Page 3 of 3

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:01 am
by MartinHewitt
EN1143 does not specify a durability (against force) of the lock to be installed. EN1300 does also not specify how durable the lock has to be. Lock manufacturers specify a durability. Bolt work manufacturers don't specify the lock durability. What makes you so sure that a safe does not open with hammering at the handle? It looks to me like an issue nobody looks at.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:28 pm
by Jaakko Fagerlund
MartinHewitt wrote:EN1143 does not specify a durability (against force) of the lock to be installed. EN1300 does also not specify how durable the lock has to be. Lock manufacturers specify a durability. Bolt work manufacturers don't specify the lock durability. What makes you so sure that a safe does not open with hammering at the handle? It looks to me like an issue nobody looks at.

Because the safe manufacturer specifies the rating for the safe as a whole and that is what is tested to give it a rating. You can't just look at individual standards and say that they do not cover things covered in other standards/tests.

If the safes open by hammering a handle in x amount of time, then they do not pass the burglary testings, thus they do not get certified for certain grades. This is very easy to see in properly made safes, the handle has some weak point in it that will break if torqued too much. Or alternatively, the safe has relockers that will fire after using forceful attack on the door/lock/boltwork.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:58 pm
by MartinHewitt
Your arguments are not really convincing (at least me).

Safes and locks are today not made by the same company. So the certification process for EN1300 (lock) and EN1143 (safe) are separate. A safe manufacturer can deliver a safe model possibly with different lock models. I am sure that if he provides a lock with a safe to be tested he provides only one lock model. Additionally a safe trader can switch the lock. (That is probably why there is this huge batch of 6642s on ebay.) Safe traders often do not know more than what is on the sales flyer. So many will switch locks just based on certification label and mounting possibilities. Then afterwards the owner can also exchange the lock. So how can this attack be tested, when the mechanical lock properties are not defined?

Also not all EN1143 certified safes have relockers.

I'll ask the VdS about the lock issue in EN1143 certifications.

PS: To make it clear: I believe, that this attack is not a problem for nearly all of the safes, but I don't see a process which ensures that it is not a problem for all EN1143 certified safes.

Re: 384 C Bad security Safe & lock 2018

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:22 pm
by MartinHewitt
The VdS makes it mandatory that certified safe technicians do the servicing and lock change. Otherwise the certificate is lost. So perhaps they will take care of the lock compatibility. There is also a special service label which has to be attached to the safe when work has been done.

ECB-S has recommendations that only qualified persons should do servicing. repairing etc.. This contains also a recommendation when the certificate is lost.