes only from one side. I do wonder how safe the safes are against this attack. Are the locks already solid enough? Are Zamak cases and bolts solid enough? Or does the bolt work need a breaking point to counter this? If e.g. the cawi 7627 has a breaking point it is not obvious to me.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:23 am
by MartinHewitt
Zamak can cause reliability problems.

In the Mauer Code Combi products there is a small Zamak piece at the tip of the key and lock handle. See last picture at:
http://wiki.koksa.org/Kaba_Mauer_Combi_B
If this breaks neither the electronic function nor the backup key will work.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:15 pm
by Jaakko Fagerlund
MartinHewitt wrote:There is a video on youtube where they open a safe by hammering onto the handle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQcsCmW8QeY

Define "safe". That thing looks like something that wouldn't fill even the Euro 1 category and it isn't fire rated also. So no need to manufacture it to be resistant to pretty much any attack.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:05 pm
by MartinHewitt
And a real safe does what?

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:35 am
by Riyame
Werewolf wrote:
MartinHewitt wrote:
Jaakko Fagerlund wrote:I'll end this with a notion of aluminum containing alloys that are very much destroyed with a few drops of gallium.

Mercury?


I believe Jaakko is refering to this very interesting chemical reaction

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeghGhVdt9s[/youtube]
//why is this not working ?
link


You need to take out the S in the httpS:// part of the link.


Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:37 pm
by 10ringo10
[quote="Oldfast"]Ringo! For sure, an interesting discussion you've sparked here.

I share your sentiments - I miss seeing so much steel & brass!
No doubt, as you mentioned, it's all about the bottom line. $$

Big question is just how and to what degree has it affected security.

There is a security issue for sure - wide spread and there making millions off it

ban the zamak

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:44 pm
by 10ringo10
[quote="MartinHewitt"]There is a video on youtube where they open a safe by hammering onto the handle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQcsCmW8QeY

On most bolt work there is a force from the side on the lock bolt if the handle is turned, either one side or both sides. I assume it puts more stress on the lock if the force comes only from one side

Having seen zamak locking points and parts fail over the years - BREAK under stress even on the multipoint gears
where by the second emergency spindle is used if fitted & not fitted in many cases a complete centre gear is required
Is zamak even fit for purpose - strength wise ... good point martin will a steel bolt win over a zamak cast part every time
if enough force is used ie : A few blows from a hammer :shock:

ban the zamak

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:09 pm
by Werewolf
In belgium we have a lock company called Sobinco. They even make their lock cases out of zamak.
Bits and pieces break off all the time. The lock case itself can just split.
We call them Sobrielco (briel meaning junk in our dialect)

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:15 pm
by huxleypig
Well have we all seen the recent gallium attacks on the aluminium locks? Zamak has a lot of aluminium in it. I have seen Emco machine tool zamak parts (good stuff normally) literally fall to pieces with what looks like gallium-type metal fatigue. However, I doubt very much that this was caused by gallium. At some point in its life it cam into contact with something that slaughtered that aluminium. I wonder what it was? A user on here has the part, it is very strange.

I agree, zamak is not a good choice.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:37 am
by Jaakko Fagerlund
MartinHewitt wrote:And a real safe does what?

It does not open with a hammer. For example, no solenoid to "activate" with a hammer nor deos the pounding of the handle help. If a box can be opened this way, it isn't a safe per se.