[blisterpeanuts]

No offense but what's the evidentiary basis for these statements? Are you in the insurance business, or in the lock business?

I work for a company that makes many types of locks and currently is developing NFC and BLE solutions.

The fact is, any kind of lock is vulnerable to a determined and skillful attacker. There are BLE locks that "phone home" to check a password before they'll open; there are NFC locks that are actuated by RF-powered NFC chips that are almost un-crackable except by the Chinese Army or similar organizations.

Then there are conventional badges, key cards and physical keys in universal use, that are rather easily cracked or copied.

Vulnerabilities are already factored into insurance rates. The advantage of a connected BLE or NFC entry system is that it can require a remote login before the door will open. For example, enter the BLE region, the app pops up and prompts you for a PIN, then actuates the unlocking mechanism using an encrypted protocol. No technology is perfectly secure, but these technologies do present great possibilities for improving on current approaches to access control.

[UrMomReadsHN]

>No offense but what's the evidentiary basis for these statements? Are you in the insurance business, or in the lock business?

No. It was a hypothetical situation to CONSIDER. Everyone's situation is different. You should consider what insurance ramifications would be and make sure you are reporting accurately to your insurance company, because inaccuracies can potentially have bad consequences. Unknowingly. Unlikely, but worth looking into first. Check the wording on your policy, it may list things that are disallowed. It may have a different category for electronic locks (and you may even get a discount!) Not saying this is insecure or a physical lock is better, but its use may be excluded in your policy for whatever stupid or non stupid reason. Check it. Thats all I'm saying.

You read my post wrong.

[secabeen]

The issue he (and I) have, is that this is worst-first thinking. Sure, your insurance company could deny you coverage, but it's very unlikely. In the absence of evidence that insurance companies do this (and insurance regulators allow it), we should act under the more likely outcome rather than an hypothetical worst-case scenario.

That's why he asked if you were in the lock or insurance industry. Someone with experience in these matters would be qualified to speculate on the importance of taking this into consideration. Without that expertise, rhetoric like this feels like advice to always wear a helmet in case of flying debris. Well-meaning, but unrealistic.

[UrMomReadsHN]

I work in an industry that is highly regulated and law and policy must be followed to a T. Our policies are extremely specific.

It isn't "worst-first" thinking, it is "ok, I'm replacing a critical component, does this replacement meet all the the required specifications of the thing I am replacing it with? What are the potential consequences?" Which takes almost no time, its just a question that needs to be answered in my field.

Perhaps my work in such a regulated environment has taught me to think that way.

I have family in the insurance business, and they've talked about having to deny claims for various (kinda silly in a way) reasons. And getting death threats because of it...