Slashdot Mirror
How a 3-Year-Old Can Open a Gun Safe
New submitter bupbin writes "We are providing a detailed report and analysis of eleven different popular gun safes produced by Stack-On, GunVault, and Bulldog to warn the public of the dangers inherent in some of these products because the manufacturers nor their major retailers will do so. In that report you can view eight different Stack-On models, one produced by Bulldog, and one manufactured by GunVault. A similar design defect is demonstrated in an inexpensive safe for storing valuables that is sold by AMSEC, a very reputable safe manufacturer in the United States. Unfortunately, their digital safe with their claim of a 'state-of-the-art electronic lock' can also be opened (literally) by a three-year-old because of a common mechanism used in the industry that is subject to circumvention."
Umm... the StackOn, etc. aren't safes. They are locking steel boxes, kinda flimsy, no fire rating, not UL listed, etc.
Compare with products from Liberty, Cannon, etc.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
That's like saying the best way not to die in a car accident is to bike to work.
It's a safe whose dimensions and interior is specifically designed for storing firearms.
My sister and I were picking pin tumbler locks when we were 6 and 7, getting us into all sorts of trouble as most people on /. could guess. A lot of electronic locks, can be bypassed by sharp jarring. Which is exactly what this appears to be, not a real surprise. Even mechanical locks that they use in hotel rooms can be bypassed using this manner.
Beh, the most elegant designs are usually defeated by the most simple solutions.
Om, nomnomnom...
When I was in middle school (many years ago!), after earning the riflery boy scout merit badge, I managed to convince my very-reluctant parents to buy me a BB gun. It was not in a safe, but I purchased a trigger lock from Master Lock to prevent my little sister, who was in elementary school at the time, from getting into trouble with it.
One day when I was away, she picked the lock with a pocket knife. She was not particularly mechanically adept, either.
Fortunately, nothing came of it--she just went out back and shot some soda cans--but there's a real problem here.
QUOTE: "Ed Owens began voicing concerns about the security of these containers and that every other officer within the Department might be at risk. As a result, he was subsequently fired after fifteen months for allegedly violating department policies."
Oh yeah. Hide the problem instead of facing it head-on and dealing with it. Damn politicians.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Not correct.
A gun is designed to kill other things, not explicitly people, though people are often the target.
This is something that gets me very unhappy with the gun control crowd. A pistol *IS* an indispensable farm implement.
(Ever tried to shoot a pack of coyotes eating your spring calves using a bolt action rifle? You tend to get only one of the bastards, and then you end up losing another calf the next night. Something more rapid fire and quick to handle is required for effective pest control.)
Short version: The locking solonoid mechanism can be mechanically disrupted into an open state by applying a sharp vertical acceleration. The three-year-old used in testing achieved this by picking the safe a few inches off the ground and dropping it. The mechanism design is common across models and manufacturers.
An obvious countermeasure is to use the bolts usually supplied to securely attach the safe to a wall or floor. If it cannot be lifted, there is no way to apply the jolt needed to knock the mechanism open.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty
Those safes are not fit for their intended purpose.
Start suing.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
How is this really news for nerds?
It doesn't specify compter nerds, does it? There are plenty of gun nerds out there.
In any case, it follows up yesterday's story about hotel room door locks nicely - same theme (poor physical security measures), different instance.
In what world can owning a car be compared to owning a gun? Quick reminder: one is designed to go from one place to another, the other is designed to kill other people.
Wait, guns are designed to go from one place to another?
-- a battle-weary cyclist
But lock design is news for nerds.
Remember the Stack-On press release that touted the fact that their containers met “TSA airline guidelines” as if this endorsement is added evidence of the security of their products? We tested these containers, and the reality is they can be opened in a variety of ways including with a tiny piece of brass by a three year old.
That pretty much says it all right there. The TSA approves something because it can be opened by a three-year-old, meaning their own employees might have a 50/50 shot at it.
Locks are designed by engineers. (Nerds)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
A gun is designed to kill other things ...
No. They can also be designed or used for putting holes in pieces of paper, knocking over or pinging metal plates, breaking pieces of clay, etc. Shooting is also a sport. Given that slashdot seems to be on a current events theme I'll add that shooting is an Olympic Sport.
Shotgun, with rounds only in the tube. A child young enough to not be taught firearm safety will not be able to cycle the pump.
Same thing with a big semi-auto pistol. A 3 year old will never be able to rack the slide.
I still suggest keeping them in a safe of course, and just keep the safe in the bedroom.
A paving stone at short range is more effective than a club or sabre. The disappearance of cobble and paving stones has been more of a deterrent to the overthrowing of governments than machine guns, tear bombs and automatic pistols. For it is in the clashes when the government does not want to kill its citizens but to club, ride down and beat them into submission with the flat of a sabre that a government is overthrown. Any government that uses machine guns once too often on its citizens will fall automatically. Regimes are kept in with the club and the blackjack, not the machine gun or bayonet, and while there were paving stones there was never an unarmed mob to club.
-Ernest Hemmingway, Death in the Afternoon
Apparently not gun safe locks. Those appear to have been designed by circus clowns.
That locking mechanism is just atrocious. They thought using a single solenoid which when actuated retracts to allow the bolts to be withdrawn was a secure design in a safe the size of a shoebox? Add in that because it is battery powered it can't have a strong return spring and of course it will be easy to open by giving it a small physical shock. FFS even something simple like a bolt driven by a small stepper motor and a worm gear would be orders of magnitude better.
That the company and distributors are refusing to admit there is a problem is disgusting, but understandable given how large the potential liability is in this situation.
Locksmiths have been using these exact techniques for 20 years to open safes. This is nothing new nor secret. What's next, a video of a security consultant picking a deadbolt in 20 seconds?
First off, safes (which store anything) should be bolted into the foundation of your home. Therefore the pick-up-and-drop method is ineffective. A sturdy strike from a hammer may open some of them, but not all.
Second, none of these are real "gun safes". A real gun safe weighs 300 lbs. and cannot be opened using any of these methods. You need a large drill and a schematic of the inside of the door. These lock boxes are intended to be hidden somewhere (back of a closet, behind a bed) and allow for quick access (15 seconds to open) in the event of an emergency. Kids should not know where they are, nor be able to reach them. A real gun owner would know this.
sudo make me a sandwich
The trick is to teach kids how to handle the gun so that you take away the mystery. When I grew up we had guns in the house and not locked up at all. My dad's shotgun and hunting rifle generally were leaning up in a corner. No trigger locks. If he'd been hunting earlier that day they may very well be loaded.
It was like that from birth till I moved out. Wanna know why me and my siblings didn't die horrible deaths? Because we didn't feel a need to secretly "play" with the gun. If I wanted to go out and shoot it all I had to do was ask and my dad would take me out shooting. Not only that, but during those shooting sessions he taught me exactly how the gun worked, how to safely load and unload it, and how to handle it. Even if I HAD handled the gun while he was gone I was perfectly capable to doing so safely.
As they say: if you have a pool in the backyard, which do you think would be more effective: Putting a fence around it, or teaching your kids to swim?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
- A dog
- Martial arts training
Warning: Property guarded by martial arts-trained dog.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
The most effective thing to do would be to do both.
Which is what my parents did. Safes for the guns, ammo in another place and plenty of range time for the kids.
This is more FYI than trying to niggle with you, but most gun deaths are suicides, not crime or accidents. So it is pretty related to whether there is a gun in the house. We could have a discussion about whether you're more likely to succeed in a suicide attempt in a house with a gun, but that's for another day.
Its related to security and the idea that "apparent security" and "actual security" are two distinct concepts.
There are a TON of parallels with the software security industry, where sometimes a vendor simply refuses to respond to a notification of an exploit, which leaves the researcher to go to the media and perform a full disclosure in order to force the vendor's hand so to speak. In this case, the researchers reached out to the manufacturer and walmart, and got no response, so they are spilling the beans to the public.
It is a particularly good submission because its not an anti-gun or pro-gun screed; its legitimate research about a legitimate issue that is being handled irresponsibly by the vendor, and now its up to the news-reading public to bring that vendor to task by avoiding their products until such time as they take responsibility for and address these kind of "vulnerabilities".
A real gun owner would know this.
1) The guy whose kids got into the lockbox was a cop.
2) The lockbox had been issued to him by his police department.
Not if you include obesity.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
the short, squat boxy safes are not designed to hold rifles. gun safes are typically tall cabinets with rifle shelving. images.google.com - search "gun safe" and see for yourself.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
The odds of my being killed by a gun have almost no relationship to whether I own one myself.
Actually, they do. People with guns in the home are around twice as likely to be murdered and 10 times as likely do die of suicide as people without guns (source). People carrying guns are about 5 times as likely to get shot as people who aren't carying guns (source). This is not even considering accidental shootings. You say you're "not the sort of idiot who is likely enough to shoot myself by accident," and I hope you're right, but I doubt many accidental shooters thought they were either.
The caliber of stories is really down overall. Can't imagine what triggered this story. They're really shooting blanks some days. Or maybe I'm just going off half-cocked. Who knows?
I deserve every down mod I get.
Most "safes" that you see in your average retail store are just locked cabinets. Well, they usually have fancier locks, but a hasp and padlock would work better.
I'm giving someone one of my old safes. It looked similar to the first one, so I decided to try the drop test. It didn't open. They need it to keep a single firearm, and some papers, away from a 3 year old. I found it oddly coincidental that this story came up now. The one I'm giving away is sitting on my floor waiting for me to take it over and mount it.
When I was reading reviews on the "economy" safes (like anything under $200), quite a few are easily defeated. Some can be opened by just jiggling the handle until it opens (about 3 seconds). Some take a screwdriver to pop the dial off (combination lock).
I want a nice rifle safe. After look at the prices, I'm tempted to build my own. If you have welding and machining skills, you could craft one pretty easily. Double layer steel (inner and outer shell), with a few inches of concrete make for a respectable vault. Then you have to make the bolt mechanism, which takes a little more thinking.
Jamming the bolt mechanism so it won't open, is the hardest part. You can't exactly use a residential deadbolt. There are plenty of ways to open those in seconds with little skill. (lockpick gun, bump key, lockpick rake, etc).
It would take me time, but I could build something that would normally cost thousands.
I picked my first lock when I was about 8 years old. I had a toy that needed a key to open a panel. I had lost the key long before, so I got it open with a paperclip and small screwdriver, acting as a rake and tensioner.
I know people who want to keep guns in those cheap moneyboxes. They change their mind when I show them that I can pick the lock in seconds, or force it open with a screwdriver. Come on... Why protect a $600 gun with a $15 lockbox?
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
... in the same way and tell me that no other kid would ever do something stupid with a loaded gun. Like most accidents, stupid shit often happens because more than one thing went wrong. Your dad was called away at an emergency, you had some friends over but had to go to the bathroom... this is why most "safe" designs require a two point failure on top of a system designed with best practices. Leaving a loaded gun around is a single point of failure with a lot of assumptions built-in.
You live in a pretty black-and-white world that allows for no statistical variation. Humans, if anything, do not all act exactly the same under the same circumstances.
but most gun deaths are suicides, not crime or accidents.
More so when you realize that almost all fatalities "while cleaning his gun" are suicides, not accidents. It's an official fiction beneficial to society in many places even today, but it does muck with the statistics.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Lemme guess, Ju-shih-tzu?
Hmm, I must be quite lucky then. My completely untrained dog has had exactly one false positive at night (during the day, not so good but during the day doesn't matter so much) and several 'true positives' where friends and family have come in without warning and gotten barked and growled at. He's about 20lbs so it's probably a good thing he does the barking and growling from out of sight around the corner, but he's certainly loud enough to get me out of bed.
Which, incidentally, made the one false positive actually pretty terrifying. If your dog isn't one to bark and growl for no reason suddenly starts up at 1AM it definitely gets your attention. Came hustling down the stars and there he is, staring out the back window, hackles raise, growling and barking. Flick on the back light and... there's a bucket. Just a plain blue bucket that had been left on the porch the previous afternoon. I'd never seen a dog actually look embarrassed before that moment. Gave him a treat, told him good boy and went back to bed.
Um, those statistics are idiotic. Perhaps people that are about to commit suicide go out and buy a gun? Perhaps people that live in high murder rate areas buy and carry more guns?
And of course, the #1 - gang members are the majority of gun murders, both giving and receiving. And, of course, they carry guns.
Uncontrolled statistics do not convey useful information.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
How is this really news for nerds
if this had been a defcon presentation rather than a forbes article there would be no question. They're talking about the ability to compromise locks (including electronic ones) by basically banging the safe a couple of times. As an exercise in technical security it's some combination of hilarious and terrifying.
Believe it or not, I think there's a lot we can philosophically grasp from this. What is the legal obligation for a company that sells a product that isn't even kind of secure, while claiming it to be? None. Security that can be compromised by a 3 year old will be, and that probably applies as much to computer security as it does safe security. etc.
The most obvious is a testament to 'obscurity is not security', a 3 year old, who isn't really capable of understanding safe design, and therefore faces complete obscurity can still open a safe by basically trying to pick it up, and then dropping it.
"As they say: if you have a pool in the backyard, which do you think would be more effective: Putting a fence around it, or teaching your kids to swim?"
You should teach your kids to swim. But since you can't control whether the neighbors teach their kids to swim, you should still have a fence.
Same thing applies to guns in the home. Even if your kids are perfectly safe around the guns, you need to be cognisant that their friends may not have the same education. You really don't want to find yourself in the position of saying "it's not my fault that the neighbor kid accidentally shot himself with my gun, his parents should have taught him gun safety". Not only will the jury not be very interested in that argument when the parents sue you, but I imagine you'd feel bad if the neighbor kid killed himself with your gun. (Even if you would believe it wasn't your "fault", I imagine you'd still wish it hadn't happened.)
There were no significant differences between those with only handguns in the home and those with only long guns or both handguns and long guns, those with two or more guns, and those having one gun in the household; and between those who stored one or more guns unlocked and those who stored all guns locked (table 6).
The suicide rate wasn't lower for people with multiple guns or for people who kept their guns locked, so I don't think the data supports the hypothesis that the suicide weapon was purchased for the purpose of suicide.
To the "people who live in bad neighborhoods get guns" most of the second article is about that point and how to disentangle all the different predictive factors behind getting shot. I'm sure there's some truth to "people who are planning on entering a dangerous situation carry", but there's also some truth to "if you try and draw while you're getting mugged, you're gonna get shot." In support of that, note that having a gun increases your risk of geting shot even more for "assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist"
Sad truth is that if you try to resist a crime, you generally place yourself in more danger than if you passively submit. I'm not saying that recommends any particular course of action. Personally, I hope to act bravely, even if it puts me in danger, though my soon-to-arrive child might change that opinion. We shouldn't let the ethical question of how to respond to violence obscure the fact that going for your gun does not make you safer. Escalating a robbery to a gunfight is a risky move--why does stating that fairly obvious fact upset people?