The Study of Physical Hacks at DefCon

eldavojohn writes "DefCon usually focuses on electronic security, but Saturday a talk was held that focused on possibly the oldest form of hacking — lockpicking. As software security becomes better and better, the focus may be shifting towards simple hacking tips like looking over someone's shoulder for their password, faking employment or just picking the locks to gain access to the building where machines are left on overnight. From the article: 'Medeco deadbolt locks relied on worldwide at embassies, banks and other tempting targets for thieves, spies or terrorists can be opened in seconds with a strip of metal and a thin screw driver, Marc Tobias of Security.org demonstrated for AFP ... Tobias says he refuses to publish details of 'defeating' the locks because they are used in places ranging from homes, banks and jewelers to the White House and the Pentagon. He asked AFP not to disclose how it is done.' I'm sure all Slashdot readers are savvy enough to use firewall(s) but do you know and trust what locks 'physically' protect your data from hacks like these?"

Comments

Backstop that lock...

[swb]

...with a Smith & Wesson (or a Glock, or a Bushmaster, or a Remington).

Re:Backstop that lock...

[Anonymous Coward]

That argument has been discredited by several studies.

Just look at how they derive those numbers...they categorize "loved ones" and "family members" and anyone you have ever met.

If you want the real, peer reviewed scientific analysis on guns in the hands on citizens, just check out the writings of John Lott.

Re:Backstop that lock...

[couchslug]

"Which is right and proper since in most Western countries the state doesn't demand the death penalty for burglary."

You mistake shooting a "burglar" for penalizing said burglar instead of SELF-defense. Defending yourself is not to be confused with lynching.
A "burglar" (intruder) is a huge risk to the occupant of a house because the intruder has incentive to kill the householder to shut him/her up, and sometimes does.
Crimes of opportunity in a home invasion include rape, torture, arson to cover up the evidence etc.
Intruders are not typically like Roger Moore in "The Saint".

If you don't want to defend yourself, it is your right not to. To say that I cannot defend myself is to say that I don't matter, and those who would violate me do. I respectfully disagree.
Even in Iraq, the US allows householders one firearm. This is because police response is reactive, not preemptive. All the cops can usually do is collect evidence and maybe arrest the perp for whatever he/she did. This neither does not reverse or prevent damage to the victim.

When I was TDY to Saudi Arabia, some crackheads decided to party on my property. My wife asked them to leave. They told her to fsck off and made threatening statements. (We lived in an area with light police protection and long response times.) She retreated to the house, got our our Mini-14, and put several warning shots into the ground (not towards the crackheads) where the bullets could be retrieved if required. They promptly left and never returned for the remaining three years we lived there. When the police finally responded, the officer was fine with it. (I love the South!

The right to violent self-defense is essential to freedom, because if you are forbidden to defend yourself anyone can do their will to you.