[mizzao]

For others who might not have seen it, here's what the Lockpicking Lawyer had to say about that.

He picked a lock with the same concept by swighton (Stuff Made Here), but exploited a flaw that had nothing to do with the mechanism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecy1FBdCRbQ

I think one problem here is that the more complicated you make a locking mechanism, the more you suffer by increasing the attack surface with other potential flaws or just the lock being physically weaker (i.e. smashable).

Kinda like how the most advanced cryptography is usually broken because someone made an error in the complexity of implementing it.

[dunmalg]

The other problem with increased complexity is that the more intricate your mechanism is, the more prone to failure due to wear or contamination it becomes. A security measure is only as good as it can remain usable. As a locksmith for working in the industry for 25 years, I've seen a lot of high security designs come and go, and the stuff that sticks is the stuff that's simple and reliable. The fundamental fact of locks and security is that people just don't pick locks much. The vast overwhelming majority of unauthorized accesses are via an acquired key or via bypass attacks on other aspects of the locking hardware than the keyed cylinder.

To put it bluntly, all these fancy pick-proof designs people are coming up with have zero real world utility and are just toys for locksport enthusiasts to play with.

EDIT: and really, I'd say all the patent discussion is moot. A patent is only useful if there's a market for your product. This product has design shortcomings that render it a non-starter for most applications, i.e. no master keying capacity, which makes it useless in any institutional setting, and a design necessity of using critical precision parts that won't handle outdoor exposure well, and a physical size that makes it incompatible with even the largest north american cylinder format. This is a product without a profitable customer base.

[todd8]

Yes, and with more complexity comes more ways to fail to operate properly. I foolishly almost locked myself of my condo. I had a Medeco high security cylinder on the door and the condo was on the 22 floor so it was pretty secure.

Foolishly, I had used the sturdy Medeco key to cut through some packing tape on a package. The gummy adhesive left over on the key wasn’t that noticeable and would probably not interfered with the operation of ordinary pin tumbler locks, but high security cylinders are usually made to tighter tolerances making picking more difficult. In Medeco cylinders the pins have two degrees of motion (up and down and rotation on their long axis). The sticky key likely gummed up the operation of one or more pins so that I couldn’t unlock the door.

A trip to the hardware store for some spray cleaner/lubricant finally got me inside, but for a while I was afraid that the lock would have to be drilled out (difficult because of specially hardened elements designed to thwart drilling).

[throwaway742]

It's the same with digital security. There is always a security/usability tradeoff.

[daniel-cussen]

Part of security is sucking up the consequences of getting locked out.

[jsmith45]

I don't see any fundamental reason why this design could not be master keyed (although it would be more of a pain than with traditional lock designs).

The key spools have a narrow section at the correct position. I see no reason why they could not have multiple narrow sections. The inconvenience is that you would need to stock 10 additional spool types to allow for 2 position opening. (or 6 if key spools are symmetric), and more if you ever need three valid positions for a pin. (These numbers get worse if the system is extended to more than the 5 positions of the prototype).

I'm not sure this is actually all that much more complex, or having more critical precision parts than some of ASSA ABLOY's offerings (like Medeco). The pin-stacks being too tall for standard US cylinder sizes though does seem to be a rather substantial problem.

[hotpotamus]

As usual there's an XKCD that's relevant: https://xkcd.com/538/

I assume that most people know that this is more of a hobby thing (and a cool one), but I also forget that not everyone has demolished a house with a handheld reciprocating saw.

[joshcryer]

I remember being annoyed by the end of that video with the backplate. swighton had already thought of that and machined for a backplate but it was just left out so the LPL could crack into it.

In any case, this guys design I think is a significant improvement over swighton's. swighton made it so that the key triggered the locking mechanism as you pressed it in, this guy made it so that you had to turn the key to test the locking mechanism, as well as adding a multipin stack.