Slashdot Mirror


Optical Lock Foils Thieves

opticsorg writes "A UK inventor has come up with a way to make what is thought to be an unpickable lock. The Optilock contains a bundle of up to six input optical fibers on one side of the lock barrel and a corresponding number of fibers on the other side. When a special key is inserted into the lock, it connects the fibers in a unique routing pattern opening the lock in a fraction of a second. Light then flows around the circuit until the key is removed and the circuit is broken."

156 comments

  1. Unpickable? by climberkid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Accually saying that this is an "unpickable" lock is risky. I mean, look at the efforts by the RIAA to prevent P2P, or the anti-burning CD's with the corrupt files that crash computers, someone fixed that with a sharpie. I think that making statements like that is seriously underestimating human potential.

    1. Re:Unpickable? by rjshields · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder if I could "pick" it with a 14lb lump hammer ;)

      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    2. Re:Unpickable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering how I'm going to get in my car when I lock my keys in it. Now the police will just have to smash my windows. :-/

    3. Re:Unpickable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be set up to require 30 sec. time after a bad key, so that it would take much longer to use brute force.

    4. Re:Unpickable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You can smash your windows yourself, you know :)

    5. Re:Unpickable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few people think there is only 720 possibility. It's very easy to make the lock appear to have many more misleading input nodes and output nodes (based on the picture on the website, imagine half side of the lock contain light input nodes with only 6 valid, and half side of the lock contain output nodes with only 6 valid.) All of sudden this becomes nontrivial, because there is no easy way to validate which position contains a valid input/output.

    6. Re:Unpickable? by oniony · · Score: 1

      I think it may have been a colloquilism. Companies sell 'unbreakable plates' and 'shatterproof rulers', etc. Usually they're not unbreakable, nor shatterproof, nor unstealable, or whatnot, they're just a lot harder to break, a lot less likely to shatter, a lot more difficult to steal, more time consuming to pick and more inappropriate to lick (don't ask) than the typical, or more likely common, alternatives.

      In case you hadn't noticed, and good or not, we live in a world of marketing.

      --

      Powered by onion juice.

  2. Not unpickable by SandSpider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is obvious, but the lock isn't unpickable, it's just going to take a while before people figure out how to pick it, and it'll raise the bar on tools needed for picking at most.

    Also, while this will be handy for places with cement walls and thick steel doors, places with windows and weak door frames will still be vulnerable. Plus, of course, the social engineering attacks.

    That being said, I'm a big fan of new, shiny locks, so hooray for the people who made it.

    =Brian

    --
    There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
    1. Re:Not unpickable by dman123 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Not only will it take a while for people to learn how to pick it, it will take a while for the lock to even exist...

      Quoting the article... "At the moment, the lock is a computer model. This money will allow us to see how these ideas will work and what the devices will actually look like."

      Maybe it will be one of those situations where the lockpicks are invented before the vulnerability is found and fixed by the Microsoft, I mean, the manufacturer.

      --

      --
      dman123 forever!
      Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
    2. Re:Not unpickable by ivern76 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the description is correct, and light flows "in a circuit", then picking it is trivial as long as you have a key that can route light in a programmatic way.

      See, what you have is the number of possible ways to match N fibers with N fibers. It's easy to see that the total number of locks is N!. However, the requisite that light flow in a circuit makes it so you can follow the loop. Figure out which of your switches on side A is getting light, route it to all fibers on side B until one of them makes a different fiber emit light, rinse, repeat. Having some fibers be decoys or having multiple light sources doesn't make this more complex at all (as long as you have a constant number of light sources.) As you can probably figure out, the worst case number of locks is now N + (N-1) + ... + 1, which is N * (N - 1) / 2. Not a whole lot of locks, and definitely something a machine can brute-force.

      Of course, this brute force approach can be denied by locking the door permanently if too many 'wrong keys' are inserted. A better approach would be to ditch the 'circuit' idea altogether and just use N light sources with random matching.

      I didn't have time to thoroughly read the original article, so maybe I'm just stating the obvious.

    3. Re:Not unpickable by gooman · · Score: 1

      Cool Idea. Not unpickable.

      Locks exist to keep honest people out.

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    4. Re:Not unpickable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are forgetting the fact that a single light source can be mapped to more than one output.

    5. Re:Not unpickable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if we assume that each input can have a different frequency of light, then the number of possible lock combination is

      (numoutputs!) ^ (numinputs)

      in our case of 6 inputs and 6 outputs:
      6!^6 = 139314069504000000

      hardly pickable using brute force.

    6. Re:Not unpickable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excuse me, I was incorrect. make that
      (2^numinputs)^numoutputs

      *nervous laugh*

    7. Re:Not unpickable by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I didn't have time to thoroughly read the original article, so maybe I'm just stating the obvious.
      No. You are missing the obvious; This isn't something a machine can force, as the lock is a physical thing located in a definite position. This isn't a DES key that you can let the software run overnight while you play Quake. Your 'machine' would have to be attached to the lock for hours while it tried combination after combination. (Your problems are not much easier if you have the key itself. It's still a physical object that only one machine at a time can work on, and during the hours it will take, you have to hope the owner does not notice it missing.)
    8. Re:Not unpickable by nomel · · Score: 1

      personally, i would think it would make it easier on lock pickers.

      instead of having to make complicated mechanical devices, you could make a led based device. like they say, it can open in a fraction of a second...meaning much less time needed between changing the key configuration.

      although, they could create some smart system that would "lock you out" after so many invalid attempts.

      I do see what they mean unpickable...it is. You can't pick it a mechanical way (assuming they build it riht). But, it is still susceptible to brute force methods...but those take a long time, and with the limited key attemps, seems unlikely.

      BUT, copying key will be MUCH easier since they are just passive devices. Quickly sliding them into a device that reads the input and output patters would take, "a fraction of a second"...hehe. reproducing the key would require light sensors and leds...or whatever.

    9. Re:Not unpickable by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Your problems are not much easier if you have the key itself. It's still a physical object that only one machine at a time can work on, and during the hours it will take...

      ???

      Scanning a key could be done in a single second if you have a scanner pre-built, and could be done by hand in well under a minute. There's nothing to "brute force" about a key. You just map out the location of the fiber end points and shine a laser pointer at them to see how they pair up.

      As for picking the lock, I really hope the lock is far more sophisticated than the brief description in the article suggests. From what they describe it could quite possibly pop open if you simply flooded every fiber with light. The lock definitly requires a bit of complexity in scanning the key or there will be instant pick attacks or linear time (seconds) pick attacks. You need to test each fiber-link independantly. That could be done using a seperate light source for each fiber, by scanning a single light source across each of the fibers in turn, or possibly with a blocking/transmitting switching mechanism only allowing the light to prgoress through one step of the key at a time. In any case you need to be extremely careful not to leak any information about the correct combination.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:Not unpickable by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Scanning a key could be done in a single second if you have a scanner pre-built, and could be done by hand in well under a minute. There's nothing to "brute force" about a key. You just map out the location of the fiber end points and shine a laser pointer at them to see how they pair up.
      Ok... A key the size of my car key can have 60 points per side easily. That means a medium sophisticated mechanical assembly to scan them, and over 60! possible combinations to scan. (Matching a photocell and a laser to ports on 1mm centers is going to be tedious as hell, if not outright impossible by hand. and your laser will have to be well aligned with the input port, else the fiber won't transmit cleanly.) Even though you can fairly quickly eliminate whole families, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that it can be done in less than a second. Things can be made even harder for the notional cracker by using an unusual key geometry that makes acess to input ports difficult, and/or using a physically larger key that allows for many more input ports.
    11. Re:Not unpickable by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately the article gave very little detail. We're stumbling around blind.

      A key the size of my car key can have 60 points per side easily.

      Scanning a key is generally a constant-factor task, or at worst linear in the number of fibers. More points really only makes the lock (hopefully) secure against brute force attacks.

      assembly to scan them

      A video camera with two mirrors to catch a 360-degree view of the key. Perhaps use curved mirrors for magnification. The most complicated part is simply sweeping the key with a laser. Then you review the tape at leisure to make a copy. Allowing a whopping 10 seconds to scan makes for a very reasonable "home-brew" scanner. A "professional" scanner tool could definitely be created to do it in a split second - an optical key means a light-speed optical scanner.

      have to be well aligned with the input port, else the fiber won't transmit cleanly

      Who needs a clean scan? It merely needs to be detectable. A 1% transmission would be plenty visible in a darkened scanning chamber.

      These keys aren't much harder to copy then ordinary keys. Not that that's a major failing - we already hand ordinary keys to valets anyway. Keys generally aren't expected to be secure against someone who gets their hands on them.

      The main issue is that the locks better have some more sophisticated key-reading method than the article mentions or you won't need the key at all.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    12. Re:Not unpickable by pla · · Score: 1

      That means a medium sophisticated mechanical assembly to scan them, and over 60! possible combinations to scan.

      You don't "get" the problem...

      If it unlocks based on a set of side-2 elements detecting a signal, you need only flood all of side-2 with the output of the active fiber on side-1. That corresponds to an O(1) operation.

      In the worst case, where significantly lossy transmission matters, you still only need to perform (N+(N-1)+(N-2)+...+1) possible checks, which does not equal N!, but rather, N(N-1)/2, possible combinations. From your own example of 60 pins, that means the number of brute-force checks drops from 8.3E81 (60!) to a mere 1770 possible combinations.

      Quite a lot easier to pick than a "normal" lock, where as you point out, you have 60! combinations (though in practice, you do not see infinite slope between notches (that would mean you could not insert or remove the key), giving only three or four possible valid positions (relative to the previous position) per pin.

    13. Re:Not unpickable by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      You don't "get" the problem...
      Quite the opposite. I *do* get the problem, because I look beyond the numbers to the actual engineering. (I know, I know. It's heresy on slashdot to use actual facts.)
      If it unlocks based on a set of side-2 elements detecting a signal, you need only flood all of side-2 with the output of the active fiber on side-1. That corresponds to an O(1) operation.
      *If* it behaves that way, which I find highly unlikely given the author describes the key as having a '3-d' structure.
      In the worst case, where significantly lossy transmission matters, you still only need to perform (N+(N-1)+(N-2)+...+1) possible checks, which does not equal N!, but rather, N(N-1)/2, possible combinations. From your own example of 60 pins, that means the number of brute-force checks drops from 8.3E81 (60!) to a mere 1770 possible combinations.
      Not *60 total*, but *60 per side*. And even 1770 possible combinations is a large number to scan when you can only scan one pair every second at best, every 2-3 seconds at worst. That's the beauty of the key, the scanning system isn't a simple bit of wax (as with a usual key), or a compact card reader, but a medium bulky piece of precision mechanical equipment. (You can make things even harder for the scanner by using a cylindrical or unusual geometry key.)
      Quite a lot easier to pick than a "normal" lock, where as you point out, you have 60! combinations(though in practice, you do not see infinite slope between notches (that would mean you could not insert or remove the key), giving only three or four possible valid positions (relative to the previous position) per pin.
      These optical keys are only easier to pick than a 'normal' lock if they are as poorly designed as you pre-suppose. (I came up with half a dozen odd improvents in the shower.)

      I should point out that what you say about 'normal' locks is only true for those you can pick up at the hardware store, and for medium security locks. High security locks use the same general principle, but are mechanized somewhat differently, and infinite slopes *are* possible. (The keys the USAF and USN use for nuclear weapons resemble ordinary keys only to the most cursory examination for example.)
    14. Re:Not unpickable by Taral · · Score: 1

      As for the scanner being bulky equipment, it is not hard to envision it shrinking very quickly if this technology becomes widespread.

      I'm suspecting that the key design is such that the 6 input fibers are each placed in one of many (60?) input positions, and similarly for the output fibers. I doubt you'll just be able to do a "flooding" attack or even a "try them until you get another input" attack. However, a lockpick could use a scanner that detects the input and output fibers by the modified reflectivity, and then uses a 6-way optical switch framework to scan the 6!=720 combinations extremely quickly.

      I can see ways to prevent this, but they increase the engineering complexity substantially. We are talking about car locks here. There's a limit to the cost factor.

      --
      Taral

      WARN_(accel)("msg null; should hang here to be win compatible\n");
      -- WINE source code

    15. Re:Not unpickable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, I know. It's heresy on slashdot to use actual facts.

      Translation: You NAZI! (Or similar anger level.)

      This story is now over. People have resorted to insults. On to other threads or stories for me.

      But as a parting shot: The story doesn't give enough data to determine what kind of check is necessary.

      It could be as simple as shining light into each hole, and seeing where it comes out. Then, with 120 points (for a 60-ports-per-side key), You'll need at most 119 tests to determine where each port leads.

      A more complex system could utilize polarized or color filtering. Or having light come in on once side and come out on several.

    16. Re:Not unpickable by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      As for the scanner being bulky equipment, it is not hard to envision it shrinking very quickly if this technology becomes widespread.
      Not very likely. Mechanical systems don't shrink like electronic ones.
      However, a lockpick could use a scanner that detects the input and output fibers by the modified reflectivity, and then uses a 6-way optical switch framework to scan the 6!=720 combinations extremely quickly.
      'Input' and 'output' are conventions, and there won't actually be any difference between the ends. Your idea of using an optical network fails because you have to sequentially remove your sensor from each port in order to illuminate it. It's *that* need that slows the scanner down by multiple orders of magnitude.
    17. Re:Not unpickable by srmalloy · · Score: 1
      As for picking the lock, I really hope the lock is far more sophisticated than the brief description in the article suggests. From what they describe it could quite possibly pop open if you simply flooded every fiber with light.
      If you simply complicate the back end a little bit, that approach fails. Put an LED light source on each output, with each LED's output modulated in a particular fashion, with the processing hardware behind the lock looking for the right modulation on the right fibers. Add multi-frequency LEDs or combinations of LEDs, and the cracking problem gets much harder -- if the sensor on a particular fiber is looking for a 100 Hz modulation in the red spectrum, no modulation in the yellow spectrum, and a 5 kHz modulation in the green spectrum, with other fibers having different beat frequencies, then flooding every fiber with light from a single source won't come close to tricking the lock.
  3. Unpickable, huh? by Saganaga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Calling a lock "unpickable" seems presumptuous at best. Doesn't history show that there never has been and never will be a "final solution" to security?

    1. Re:Unpickable, huh? by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Honest question: Has anyone ever defeated a timelock?

      Obviously not the perfect solution, because it still opens at predictable intervals, but since there is *no* access to the lock itself from outside the vault, it certaintly can't be picked...
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Unpickable, huh? by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...Unless you figure out a way to change the time. Which probably isn't trivial, but I would imagine not impossible. I mean there has to be a way to ensure the accuracy of the clock - compromise that system and you're golden. There must also be an override somewhere, or an alternate means of entry aside from the lock - just in case of power failure. Then there is of course the well placed block of C4 - that should do it.

      It would be difficult to imagine a system that isn't both useful and circumventable.

      --
      ymmv
    3. Re:Unpickable, huh? by mugnyte · · Score: 1


      Well, there's the old issue of reciprocity: if nobody knows the [jewels] have been taken from the (time-locked) safe, there's a fixed (and known) period of time for thieves to use the cover. this has been built into many a movie plot.

      so then the issue isn't the lock itself, it's the people surround it during the open time period. once that is comprimised, the lock serves no purpose.

    4. Re:Unpickable, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It is entirely possible that there *is not* an override. I used to work in a bank, and part of my responsibilities were to lock up the main safe at night. It was time-locked, and once the lock was set there was *no* way to get that safe back open again until they unlocked. The entire mechanism was mechanical - there was no electricity to cut. The internal clocks had to be wound everyday. This was so much of a concern that :

      1. We had to physically check and make sure that no-one was in the vault (stray teller, somebody left their kid, etc) before we closed it.

      2. There was an O2 tank & mask in the vault in case someone *did* get locked in.

      3. Be really, really careful at setting the timers correctly because if it wasn't open in time for the next business day, we were screwed (no, this wasn't a three-day weekend...)

    5. Re:Unpickable, huh? by menscher · · Score: 1

      What happens if you forget to wind your watch^Wtimelock? Does it fail open? I'm sorta seeing it something that unlocks when time runs out, so there's no concern of not having it wound enough to unlock?

    6. Re:Unpickable, huh? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...Unless you figure out a way to change the time.

      Yeah, MacGyver did that all the time.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    7. Re:Unpickable, huh? by rusty0101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The stories I have heard are that the lock does not engage until the clock is wound up, and the act of it winding down is what unlocks the clock.

      Most time locks can only be set a maximum of three of four days.

      However I am no expert on timelocks, and accept that I very well may be wrong.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    8. Re:Unpickable, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Calling a lock "unpickable" seems presumptuous at best. Doesn't history show that there never has been and never will be a "final solution" to security?
      There certainly are such final solutions; but they are expensive. The NSA/CIA etc use them, the Armed Forces uses them for Crypto and 'Special Weapons', banks etc.. use some lesser forms of them...
    9. Re:Unpickable, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big-enough pile of dynomite can pick any lock.

      Thanks for playing, here.. You win the Slashdot home game.

  4. Electronics by aridhol · · Score: 3, Insightful
    According to the article:
    Most locks are picked by [...] bypassing some sort of electronic control system. Rice's idea removes these vulnerable components.
    Won't there need to be an electronic control system that determines when you have the correct light pattern? Just bypass (or hack) the light-detection system, and you're in.
    --
    I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    1. Re:Electronics by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1

      The assumption is that the electronics are behind the locked door. I suppose if that isn't explicitly stated in the patent then implementers are on their own... But would you buy a vault where the lock was on the outside?

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:Electronics by aridhol · · Score: 1

      They could be behind the door, or in the door frame, or somewhere else entirely, with the light piped to a central control room. Or possibly reachable through the keyhole.

      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    3. Re:Electronics by alienw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In that case, any EE could design an unbreakable lock in about 10 minutes. Put a keypad on the front and the electronics in the back. To avoid getting the electronics hacked, make the keypad physically or electrically isolated from the rest of circuit. Then, the only way to bypass it is if you know the code - which could be very long.

    4. Re:Electronics by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Unbreakable lock, meet sledghammer.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    5. Re:Electronics by ivern76 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remove keypad, insert new keypad that looks just like it and has a keypress logger. K?

    6. Re:Electronics by sporty · · Score: 1

      If you can break into the lock to hack it, you can probably just as well remove said lock and open the door anyway :)

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    7. Re:Electronics by Atrahasis · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Put a keypad on the other side of the door that will only let you out if you enter a different code to the one you used to get in. That code is then the code you use to get in next time.

      Of course, this is weak to people who will just use alternating codes, but security is always inversely proportional to convenience.

    8. Re:Electronics by rpresser · · Score: 2

      Destroying a lock may be easier than picking it, but it is not the same thing. It earns more booty, but less kudos.

    9. Re:Electronics by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      no, no, no.. install a 'pamphlet-holder' (or some other hardware that doesn't look out of place) containing a minature camera, to record the victim entering their security code.

      And for swipe-cards, install a 'skimmer'

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    10. Re:Electronics by pompousjerk · · Score: 1

      security is always inversely proportional to convenience.

      I know a large number of people (OS X users) who would disagree with you.

    11. Re:Electronics by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative
      Won't there need to be an electronic control system that determines when you have the correct light pattern? Just bypass (or hack) the light-detection system, and you're in.
      Protection of those control systems is a long solved problem for time- and other electronic locks. You put the control system *inside* the guarded volume, where bypassing/hacking them requires that you get inside the gaurded volume... Which you can't do unless you've already bypassed/hacked them.
    12. Re:Electronics by alienw · · Score: 1

      You can easily use an encrypted challenge-response system (with a smartcard) to prevent skimming.

    13. Re:Electronics by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

      Why mess with fiber optics? Just have a phone jack outside the safe. Only the wires lead into the safe. The lock is in the safe. Then only the correct signal sent through the telephone line will unlock the safe.

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

    14. Re:Electronics by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      I have solved the problem, and inexpensively. I merely outsourced the lock picking combinatorial activities to a small army of monkeys willing to work for low wages and no benefits in a tiny Asian nation. Bananas come cheap.

    15. Re:Electronics by aridhol · · Score: 1

      Install a sniffer on the jack (since it's outside). Let a few people get in. Get sniffer, program hacking hardware with correct signal. Walk in.

      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  5. Unpickable? by Knetzar · · Score: 1

    As soon as you you make something
    unpickable proof, someone will invent a better pick

  6. Copyright Reference by 4of11 · · Score: 5, Funny

    But if they did pick it, at least they wouldn't be circumventing copyright restrictions. Because that would be terrible.
    /obligatory slashdot DMCA reference

  7. Gonna need new equipment... by BigZaphod · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess I'm going to have to find someone selling tiny little prisms now so I can build myself a new lock-pick set...

  8. But it requires a power supply. by Spudley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It may be unpickable, but using fibre-optics means it requires a power supply, which means it is still vunerable.

    Many locking mechanisms require power, and if the power fails, there are only two possibilities: either it will be locked shut and unopenable, or it will have a fail-safe mechanism to unlock automatically if the power fails.

    Either way, it leaves itself open to anyone who wants to cause trouble.

    In any case, any door that people will be behind will necessitate the latter, as otherwise they could get locked in during a fire, which means that anyone wanting to gain access only needs to cut the power and they're in.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    1. Re:But it requires a power supply. by aridhol · · Score: 3, Insightful
      In any case, any door that people will be behind will necessitate the latter, as otherwise they could get locked in during a fire,
      Not necessarily. There could be a physical override on the inside that directly manipulates the latch. This allows an exit, even if the door is locked.
      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    2. Re:But it requires a power supply. by pagercam2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This isn't true the only lock currently approved for DoD Spin locks is self powered it uses a LCD that indicated the current number being pointed to rather than a marked dial. You have to spin the lock a few time to generate enough power for it to work and then you dial in the combination. Batteries are a big no no in any sort of lock. If people are behind the door a mechanical override is given, the deadbolt or other locking mechanism is mechanical and as long as all mechanical items are internal it is allowed. The old drill throigh the locking bars is always a possibility but as with encyption its no really unbreakable just unbreakable in a reasonable period of time.

    3. Re:But it requires a power supply. by LagDemon · · Score: 1

      You could probably get away with a battery and a warning light on the inside, for when the battery gets low. It would be very efficient, since you dont have to turn anything on until a key goes into the lock.

      --


      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    4. Re:But it requires a power supply. by apirkle · · Score: 1
      > Many locking mechanisms require power, and if the power fails, there are only two possibilities: either it will be locked shut and unopenable, or it will have a fail-safe mechanism to unlock automatically if the power fails.

      From the article, "The first Optilocks have been designed for the automotive industry."

      There are some automotive locks that already use power from the car's battery, so that's not a huge consideration.

    5. Re:But it requires a power supply. by sweetooth · · Score: 1

      And does nothing for you if you need to get in.

    6. Re:But it requires a power supply. by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Exit signs are powered by radioactive Cadmium. They last ~20 years. The level of radiation is low enough that they are safe for preschools!

      I think it would be trivial to build a lock mechanism with an embedded radioactive power supply and a lead shield (would need more Amps to flip a solenoid than illuminate a sign, hence more radiation).

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    7. Re:But it requires a power supply. by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

      Yes, like my garage door, for example.

    8. Re:But it requires a power supply. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Well, it adds one more point of attack for those who want to get in. Possible ways to get around this:
      • Use some way to operate this override from outside (eg. minimal invasive handling).
      • Smuggle something or somebody inside to simply open door.
      • Use good old extortion (eg. a hostage) to force somebody from inside to open.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    9. Re:But it requires a power supply. by fermion · · Score: 1

      It really seems like this is a the 100 foot pole issue. Is there an application in which the lock is really the weak link? In most bussiness setting, the lock is not the weak link. Even when I have been in somewhat 'secure' environments, the lock was merely a COA thing, in which the users were tracked and if some broke in, it was because they really wanted to, not accidental. Also, i wonder how many power failures would occur before the users would insist on a less-than-secure failure mode.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    10. Re:But it requires a power supply. by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Exit signs are powered by radioactive Cadmium. They last ~20 years. The level of radiation is low enough that they are safe for preschools!

      No, they're powered by a chemical Nickel Cadmium (NiCad) battery.

      Getting a building built is hard enough without making yourself fall under NRC jurisdiction because you installed an RTG.

      There are tritium-based emergency exit signs, but they are more expensive than battery-backed signs, and are typically only used in aircraft, or where power is unavailable.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    11. Re:But it requires a power supply. by Zoshnell · · Score: 0

      Your garage door requires power? What do you use, one of them newfangled forcefields with holographic technology? Back in my day, we used aluminum for garage doors, and we had to walk fifteen miles in leech infested snow in the middle of the greatest heatwave in July to get one.



      AND WE LIKED IT THAT WAY!!

      --
      "Do you suppose that's why God lives in the Heavens? Because he lives in fear of His creations?" - Steve Buscemi
    12. Re:But it requires a power supply. by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for the correction. Like mom always used to say, "Google first, then post..."

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  9. key of light by xmple · · Score: 2, Funny

    idea to "pick" the lock: use a flashlight, and shine it trough the keyhole...

    --
    Time is the only precious thing I've got left; Don't waste it
    1. Re:key of light by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      (also in reply to the AC post here)

      But what if some of the fibers need to be dark for the lock to open?

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    2. Re:key of light by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      Yup, and I also doubt it's just a simple light sensor on the receiving side. Most likely there's a signal being output from each fiber and it needs to receive the correct signal on each pin of the receiving side.

    3. Re:key of light by El · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, no. They obviously send a unique pulse pattern down each fiber, otherwise they could not determine which was routed where. So while you could proably disable the photocells by flooding them with light, you couldn't get them to register the correct pattern.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  10. Probably not unpickable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Certainly if you have a key you can replicate that key, for one. Secondly, can a master key be made that just shines takes light from one side and shines it down all the other holes ? What about one that is configurable, and can try different mappings quickly ?

    Basically, this is no more unpickable than a card-swipe.

    Finally, electric locks have a limited market, which is well saturated with card-swipe and PIN punch products.

    1. Re:Probably not unpickable by PhuCknuT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      can a master key be made that just shines takes light from one side and shines it down all the other holes ?

      Easily avoided by putting a signal out each pin and checking for the same signal on the receiving side.

      What about one that is configurable, and can try different mappings quickly ?

      Easy to defend against, since it's an electronic lock it can detect brute force attacks easily and shutdown the system. If there are 1000000 possible combinations, all you need to do is have it shutdown for 1 minute after say, 10 failed attempts, and suddenly it takes 100000 minutes to brute force.

      Basically, this is no more unpickable than a card-swipe.

      This part is probably true, but the keys are harder to duplicate at least (for now).

    2. Re:Probably not unpickable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This assumes that the light is only transfered unaltered - the Key could just as easily filter, phase shift, combine or otherwise alter the light so that it is not an easy process to replicate.

    3. Re:Probably not unpickable by hyc · · Score: 1

      If one were really smart, the lock would use a pulse-modulated light source and a pulse-train detector, so you can't just fool it by shining a flashlight down all the fibers.

      I would also consider using multiple grades of optical fiber with different transparencies / refractive indices. Then you can't just use a combination of mirrors and plain fibers to fool it. If the lock uses coherent (e.g. laser) light and fibers with various (circular, vertical) polarization then forgery becomes even harder.

      But then again, maybe I'm just over-engineering...

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
  11. same problem as existing locks by mugnyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    picking a lock is just one part of a problem : the other is securing the key. in a bar, one could theoretically press a key into a mold for later duplication (old trick and not very efficient).

    however, with an optical key, one merely has to carry around a recepticle that, in turn, flashes a beam through the key's inputs, and record the appropriate output. nothing physical needs to be made. in today's terms, i call in the sequence to a buddy who then lays fiber into a template and uses it. meanwhile, i engage conversation on target, reporting when she's left.

    cars? are you kidding? these are even easier, merely get a job as a valet and start your database. since it's all just digital information, you have access to VIN and lock solution, license plate number and home town/state (if not entire address, since most people's cars have it somewhere - like the insurance docs). these databases could be traded online just like anything else.

    while i think this is very interesting, it still is no substitute for bio-based locks. however, they have their own problems (seem like every part of the body can be captured/duplicated).

    1. Re:same problem as existing locks by Alsee · · Score: 1
      bio-based locks. however, they have their own problems (seem like every part of the body can be captured/duplicated)

      ... or cut off. Chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  12. Brute Force? by gphat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Disregarding the obvious flaws such as hinges, weak door frames, and a power source, wouldn't this just open the thing up to being brute forced?

    Assuming you could build something small enough to enter the slot and dynamically rearrange the light (the article says it's a 3d pattern?), or hell, pipe the light out of the slot and pipe it back in after reconfiguring it, it would be open to a brute force method of attack.

    Perhaps they've got some type of check for this built in. Either way, making something as simple as the lock into a 'high-tech network connected paradigm shifter' (no, the article doesn't say that) simply opens it up the network attack, or worse, sharpies.

    1. Re:Brute Force? by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure on the exact method this guy is using, but it's not a simple binary pattern; otherwise the six sensor lock would only have 64 combinations, all of which could be tried in a few seconds.

      He claims, however, that there are billions of combinations. Suppose you could check a hundred combinations a second, it would take you 115 days max to try every combination, 57 days on average to crack. This is probably enough security for most applications, since in most applications the lock only has to taken longer to pick than it would take to saw through it.

      What might work, however, is a kind of attack familiar from cryptanalysis: attack the method of key generation. If the keys are programmed in ways that are not random, you might be able to determine that some keys are much more likely to be chosen. If the key generation process is flawed, it may be possible to have a good chance of opening the lock in a few days or hours.

      Suppose that while billions of combinations are chosen, 90% of the time the key will come from a pool of 100,000 keys. This would mean I could construct a device that would open the lock in a mere 16 minutes 90% of the time; the median crack time would be well under ten minutes.

      If I were designing the thing, I'd make it so it that if it detected a bad key, it would go to sleep for 30 seconds. Then in the bad key generation scenario, I could only check one combination every 30 seconds. That way even if there were only 100,000 likely key, it would still take on average a month to force the lock.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Brute Force? by n1ywb · · Score: 1

      Thats exactly what I was thinking. It unlocks in a fraction of a second so you could try codes very quickly. If it inserted an artificial 1 second delay, it would make brute forceing it much more difficult. Fools could take a cue from login.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
  13. Old idea by rot26 · · Score: 1

    I remember reading about a do-it-yourself electronic lock that worked pretty much exactly the same way in popular electronics at least 30 years ago. It's actually kind of an obvious method.. the only new wrinkle is using light instead of current. What's the advantage to THAT?

    --



    To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    1. Re:Old idea by El · · Score: 1

      Fiber optics don't wear out in the same way as electrical contacts. Furthermore, locks tend to be on the outside of doors, making them susceptible to moisture. Moisture is usually considered a very bad thing around electric circuits. However, couldn't you do the same thing by sending different pneumatic air pulse patterns down 6 different pipes?

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    2. Re:Old idea by hplasm · · Score: 1

      I've seen a lock that works just like this one. It was in an English version of Elektor (Elektuur)magazine, perhaps a Summer Ciruits special from about 15- 20 years ago. It even had a drawing of an example key, made from acrylic. Used LEDs and LDRs with a bit of TTL.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  14. Bah by JMZero · · Score: 1

    This lock requires electricity and an electrical control. If you're going to require electricity, why not use a smart-card-esque key? You get all the benefits of this - plus a whole bunch more control/flexibility and likely less overall cost.

    Most locks are picked by tweaking a series of levers in the lock or bypassing some sort of electronic control system.

    There will be an electronic control system here, just like any other electronic system. The actual physical lock is still going to be actuated by electricity.

    I suppose the system may be less prone to vandalism than an electrical system - but either is vulnerable to the old "fill lock with cement" trick, which is really pretty easy.

    Perhaps there's something here I'm missing - but the article doesn't hint at what that might be.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  15. Define Unpickable by no+longer+myself · · Score: 2, Informative
    The act of picking a lock is to obtain access in an unorthodox way. I suppose one could pick a lock with a stick of dynamite.

    Of course the other issue is that it uses light... Light implies electric. Electric locks may not be a "Good Thing" (TM) when your power goes out, or the batteries run down. What if water gets inside? If it's unpickable, then how do you open it in emergency situations when the power goes out?

    Perhaps it should read: "Interesting Nift-value Lock" and come with a stick of dynamite in case of emergency.

    1. Re:Define Unpickable by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      No, the act of picking a log is to open the lock without the key/combination/code/whatever normally opens the lock and without damaging the lock.
      If you blow the door off a safe you haven't picked the lock, you've bypassed it.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    2. Re:Define Unpickable by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      If it's unpickable, then how do you open it in emergency situations when the power goes out?
      You don't. You simply take a ladder and enter through the unlocked second story window.
  16. so what if you are outside when the power cuts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can't get into your house/car? great...

  17. Picking one of these would be easy. by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's look at the key.

    Take the example of "6" inputs on the lock and the key:

    A B C D E F

    In order for it to "complete" a circuit (or circuits), you have to "connect" certain inputs together to sort of "loop" the light back to the lock and complete the circuit.

    For instance:

    A-B C-D E-F

    That's three "loops", lets call them.

    There are 30 possible combinations for the first
    loop.

    There are then 12 combinations for the second loop,

    and the third, no combination -- there's only one choice.

    A total of 360 combinations, give or take. You could easily make a device to mimic every possible circuit very easily. Breaking the lock would take seconds.

    Now let's look at the lock.

    Assuming the light source exists in the lock, you would be able to tell immediately which inputs send light *to* the key, and which return light *from* the key. With a simple LED, you could easily "light up" the return paths, to see which loops they connect to. Armed with this information, it's easy to find the remaining possibly valid combinations, and try them.

    I'm telling you, this lock could be picked with near lightning speed.

    No, you would need to include some sort of electronic timing component -- preferrably in the key -- to initiate *pulses* of light, rather than a steady stream. In which case, the path of the light is basically irrelevany -- it's the timing of the light pulse that would act as the key. More secure (but not pick-proof.) and less complicated.

    Or you could do something fancy with prisms or whatnot to split the red-green-blue portion of a white/colored light into different light paths, but, again, it's overkill, and still not very secure.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

    1. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by Jerf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Factorials grow fast. Your supposed 6 input key may not have many combinations, but what of a 20 input key, which should be very feasible? 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 combinations is much more difficult to crack.

      (And that's assuming one input can't go to multiple outputs; some degree of fan-out is probably possible, which can make it grow even faster.)

      Still, I'd lean more towards saying that a dynamic key system, like many car remote locks use, is more intrinsically secure.

    2. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by PhuCknuT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and there are other factors that multiply the number of possible combinations. For example, having the key modify the light in some way, having the fiber positions be variable, having the length of the light path within the key measurable (a coil of fiber to create propogation delay of the right amount). A good key, even with only 6 inputs, can have billions and billions of combinations just by adding in other factors besides on and off.

    3. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by Nutcase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Make it a 30 fiber system. Make it so 6 of those fibers must remain dark. Make 3 of them issue light, but one of those 3 issues a wavelength that tells the lock NOT to open, but you don't know which one. Add a light signal issuing from the key itself. Make the chain length vary between any combination 3,4,5, and 6 fibers chains. Now distribute the fibers around the barrel in a non-uniform, non-standard distribution.

      These are not very hard to add to such a lock, but they make the math even harder. And they make it VERY difficult to develop a universal lockpick, because you would have a hard time making every fiber line up on the pick.

      To pick it you would have to somehow make a key that matches the external hookups of the original key, but feeds the fibers out the back into a computer which could then begin decoding the math. Just getting the initial key to line up with the inner barrel of the lock would be quite the feat... doing the math in any reasonable time period would also be pretty damn impressive.

      If I was going to approach it, I would try like hell to get a copy of the key (press in clay or something) and reproduce it.. then, with that knowledge, i would run the math externally generating signals. once i had a signal list, i would put the key into the lcok, and run the list rapidly.

      To counteract that, you could simply have a length of time required for the light to trigger the open mechanism (i.e. for 3-5 ms, no more, no less) - and have a maximum attempts as well. Try more than twice, and the thing stops accepting input for 24 hours.

      This thing is about as close to unpickable as it gets.

    4. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      The 24-hour lockdown makes it easy to DoS the lock. The timeout should be short, say 5 seconds.

    5. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by geggibus · · Score: 1

      Why not just use a smartcard?

      -K

    6. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by pontifier · · Score: 1

      They mention a 3D light path

      This seems to indicate that the 6 fibers on each side would not be connecting paths, but would be illuminating a clear key with some kind of internal structure and reading intensity values to find a match.

      I seem to remember reading something similar using small patches of clear plastic with tiny bubbles or fractures or something for use in credit cards. they were able to create an un-copyable identity because of the difficulty in replicating the random process that creates the internal structure.

      I'm sure i read that here maybe 6 months ago.

      --
      -John Fenley
    7. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by windex82 · · Score: 1

      Going even one step further, why couldnt the key emmit light itself? Then "cracking" the lock would be pointless, if light came from the entire key it would always be able to complete the loop instantly.

      I havnt read the article yet, but they would have to be activated in some kind of order, and verified to not be on all the time and on only when the signalling light is activated, to prevent the above, but would also add many many more combinations.

    8. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by MBCook · · Score: 1
      Well, it can be simple to fix those flaws. First of all it could randomly turn the lights on and off (or always turn light 1 on and check, then 2, etc.) so that EVERY light would come on at some point during EVERY check of a key. This way you couldn't tell which ones were input or output based on your idea.

      Second, since each of the six spots would require a photo emitter and a photo reciever, you could make it so each element has it's own fiberoptic cable. This would let 1 connect to 2, two connect to 3, etc. But when your turn 3 on, it would only show up at four, not four and two because of the cable.

      Third, you could use bicolor LEDs and have different fiberoptic cables in they key have filter for different colors of light so that when the green lights were on it would be a totally different pattern from when the red lights were on. By knowing the key, you know all possible combinations. Then you could randomly use combinations of red and green lights to check the key. This way it would take a few cycles to figure out the key.

      Fourth, you could just put filters in each cable so that the cable that goes from 1 to 2 blocks 50% of the light, the one from 3 to 4 blocks 75%, but the one from 5 to 6 block no light. That would add many many more permutations to the lock's key.

      And of course, if you could stuff 7 receptors in, things get MUCH harder. 8 would make it much MUCH harder, etc.

      Basically, I think this lock could be very secure. And of course if they guy trying to pick the lock doesn't KNOW that it's an optical lock and is just trying to push the little tumbers (which should still be there, both as an added layer and to trick people) he'll never break it. If an idiot with a lock pick just comes up to your store, he'll never pick the lock because he's expecting it to be mechanical. Untill the locks become common, that would be a HUGE chunk of the security of the lock right there.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    9. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by Mikey-San · · Score: 1

      But if the key uses internal structures to route the light, you won't be able to make a clay press of the key. You computer will crunch away and get only a portion of the initial data correct. You need a way to visualize the internals of the key as well as the outside.

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    10. Re:Picking one of these would be easy. by Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Not entirely - If you know the outputs from the key, and you know that somehow they are joined together within the key, you could create a routine in theory to run every possible connection/permutation. Admittedly this would take WAY WAY WAY too long in practice, and is thus pretty much useless, but it is possible.

      Alternatively, you could create some kind of device that could rotate a key, locate the ports, and record the result when light is passed through it. But that could be prohibitively complicated.

  18. Fiber does not require power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course the other issue is that it uses light... Light implies electric.

    Actually, no, light does not imply electric. Typically, wherever a lock is employed, ambient light is available. It's quite conceivable that this amount of light (through efficient fiber) would be sufficient, as it sounds like each fibre is either "on" or "off" at any given time.

    What may (or may not) require electricity is the opening mechanism.

  19. Locks are like programming languages.... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 4, Informative
    There's hundreds of them out there, but only a few practical ones in widespread use. I predict that this one is too expensive for general use. There are already several locks that are exceedingly difficult to pick or create an unauthorized copy. Medico for example. Very difficult to pick and very tight control over blanks.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  20. unpickable!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shine a mag light in there and see!!!!!

  21. OT Story by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in the day, Cadillac built a show car with no lock. There was a Cadillac emblem etched into the door glass, and a Cadillac emblem on the key fob. You held the key fob up to the etched emblem and the door unlocked. Pretty cool, except they put the car on the trailer and moved it from show to show, never actually driving it. Yep, the battery ran down, and without any other lock, they couldn't get in. Of course, the hood release was on the inside, so they couldn't jump the battery, either!

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    1. Re:OT Story by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      The Prius can come with a lock/ignition key that is actually a card that you never need to remove from your wallet: if you come close enough to the car, it will detect that you have said key and unlock the door for you; similarly, it will detect that you have the proper authority to engage the ignition, and you just have to push a button to get it started.

      Interesting question about the sensing, though; does the battery run constantly, listening for the key? If so, can it eventually run down? I would guess you would need to have the car not run for a long, long time for this to happen.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    2. Re:OT Story by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1

      It's not the sensing that draws power, it's the lock activation.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    3. Re:OT Story by paradesign · · Score: 1

      Just another example of fine GM engineering!

      --
      I want 2D games back.
  22. Unpickable? by El · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With 6 optical fibers, aren't there only 6! or 720 possible different "routing patterns"? How hard would it be to construct an electro-optical devices that would simply run through all 720 patterns until one worked? And no, you can't disable the device for a fixed time when it gets a misroute, because it is obviously going to misroute while someone is inserting the key... and someone like me who has two almost identical keys on their keychain is going to get really pissed off when they insert the wrong one. Finally... haven't we learned by now that replacing a simple mechanical device with an electro-optical-mechanical device greatly increases your failure modes?

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  23. Not that new of an idea by sig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have seen locks based on this routing idea before, although using electrical connections rather than optical ones. The one saw had 16 paths, which is much more secure, as the number of unique keys is the number of paths factorial. 6! is only 720 keys, which you could imagine having a sack of and trying each one in a matter of minutes. 16 paths gives you 20 Trillion unique keys, which is going to be one freaking heavy sack. Also, optical fibers are very fragile in real world environments, where as electrical connections can jingle jangle in your pocket all day long and still be functional. I'd give this high marks for "cool" but not for "useful."

    1. Re:Not that new of an idea by El · · Score: 1

      electrical connections can jingle jangle in your pocket all day long and still be functional.

      Until they corrode. You've obviously never lived near the ocean.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    2. Re:Not that new of an idea by mhoward736 · · Score: 1

      I have a question.

      All the posts here saying 6 is not enough seem to assume that the light being used is all one color.

      What happens if other colors are introduced as part of the key. Doesn't the number of combinations rise astronomically or can fibre only handle one color?

    3. Re:Not that new of an idea by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Until they corrode. You've obviously never lived near the ocean.

      Gold doesn't corrode.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    4. Re:Not that new of an idea by El · · Score: 1
      Gold doesn't corrode. Yes, but imagine how pissed off you'll be when you lose one of you $300 keys!

      Actually, optical fibers wouldn't work very well either (the ends are subject to getting scratched and becoming non-transmissive.) Perhaps one would be better off with tunnels and mirrors... those would only be subject to filling up with pocket lint.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  24. Semantic Issues by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    My first thought was that Jeremy Rice didn't use the U-Word, but that the reporter grabbed it as convenient journalese. (I have other issues with the reporter's use of language -- see below.) But all the news reports seem to be saying "Unpickable", which can only mean this is an actual claim. Perhaps "pick" in this context refers to the specific technique for physically probing the tumblers of a lock, not just a synonym for "disable".

    It's all pretty moot anyway. Spies pick locks, but most of us are more concerned about more prosaic intruders. Who don't waste their time with picks -- they smash or jimmy.

    What was my other semantic issue? Oh yeah, "failsafe". Come on people. if you mean "foolproof," say that. I'd like to see "failsafe" preserved for its original meaning, though my hopes are dimming!

    1. Re:Semantic Issues by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      My first thought was that Jeremy Rice didn't use the U-Word, but that the reporter grabbed it as convenient journalese. (I have other issues with the reporter's use of language -- see below.) But all the news reports seem to be saying "Unpickable", which can only mean this is an actual claim.
      A lesson in modern media; 90% of the reports on a given topic are copies of each other. What you have found is not a clue to an actual claim, but a reminder that being widely reported no more creates facts than does less formal but even further reaching methods of distributing 'information'. Seriously, all it takes is for one of the major news services to put the word 'unpickable' in it's wire feed, and shortly thereafter it will appear in nearly all reports. (Compare the texts of some 'widely reported' stories next time, and you'll note that a large majority of them are almost exactly the same text, a sure sign that what you are looking at is a wire service report or press release, not independent investigation.)

      OTOH, your claim that it appears in 'all the news reports' is pretty weak on it's own face, as the google search you link to yields a whole two stories.
    2. Re:Semantic Issues by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You may be right about the media all copying each other (I've certainly seen it happen before) but I'm not convinced in this case. The evidence is ambiguous either way. If we wanted to get really rigorous (on Slashdot? snicker) we'd want a direct quote from Rice.

  25. External Power? by RogueScientist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm intrigued how many solutions exist to all these counter examples. Why not have the ability to supply power from a external source to the locking system in event of power failure. The input path can be via optical or electric with the usual array of filtering mechanisms and barriers so that the lock circuitry can't be fried by malicious intent. Another thing is that it could have a lock system that is in fact powered like a radiometer by light to enable the throw of the mechanical bolt to be released. Also I have devised a system where you have little arrays of rare earth magnets that form a field and you insert a card to interrupt that field which disengages a mechanism allowing for a door to be opened with mechanical backup in event of electronic failure. Seems that many good solutions exist out there, also to the person who posed that finding the Key based on the VIN as plausible would only be so if you could not reprogram the codes for the lock. Sufficient systems that are for all tense and purposes not able to be combinatorially attacked can be engineered. Though the old axiom still exists: The more modern a system is the more susceptible it is to primitive attack, such as putting a liquid explosive around the door seams and blowing the door open, or blasting cord, etc.

    1. Re:External Power? by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      Why not have the ability to supply power from a external source to the locking system in event of power failure.

      Y'know, after the examples I read earlier about car batteries dying because of this technology, the need to have it hooked up to a power source and what happens in the event of an emergency (I think this is something i'd have on a UPS, at least.) one person's tumbler lock idea intrigued me. They stated that it was a digital tumbler lock which powered itself up by spinning the tumbler, why not do that? It'd add yet another layer of security too. You have the light combo info on some sort of flash memory or something, then when you want to unlock your door you insert your key, spin the tumbler and maybe even set it on a particular # to activate the beams, you've now effectively eliminated any issues dealing with loss of power, wrong combonations while inserting the key (the key is already in when the beams turn on), and you've added yet 1 more variable to the mix, if you've got 1-99 on that tumbler, you've just increased the hell out of your possible combinations.

      -matt

  26. Thieves will simply take safes to a rave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Physical removal and offsite cracking will become all the rage.

  27. Sneakers by CyberVenom · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do any of you remember the old (and surprisingly realistic compared to newer crap) hacker movie "Sneakers"? When they are trying to break into the office to steal the chip, Redford comes to a door with an electronic lock. After getting an earful of explanation (which we don't hear) from his partner back in the van about how the military deals with that kind of lock, he agrees to try a new lockpicking method. He kicks the door, and the bolt pops out of the doorjam...

  28. Onion headline by heldlikesound · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Optical sledgehammer opens optical lock."

    --


    Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
  29. Not novel. by muonzoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There have been much higher security versions of these things. Sandia Labs developed a seal technology around fiber bundles and routing.
    There are even commercial devices based on this today.

  30. Unpickable proof?? by tvh2k · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't "unpickable proof" indicate that it is indeed pickable? Ohh, silly me...English doesn't matter on the Internet.

    1. Re:Unpickable proof?? by Knetzar · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Me fail English, that's unpossible"

  31. What about the reverse? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sometimes the point is not to gain entry but rather to prevent the legitimate owner from gaining entry. E.g. disabling the lock to the gun safe before breaking into a house. Denying access to key sensitive legal documents before a filing deadline. Delaying access to important medical supplies such as heart attack medicine, inhalers, and insulin.

    And of course, situations where applying brute force to break the lock would be counterproductive (i.e. destroy the materials you're attempting to retrieve).

    But then nowadays, all you have to do is make the lock electronic and cryptographic. Even if all the electronics only control a shackle made of wax, you've got the power of the DMCA already.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  32. What ever you do, don't read the artical! by NickFusion · · Score: 4, Informative

    Otherwise you might stumble across this information:

    Rice says that the only way someone could pick the lock is to duplicate the key. "You could potentially have as many different points as you want on the lock barrel as inputs and outputs," he explained. "Because it is a 3D pathway you are dealing with, you have potentially billions or trillions of combinations depending on how the lock is made. The probability of duplicating the path is very small."

    That said, a lot of these fancy locks seem like overkill, especially since in very high security systems, you'd tend to want some kind of human oversight in the loop.

    --
    What were you expecting?
    1. Re:What ever you do, don't read the artical! by El · · Score: 1

      you have potentially billions or trillions of combinations depending on how the lock is made not with only 6 inputs. My point was that the number of combinations is equal to the factorial of the number of inputs. So with 16 inputs, yes you would have 20,922,789,888,000 different combinations. But 6 inputs only gives you 720 different combinations, which is not enough IMHO.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    2. Re:What ever you do, don't read the artical! by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      But 6 inputs only gives you 720 different combinations, which is not enough IMHO.

      This is only true if you have 6 fixed-position outputs as well.

      The number of outputs is likely to be the same as the number of inputs, but nothing says their position has to be the same from one key/lock to the next.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    3. Re:What ever you do, don't read the artical! by El · · Score: 1

      But then again, I could be wrong. No, you're correct. Whereas finding where the light inputs to the key should be would be trivial (it's where the light is shining, duh!), finding where the outputs should be is non-trivial. It would require advanced optical recognition to be able to distinguish the opening for the detector from the wall of the keyhole. One could even position "dummy" outputs that would be indistinguishable from the real ones. This would give you many more effective combinations, limited only by key size relative to the size of the optical fibers.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    4. Re:What ever you do, don't read the artical! by El · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. The more general case with m input positions and n possible output positions is n!/m! different combinations, if I remember my Probability and Statistics class correctly. So 6 inputs IS enough provided there are more than 6 possible output positions.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  33. Optical locks are already in use. by mrmeval · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've seen a card with holes punched in it used at motor carrier fleet refueling stations. The reader is optical and these heavy plastic credit-card sized cards bear a suspicious resemblence to these cards right down to the square holes.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  34. On the same thought by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

    I had considered that for encryption, the same type of idea could be done to "encrypt" paper content, by taking a particular "pixel" and placing it in a different position on the page, apparently at random. Using the same "key", everything can be put back into place. Fairly simple concept.

    In a different way to look at the lock, isn't this just detecting how the key routes the light, and as long as it matches the known "good" pattern, it unlocks the door? The same technique could be used in exactly the same way by shining the light through in a pattern and detecting the code, with no special light routing at all. Any key could be a legitimate key for any given lock, it just gets reprogramed.

    1. Re:On the same thought by fpga_guy · · Score: 1
      I had considered that for encryption, the same type of idea could be done to "encrypt" paper content, by taking a particular "pixel" and placing it in a different position on the page, apparently at random. Using the same "key", everything can be put back into place. Fairly simple concept.

      You're too late, by about 20 years! Lenslok was developed in the 80's as a copy protection mechanism for early computer games, mostly on the Sinclair Spectrum, Amstrad and Commodore 64.

      A special lens was distributed with the software. When the game started, it displayed a seemingly random pattern on the screen. You hold the magical lens up to the screen to unscramble the code.

      This was plagued with problems - most notably that because we all used TV sets as monitors, with different sized pixels and so on, it was sometimes near-impossible to correctly descramble the code.

      Ah, those were the days!!

      PS You can get a Lenslok emulator for Windows - gotta love geek nostalgia!

  35. If they're going to make locks this sophisticated. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not use the public/private key model. Have the lock generate a message encrypted with the physical key's private crypt key, then have they physical key decode it and retransmit to the lock...

    --

    Liberty.

  36. and by tightly controlled... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    you mean that i can't get a blank without applying a little social engineering?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  37. Thinking too hard by macemoneta · · Score: 3, Funny

    You folks are thinking too hard. You need a low tech solution, that a burglar with a third grade education would use. :-)

    Just put a little graphite-oil (used in regular locks) in the optical lock. Then, when the owner tears it out because it doesn't work (optical paths obscured by the graphite), the burglars can go back to business as usual.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    1. Re:Thinking too hard by clsc · · Score: 1

      >> a low tech solution
      why would anyone want to pick a lock in the first place... either you would want something to appear on the opposite side of the door, or you would want to appear on the opposite side yourself. If you can't get through it, just get around it or wait until somebody opens the thing.

  38. Learn some Optics by hd883r · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You must understand optics to grasp the beauty of this lock.

    First, it is very difficult to couple light into a fiber. Any copy would have to be made with each fiber being perfectly aligned in at least five and possibly six axes. This would be virtually impossible.

    In addition, the difficulty in coupling into a fiber would make it impossible to simply shine light in and get a response.

    Optical systems offer many additional degrees of freedom including wavelegength, phase, polarization, and intensity.

    Fibers could split or join inside the key. Light could be color shifted, or have its polarization modified. I can think of over 30 possible actions to take on each fiber that the "picker" could not determine without time, tools, and repeated attemps.

    In short, those who understand optics know that if this lock was in a laboratory with the original key, it could take over a week, $200K in specialized equipement and $10K (custom filters are $5000 for 1, $5050 for 100-optics are much cheaper in large qnty) in materials to pick.

    1. Re:Learn some Optics by mugnyte · · Score: 1


      Sounds like we're not going to have these locks around anyway, at those prices!

  39. I already know how it could be picked by itwerx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not that the pick exists yet of course, but the simple fact that it uses light routes makes it pickable.
    Since the light needs transceivers on either end and a physical interface in between for the key all you need to do is make a key with its own transceivers instead of simple light pipes (you'd probably have light-pipes out to an external device which would house a computer "brain" and the transceivers).
    So you simply put the key in (or connect it or whatever the physical interface is) and let the computer start routing the inputs to different combinations of outputs.
    It would be like the brute-force picker that Medeco has for their locks only maybe a lot faster!
    However, having designed a pick, I can also think of half a dozen ways to slow it down enough to make it unuseable. :)
    (If they're smart enough to figure out how to email me maybe I'll even tell them. :)

  40. I didn't RTFA, but I have an answer anyway! by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Informative

    Without RTFA, I think I can explain why 6 inputs can create more than 720 combinations...

    You're counting the possible pathways. You've forgotten to count the positionings! Two keys with the same routing pattern with only one input off by a fraction of a millimeter would not open the same lock.

  41. possible attack by Glass+of+Water · · Score: 1

    ok, not having got much info from the article, there seems to be a probelm with this design. i'm making one possibly false assumtion, that there is a standard design for teh key and it is the light routing that changes. if so, it seems that it would be possible to make a device that is shaped like a key, but with a small computer attached that changes the routes, and that could try millions of combinations a second. i guess you could foil this attack by requiring the light to flow through for a predetermined amount of time, like even a second. still, with enough time you could pick it.

    --
    There are no trolls. There are no trees out here.
  42. Re: "Unpickable" time-locks by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The entire mechanism was mechanical
    This means that there was a springwheel or pendulum keeping time.
    All you have to do to "pick" this kind of lock is to pick up the entire vault and rotate/move it back and forth at a particular frequency.
    The action will speed up, and the time lock will open early.
    Yes, I know that rotating/moving a large built-in vault can present a bit of a problem, but theoretically, it's possible.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  43. DoS by soramimicake · · Score: 1
    Filling the keyhole with glue works for conventional locks.

    I guess with this new lock you'll just need to use opaque glue.

  44. Sorry if this is redundant by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Sorry if this is redundant, but finding prior art took 5 minutes and looking for redundant findings of prior art posted in /. posts would take at least 5.1 minutes:

    United States Patent 4,449,126;
    Pekker; May 15, 1984; Electronic lock device and optical key therefor

    Hmm. Prior art and, given its age, public domain.

  45. tried and true by the+arbiter · · Score: 1

    My .45 ACP jammed into the nostrils of the keyholder will work every time.

    --
    Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
  46. Re: "Unpickable" time-locks by dfranks · · Score: 1

    Unless the clock uses two counter-rotating torsional pendulums. Shaking or twisting that mechanism doesn't but you much...

  47. Hologram lock by tektrix · · Score: 1
    Why use fibers or any other light-guiding media? A simple, fairly low resolution hologram can route one beam to hundreds of unique points, or sequence a unique pattern of thousands of on-off signals to a single photo-transistor as it's being slid in and out of the lock.

    To overcome optical-flooding hacks, modulate the source at some unique frequency so that any other light is ignored. Use IR for better signal-to-noise.

    The holographic key would be manufactured the same way credit card holograms are made. This is currently done with a mechanical stamping system. The stamping dies can be designed to accomodate a means to rapidly and uniquely program each holographic key.

    Building the key right into the credit card itself would provide an extra security function into the same already-ubiquitous form factor. A low-cost, small (>2cm^3) monolithic module containing a source LED, phototransistor(s), and any optics(molded/embossed plastic) can be engineered for inclusion in card-readers and security devices. Much more complex keys can be implemented using a simple CMOS or CCD linear or 2D array.

    Anyway . . . holographic methods should be cheaper and more informationally robust than hard-wired routing methods. And the manufacturing infrastructure is essentially in place already.

  48. Um, you're wrong... by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    Sandia Labs developed a seal technology around fiber bundles and routing.

    Read the link. It has nothing to do with routing- only the telltale marks left on the fiber ends when it is cut.

    One could do exactly the same thing with a steel cable; the "technology" is simply a microscope that captures what the cut looks like. Furthermore, there's no independent way for the seal to verify itself- you have to have the image of the seal's original condition stored in the camera or printed out, and obviously those could be switched/tampered with.

    It seems incredibly useless.

  49. what if.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone just stuck a flashlight in?

  50. Re: "Unpickable" time-locks by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're still doing it the hard way.

    Just get something hot enough to melt the steel close enough. When the steel gets thin enough, stop melting and cut the rest of the way in so you don't destroy the contents.

  51. That's not picking a lock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's simply going through the wall.

  52. Unpickable....What the f#@k ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok maybe NOW its unpickable but technology advances did you forget? Anyway i mean the copy-protected cds were foiled by a sharpie...... *shakes head sadly* you have to come up with something better than that

  53. Re: "Unpickable" time-locks by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    Yeah, or if there was a ferrous pendulum, use an electromagnet to wave it back and forth. If it is a springwheel, then temperature might have an effect (freezing/heating)

    --

    Eat at Joe's.