How do I set up this small master keyed system?

[Berget]

Hi
First post here!

Anyway, I share a large garage (divided into smaller 'rooms') with a couple of other guys. Right now it's 'key hell'. Everybody has there own locks and keys, and some have keys and access to others guys rooms. And some of the locks come from old master keyed system and is a bit fishy.

So I thought I make a proper master keyed lock system for the garage, were everyone gets one key (instead of like five) that opens that guys room and the rooms to other people who trust him. And the ones that are not supposed to gain access to certain rooms cant. And of course: A master key that opens them all!

There is little / no money available for this, and the security does not have to be top notch. The 'doors' are not sturdy and it's possible to climb over to gain access. So I thought I would use most of the existing locks, add a couple more and repin them. The locks in question is ASSA 500; five pin with 0.500mm of pin spacing. Pins vary from 1 through 7. MACS appear to be 3 (even if I'm unsure of this). I would like to avoid using single bit wafers. If you don't like ASSA:s 'reversed' type of bitting, just write any bitting the normal way and I'll sort it out.

The system does not have to be expandable, and ghost keys (if my understanding of them is correct) are no problem.

How do I proceed? Anyone have a recommendation on a piece of software or a paper to get me started? Since it's a small system I thought it would be easy to do it, but I quickly become lost.

I have included a schematic picture on how the access should be laid out. Feel free to give any type of feedback on this as any help would be greatly appreciated.

[xeo]

I am a little confused by your schematic. Are the blocks different locks and the keys are A, BA, BBA, C and D? Shouldn't the key "D" be renamed to A-BBA-D since it opens A, D and BBA? Also do you want a key that opens B to open by nature BB, BA, and BBA as they are children of the same parent node? Also I don't know if a 5 pin ASSA with 7 depths has enough permutations to cover this level of complexity. I could be wrong though.

[Harvey]

Hi Berget,

Commercial locksmith here. Your floor plan seems fairly striaght forward, albeit not a standardised method of representation.
I would encourage you to review this document [ASSA Master Key System Design Guide] before proceeding any further, as it may assist you with implimenting a standardised key identification and referencing system. Specifically see the section on Page 10, Cross Keying.

I can most certainly punch out a system specification for you including coding, but it would be much more within the goals of this forum to educate you on how to do it yourself and lay things out for others to learn bits also.
I am based in Australia, so I have no method of providing you with key cutting services or pinning supplies - My advice will be entirely theoretical and you will need to do the practical side of things.

My first recommendation for you from a long-term [6+ months] point of view, would be to be entirely certain you would like keys to operate multiple rooms.
What you are asking for "[...] everyone gets one key [...] that opens that guys room and the rooms to other people who trust him." would be more in line with an access control system, rather than a properly created masterkey system. This is still technically possible, yes - but these 'trust' levels may change frequently, unpredictably, and persons who inherit a key that should only operate a particular area, may work other areas they're not 'trusted' to be in.
Be cautious doing this.
Interchange keys are certainly a valid function of masterkey systems, albeit usually only implemented by high level coders and under specific situations.

If I were setting this system up, I would be creating this as a three-level system.
This would entail;

1. A Master key that opens all locks
2. Interchange Keys (keyed as needed to selective rooms as required - eg. 'trusted guys')
3. Change keys - Per room / area. These would be used long-term, when the key(s) that had access to multiple rooms is no longer applicable.

You can of course set this up with just MK and IK's, and ignore the Change Keys entirely. This is a perfectly valid method, and will allow you to selectively key each door without concern for cross-keying as long as you are not expanding or changing the access levels frequently.

I believe MKExpress has a trial that may be of assistance to you, although it will not allow coding export (from memory).

EDIT: I have processed what I believe your floor plan requires, and attached it as a .PDF in a keying matrix. Please note this is one of the simplest methods of visualising key access. This becomes much easier when you implement a good door & key identification system - Here I have used your references.
You'll note that your "BBA" key is essentially a master, however this key can be removed if it is lost / stolen (assuming it is cut as an Interchange key code).

[Berget]

I am a little confused by your schematic. Are the blocks different locks and the keys are A, BA, BBA, C and D? Shouldn't the key "D" be renamed to A-BBA-D since it opens A, D and BBA? Also do you want a key that opens B to open by nature BB, BA, and BBA as they are children of the same parent node? Also I don't know if a 5 pin ASSA with 7 depths has enough permutations to cover this level of complexity. I could be wrong though.

yea, I know that the schematic doesn't follow the normal way of a lock system representation. I were unsure of how these were actually made, and instead of doing something that were faulty and added even more confusion I draw that schematic. I draw it as a direct representation of the 'rooms'. The colors represents each person/key.
There is no need for a key that only opens room B.
About enough permutations with the given locks were something I've been struggling with. Since I tried doing it by hand a couple of times it looked grim. But with the right software, I think I've found a solution (see below):

Hi Berget,

Commercial locksmith here. Your floor plan seems fairly striaght forward, albeit not a standardised method of representation.
I would encourage you to review this document [ASSA Master Key System Design Guide] before proceeding any further, as it may assist you with implimenting a standardised key identification and referencing system. Specifically see the section on Page 10, Cross Keying.

I can most certainly punch out a system specification for you including coding, but it would be much more within the goals of this forum to educate you on how to do it yourself and lay things out for others to learn bits also.
I am based in Australia, so I have no method of providing you with key cutting services or pinning supplies - My advice will be entirely theoretical and you will need to do the practical side of things.

Thank you, that link proved useful. I'm going to redo the schematic to use the correct notations.
Of course. "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"

My first recommendation for you from a long-term [6+ months] point of view, would be to be entirely certain you would like keys to operate multiple rooms.
What you are asking for "[...] everyone gets one key [...] that opens that guys room and the rooms to other people who trust him." would be more in line with an access control system, rather than a properly created masterkey system. This is still technically possible, yes - but these 'trust' levels may change frequently, unpredictably, and persons who inherit a key that should only operate a particular area, may work other areas they're not 'trusted' to be in.
Be cautious doing this.
Interchange keys are certainly a valid function of masterkey systems, albeit usually only implemented by high level coders and under specific situations.

I know that this is somewhat of a 'flaw' in the design. In reality it's more of a flaw of the building layout in combination with pin tumbler locks. An electronic access control system would've been the best... no way that's gonna happen though.

If I were setting this system up, I would be creating this as a three-level system.
This would entail;

1. A Master key that opens all locks
2. Interchange Keys (keyed as needed to selective rooms as required - eg. 'trusted guys')
3. Change keys - Per room / area. These would be used long-term, when the key(s) that had access to multiple rooms is no longer applicable.

You can of course set this up with just MK and IK's, and ignore the Change Keys entirely. This is a perfectly valid method, and will allow you to selectively key each door without concern for cross-keying as long as you are not expanding or changing the access levels frequently.

I believe MKExpress has a trial that may be of assistance to you, although it will not allow coding export (from memory).

EDIT: I have processed what I believe your floor plan requires, and attached it as a .PDF in a keying matrix. Please note this is one of the simplest methods of visualising key access. This becomes much easier when you implement a good door & key identification system - Here I have used your references.
You'll note that your "BBA" key is essentially a master, however this key can be removed if it is lost / stolen (assuming it is cut as an Interchange key code).

I tried MKExpress, and it works perfect in solving some of my problems. Thank you for that! It took some tinkering around to get it to work 'backwards' (a.k.a. ASSA-style bitting). After about ten times trying to figure out a working system on paper, I ended up with one that would need about 40 master wafers. The current system that MKExpress suggested only need about 18. And it only needs the first three pins to solve the access rights. The last two pins are identical to all locks. Right now it's only MK and IK:s.

Thanks for the PDF! I guess you missed some access that key 'D' should have.
I'm working on a new schematic and a keying matrix. Will upload it when I'm done.

Is 3 the MACS of an ASSA 500? It sounds very low, and MKExpress does not even support an MACS that low. However, of all the ASSA500 keys and locks I have, none have an MACS above 3.

Thanks a lot for the help so far!

[Harvey]

Hi Berget,

I don't use the ASSA 500 / 700 system in AUS, so you'll have to forgive my lack of coding knowledge relating to the MACS.
Please see attached space and depth info I have; I would assume a code of 37373 would be able to be cut?
What machine or info are you using to manufacture the keys?

Also, as a note for your reference that you can do this with only three chambers; Check with someone who has done a number of systems with this ASSA 500 system, to see whether wear and tear starts causing master wafer jumps.
With our standard Lockwood 405 card systems a 2 Master will jump after a while, or on badly matched barrels/housings. To prevent this, we use 3-step keying on those systems.
Might be worth, as you mentioned, ensuring that you're not using 1-step mastering on that ASSA 500 system. MKExpress may not automagically figure this out.

[Berget]

Please see attached space and depth info I have; I would assume a code of 37373 would be able to be cut?
What machine or info are you using to manufacture the keys?

It sure looks like MACS 4 would be possible judging from that picture. Might be that it's possible, but ASSA refrain from using it on factory pinned locks for some reason.
I'll order the keys from an online locksmith that cuts to code. Silca blanks.

Also, as a note for your reference that you can do this with only three chambers; Check with someone who has done a number of systems with this ASSA 500 system, to see whether wear and tear starts causing master wafer jumps.
With our standard Lockwood 405 card systems a 2 Master will jump after a while, or on badly matched barrels/housings. To prevent this, we use 3-step keying on those systems.
Might be worth, as you mentioned, ensuring that you're not using 1-step mastering on that ASSA 500 system. MKExpress may not automagically figure this out.

I don't know if these systems (like the ASSA 500) are of better quality or just wear gracefully, but I've never come upon one that is malfunctioning. The keys might look like a bogota rake after 40 years, but even single step master wafers seems to work. To minimize the chance of failure (since it's an homemade system) I'll stick with two step masters. Three-step seems a little bit overkill, since its only seven depths available.

MKExpress provides settings for depth progression.

I've included a revised schematic and some tables for the system. Any comment on it would be greatly appreciated! I kept my original notation (A,B,BA,BBA etc) for reference to earlier comments.

[Harvey]

Coding looks good. You should be able expand into the other two chambers in the future if you have frequent rekeys.

How do you feel about it now - Any further questions, comments, queries?

[jharveee]

Hope you don't mind me asking..........I was told "stacking master pins" was frowned upon,
Is that what I'm looking at?
Is there other options?

Always trying to learn more when it comes master key systems.
Thanks,

[Berget]

Coding looks good. You should be able expand into the other two chambers in the future if you have frequent rekeys.

How do you feel about it now - Any further questions, comments, queries?

I made a small bo-bo in the chart (the lock called 'X7AAX' should of course be called 'X2AA')

I thought it would be nice to expand it slightly, allowing for an 'inner room' after X1AA that isn't operable by the interchange keys 4AA, 5AA and 3AA. Only the MK and 1AA would have access. But as I did, I found the limitation on the MKEpress demo; maximum of six keys and seven locks. (or a sum of these). But I'll guess that can be made manually.

EDIT: Nevermind, it was probably just an time limitation in the software. Restarted it, and put in the information again. Now it works with more locks and keys.

Hope you don't mind me asking..........I was told "stacking master pins" was frowned upon,
Is that what I'm looking at?
Is there other options?

That exactly what it is. Didn't know it was considered unsuitable. Do you know the reason? Increased chance of cylinder jamming or just because it's a pain in the ass to pin it if you don't have access to the pin holes from outside of the cylinder?

One could use all five of the pins instead, and that would probably only use one master pin per pin. I cant seem to get the software to cooperate to the level that it would do this though. I can only change the order of, and position, on which pins it should start using for master keying.

In general, is it better to have the master pins in the front of the lock (near the 'handle' of the key (bow?)) or in the back?

[jharveee]

I should have raised my hand after the instructor said "stacking master pins in not a good idea." I never asked.
Guess I was to understand, his way was what he was teaching.
It was like you say, using one master pin in each cylinder.

There are some real sharp members here that I'm hoping will clear up my confusion.

Master keying is a real science.
Something I will get better at as I do more of it.
Starts out easy enough, Then explodes.

[Harvey]

Hi jharveee,

Stacking multiple master pins in a chamber is not the best thing to do, but that would be when implementing a standard tree structure key system. (best practice is 'best' practice, not 'always')
This system is non-standard in a number of ways, the most obvious being that it has no actual Change Keys. These keys are all cut to selective Interchange codes, however when keyed correctly - these only interchange in the intended manner.

Stacking multiples in a chamber not only makes a lock vastly easier to manipulate, it also generally means you're probably trying to maison a *lot* of keys through it. If a system designer gets into the practice of doing this frequently, very quickly you end up with every hotel entry door in town being opened by any room key of another hotel.
While this will mechanically work, and it was the only in the past, today we have things like mechanical keyless systems, standalone digital access control locks, swipe-card systems, etc. etc.
Mechanically maisoned cylinders isn't generally thought of as 'best practice' any more due to a range of reasons, but this is the one I cite most.

[jharveee]

Great,
Thanks for the response Harvey.
It cleared some things up that I've not fully understood.

[Berget]

I see. Is there any risk of the lock jamming when using stacked masters? Since I'm using two step progression the thinnest master will be 1.00mm thick.

How 'bad' is it to use a master key that is cut lower than most interchange keys? Like a master cut < 3-3-3-5-5 and a change key cut < 6-6-6-5-5. I mean these interchange keys can be filed down to become a master key. I know this depends on whether people know this or not and if they are bright enough to dissemble the cylinder and figure out the master key. (this is not going to happen in this garage, thats for sure )
I've done it in the past (figuring out a master key by dissemble a lock). Not popular among the general population

Other than the security risk of filing down a key, is there other factors to take into consideration when choosing a master key?

After poking around I extended the system further with a couple more locks and another key. I also tried various master keys, and I've narrowed it down so that it only needs two pins. About 20 master wafers needed in total. Now I just need to figure out if I'm wanna stay with the 5-pin ASSA500 or upgrade to a 7-pin ASSA700. Have a lot of those cylinders available.

[GWiens2001]

Twenty master wafers??? Holy cow, how many hundreds of key differs do you need?

As for master key bittings being higher or lower, I'd personally use both. The risk of a cut for the master key being loer than the change key is privilege escalation by filing the keys. If the master key bitting is higher, you can't file the change key higher. But if you have both, it is less predictable.

Gordon

[Harvey]

I see. Is there any risk of the lock jamming when using stacked masters? Since I'm using two step progression the thinnest master will be 1.00mm thick.

How 'bad' is it to use a master key that is cut lower than most interchange keys? Like a master cut < 3-3-3-5-5 and a change key cut < 6-6-6-5-5. I mean these interchange keys can be filed down to become a master key. I know this depends on whether people know this or not and if they are bright enough to dissemble the cylinder and figure out the master key. (this is not going to happen in this garage, thats for sure )
I've done it in the past (figuring out a master key by dissemble a lock). Not popular among the general population

Other than the security risk of filing down a key, is there other factors to take into consideration when choosing a master key?

After poking around I extended the system further with a couple more locks and another key. I also tried various master keys, and I've narrowed it down so that it only needs two pins. About 20 master wafers needed in total. Now I just need to figure out if I'm wanna stay with the 5-pin ASSA500 or upgrade to a 7-pin ASSA700. Have a lot of those cylinders available.

Sorry about that, I reviewed the coding on the locks but not the cuts selected for the keys. This issue has come from either yourself selecting or the software auto-generating a high level key code that is non-optimal.
It's fairly standard, and to be honest the route that most keying software persons take is that to create a truely 'good' high level key code, you run the risk of narrowing down potential HLK codes and therefore differences in subsequent systems *dramatically*.
The route normally taken is "better to have less-than-awesome HLK codes on 90% of systems, and let the high-level coders select their own when needed, than to implement a code selection rule into the software that limits available high level codes drastically."

When selecting a HLK / TMK, You should be following a couple of basic rules;
1, Must contain a 'Deepest cut' (in your system, a 1 or 2) = Provides security against a 'jump', where persons can apply turning pressure to their change key and retract their key, causing the pins to jump to the MK sheerline. Progress this chamber Second.
2, Must contain a 'Shallowest cut' (in your system, a 7 or 6) = Provides security against person filing down keys. Progress this chamber First.
3, Preference to not cut deeper than 60% of the cut series on the First chamber (in your system, a 4 or 3) = Provides a 'strong' key for the master.
4, Preferable to have 'Odd-Even' or 'Even-Odd' cuts when selecting (in some systems, may not be applicable to yours at all) = Assists in MACS for some systems, probably not applicable to yours
5, No more than 3 identical cuts (eg; 3114151 = bad code) = Just a bad idea in general
6, No Ascending or Descending cuts (eg; 124678 / 765321)

I'm unsure if MK Express will let you select a TMK / HLK, so if you'd like you can follow those rules and give me 10 codes to review, and we can see what would work best.
I can create a custom coding through promaster to provide you with codes, but now you understand how to generate an Interchange system, I'd also encourage you to knock out your own coding per lock.


Also, in relation to narrowing down the system to avoid using X quantity of master pins; Why? Are you limited by budget / obtainability?
Security is a valid reason, and you can expand into further chambers in the future if needed - due to this being an interchange system. I would personally progress the Deepest and Shallowest chambers in the TMK code, if you're only using two chambers for the system.