Schneier on Security

clvrmnky • July 17, 2008 6:03 PM

"Even with the best, unbreakable lock, it will only prevent undetectable unauthorized entry, and make brute force entry only slightly harder."

The problem with some techniques, such as lock-bumping, is that there is no evidence that the lock has ever been compromised. It looks just like some left the lock open (if you are lucky). Good luck with that insurance claim.

So, yes, a lock is only as good as the door/wall/window it is protecting. But, as some have pointed out, it is also a good way of forcing someone to deal with the lock, or try something else more risky. The idea is to turn away or make more difficult so-called casual crime.

A common housebreaker simply tries doors and windows as he or she goes down the street at night.

As with encryption, it is not necessary to have or demand the best, unbreakable lock. The idea is to protect within reasonable limits what you you need to protect. Security is not a go/no go binary decision.

As far as I am concerned, hobbyists are simply keeping the lock companies honest by forcing them to define the parameters of what "good enough" means to /them/.

Example: if any old lock is good enough to lock up your beater bicycle, then I'd rather know that a specific brand will at least challenge a thief long enough that my ride is still there a few hours later. So, there is a difference between a decent lock which may take a little expertise, time or brute force to compromise, and one of the barrel combination locks that anyone can pick with their bare hands in 10 seconds.

Some locks are just more good enough than others.