Talk:Main Page
193Cj0 <a href="http://pwpunbqrqzdu.com/">pwpunbqrqzdu</a>, [url=http://decmhefxfgyg.com/]decmhefxfgyg[/url], [link=http://locpcxylezmp.com/]locpcxylezmp[/link], http://nzymirshxwkj.com/
Advanced material discussion?
How open do we want to be with advanced material on this site? Please present arguments for and against, and be specific (note that I'm not making the decision--that's DG's job--I'm just interested in getting a dialog going).
--Legion303
The only thing I have a problem with is specific instructions for destructive entry, especially involving dangerous substances. Otherwise I think the site should be full-disclosure because I want it to be a resource where people can go to see exactly what the risks of buying a particular model or type of lock/safe are. Think about it, where can you go now to look at this sort of information? I'd like this site to be a reference for people of different skill sets, even those that just want the skinny on whether or not a particular lock model/type meets their needs. In my opinion, this is extremely difficult to do as a consumer/business without help. Criminals are already way ahead of anything we can possibly put here, so I don't see any real harm in it. If we have to compromise, I'd say we do it like the digital vulnerability DBs for serious problems, where they have a brief summary of the vulnerability, but not specific instructions on how to exploit it. For example, Company XYZ has Model Q padlock that has the following vulnerabilities: can be bypassed via shimming, destructive entry via poor resistance to torsion, and so on. Since I am more or less the only contributor I'm going to continue with additions as I have been doing until anyone wants to discuss it further. (What am I gonna do, argue with myself :P ?)
-dg 01.10.09
This is a quote from A.C. Hobbs' "Locks and Safes: The Construction of Locks." I agree with it 100%, and it's oddly fitting despite being written over a century ago!:
- "A commercial, and in some respects a social doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and know already much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery.
- Rogues knew a good deal about lock-picking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock, let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker, is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is to the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of the knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance."
