EEVblog #1014 - Masterlock Bluetooth Padlock Teardown - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2017, 11:35:56 pm
content: What's inside the Masterlock 4400 Bluetooth Padlock?Dave tests and investigates a particular magnetic attack mode.

author: Cliff Matthews
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 01:15:55 am
content: This is a refreshing change! A Canadian product at just $51 loony bucks (around 40 USD?) on theamazon-ca site. Masterlock is from Dudley Canada. Go figure, when you live under the shadow of the U.S.ofA, not too many of our products get any mention. Dudley sells directly to schools across Canada, so trendy kids are likely to buy these.If I were still in high-school, I imagine some thin plastic sheet would open-up the battery contacts.

author: fusionimage
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 04:33:25 am
content: there was a talk about 'smart' locks at 33c3jump to ~43:00 for the master lock

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 07:22:25 am
content: Quote from: fusionimage on August 11, 2017, 04:33:25 amAh, interesting, I tried that at the time and it didn't work, including after it was opened and I couldn't get it to rotate.Probably some sweet spot with magnet size and strength etc, or maybe they fixed it again?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 07:26:56 am
content: Maybe the cam was magnetically susceptible. I can see how the rolling motion might cause it to rotate.If so, then all they needed to do was change that material to something non magnetic.Edit:If the magnet was interacting with the armature of the motor, then changing the casing to something like mu metal might do the trick.Just guessing...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 07:38:52 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on August 11, 2017, 07:26:56 amThe cam in mine is not magnetically susceptible.QuoteYes, the problem is fixable.

author: dorin
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 07:48:57 am
content: That's not even the first lock can be opened by rotating a magnet in the suitable direction. I've seen a hotel door lock being susceptible to that some time ago but I can't find the video anymore, perhaps the manufacturer forced them to remove it.So no, motors are not inherently safe unless you *know* how to shield them.Btw, since you seem to have a passion for locks, you should consider a teardown of one of the safest commercial door locks in the world, the Simons Voss digital cylinder system. Even big companies like Siemens use it. (Bummer: it's not cheap)Unfortunately, while it is easy to reach the electronics, it is quite challenging to reach the engaging mechanism without destroying it completely. As far as I know it is using a special type of spring loaded solenoid, which requires active power to both engage and disengage.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 07:54:00 am
content: Quote from: dorin on August 11, 2017, 07:48:57 amMeh, this one has never been picked:http://www.abloy.com.au/en/abloy/abloycomau/abloy-products/padlocks/abloy-pl362/Keys work.

author: dorin
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 08:05:48 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 11, 2017, 07:54:00 amProbably not enough incentive to..Classical keys are still okayish but when you lose them you need to replace the lock.When we are talking about organizations, where access management is often required, classical locks are a no go. I've seen a case where losing a master key cost the organization 17k to replace all the mechanical locks.Oh and when you leave the organization they can be sure you didn't clone the key, which is trivial with a mechanical one.A well designed electronic system is far more difficult to clone, and as long as the cryptography works (your whole life on the internet depends on that already anyways), you just cannot compare the tamper resistance of a wirelessly isolated system with that of a mechanical one that you get to have intimate contact with.We are in the 21st century Dave

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 08:09:25 am
content: Are the backup battery pins in parallel to the normal battery? This would be bad, because when the battery inside is discharged (maybe by a paper clip from someone else who don't like you), an external battery might not help anymore and the internal battery can't be removed.Also maybe very easy to brick, by applying some high voltage at the backup pins (electric lighter).

author: dorin
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 08:20:36 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 11, 2017, 08:09:25 amYeah, an external battery might not help but you can still bring a low impedance power supply to the rescue.Bricking is certainly possible, but also avoidable with some overload protection like diodes and mov's.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 08:44:38 am
content: Yet another novelty product that really doesn't need to be "smart". Sure, it probably has some niche uses (albeit insecure ones), but meh, anyone really serious about security wouldn't even bother.

author: Blocco
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 09:42:31 am
content: The mechanical design of this lock and exposed shackle appears to leave it very vulnerable to a well known brute-force attack involving inserting the open ends of two spanners between the shackle and "cam'ing" it apart to break the sides open.

author: tigrou
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 10:17:52 am
content: I'm wondering what is sent by the phone during lock/unlock operation.The whole conversation is probably encrypted. However, if the password is sent plain text, it might be vulnerable to a replay attack.Ideally the padlock would have a public key that the phone would use to encrypt the password (then the padlock would decrypt it using the private key)But it's probably simpler than that (eg : symmetric encryption)

author: isometrik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 12:25:32 pm
content: Youtuberbosnianbillhas made numerous videos lockpicking Masterlock brand padlocks, and from these videos, it appears that this brand's products are subpar.Here is his Masterlock playlist for those of you who would like to judge by themselves:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTSWkYxuSlkVyTvKncLO54dKuoLCaQXsD

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 02:11:24 pm
content: I've worked with the local Masterlock guys before. Definitely MSP430 people.I don't remember if this lock was anything we were ever asked about, but we've worked with them before.Usual reviews seem to apply: their design priorities are geared more towards appearance and feel, than strict security. But what do you expect, business is business.Tim

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 04:32:36 pm
content: I am reminded of this scene from TBBT...Howard:Okay, picture’s up. Looks like the camera’s working.Raj:That’s good quality video.Howard:It better be. It’s the spare camera for the Mars rover.Raj:How did you get your hands on that?Howard:Million dollar camera, ten dollar lock.

author: TheDane
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 07:16:33 pm
content: I like your retake in the beginning Dave- what a job..(And no, my last name isn't Olsen....)I don't know if this is a prick'ing forum- I think that only two hot needle pricks into the plastic frame (and the spare coin battery, or some wire) might be all that's needed to 'whack' the motor around to release the lock mech. Timing might be of utmost importance, or a somewhat flatter batterySee attachment for illustration.The rubber/plastic front seems quite vulnerable to a screwdriver attack exposing the electronics - don't jump spark it, lithium batteries are dangerous! Quite a visible crack too, where as two small holes in one side is less noticeable.//Egon

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 09:16:19 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on August 11, 2017, 08:09:25 amIt seemed to me that you could pull out the battery slider a bit even in locked state. (And actuallyhad topull it out to access the "emergency" power contacts.) I assume that this will also disconnect the internal battery. So they got the batter locking and backup fallback right, it seems.

author: pigrew
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 05:05:43 am
content: Why do they have both a CC2541 and a MSP430?Shouldn't the CC2541 should have enough computing power to implement all of the software?Unless it was to make the firmware easier to write (using the host processor mode of the BLE MCU?).EDIT: Or maybe they ran out of GPIO ports on the 2541? Is the MSP430+crystal as cheap as an IO extender?And for that matter, why do they use a surface-mount antenna? It looks like there's nearly enough space for an inverted-F PCB antenna or adipole.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 09:04:31 am
content: Lose your phone, get locked out!Phone runs out of battery, get locked out!Lock runs out of battery, get locked out!Number of failure modes is fail.Looks like a iPod, it'll probably sell millions!

author: TheDane
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 09:05:37 am
content: Quote from: pigrew on August 12, 2017, 05:05:43 amI thought about it too, the CC2541 should be running at all times anyway in order for the Bluetooth lock to be visible, and lock/unlock when the owners phone comes into range.I hope the MSP430 is a security checking device, as the CC2541 is updatable over the air.http://processors.wiki.ti.com/images/8/82/OAD_for_CC254x.pdfPerhaps some hot pins through the upper side, hitting the 'bed of nails test area' as pointed out by Dave, and an external programmer to reprogram the CPU's can make the lock a great Bluetooth beacon with blinking lights and bzzzz vibes, etc.Of coursenotsomething to be done, as a school hall with lockers buzzing and blinking would be a huge distraction - and have a bad environmental effect as the battery would need to be replaced more often...

author: denverpilot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 09:34:18 am
content: Quote from: isometrik on August 11, 2017, 12:25:32 pmBeat me to it.He does not often do electronic locks, but most have proven to be sub-par as far as locks go.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 11:10:02 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 12, 2017, 09:04:31 amI can certainly agree that this gadget is expendable. But two of your failure modes are non-issues (there is a keypad for phone-less opening), and the third has been reduced to an inconvenience (contacts for external backup battery -- which you need to obain first, of course). Have you actually watched the video or just the still image?

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 11:49:34 am
content: I assume the lock/unlock motor is driven by an H bridge, because it must be able to rotate in both directions. I wonder what would happen if you put an "excessive" amount of voltage on the external battery contacts? IE enough to breakdown the fets in the H bridge? With the correct polarity a short burst of a hundred or so volts might be enough to unlock it??

author: alter Ratz
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 12:04:19 pm
content: Why don't they just use microUSB as power backup. The chances of having a USB power bank + microUSB cabe are a million times higher than someone carrying around a spare CR2032. It's just stupid

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 12:20:00 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on August 12, 2017, 11:10:02 amThe whole point of this isnotto have to remember a secret number!Quote from: ebastler on August 12, 2017, 11:10:02 amAn inconvenience that only this lock has.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 12:21:53 pm
content: Quote from: alter Ratz on August 12, 2017, 12:04:19 pmThe whole thing would be better with an internal rechargeable battery. No need to go looking for an expensive coin cell every couple of weeks (or however long it lasts).How long does the battery last, BTW?

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 03:30:02 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 12, 2017, 12:21:53 pmAn internal battery that eventually wears out, making the lock pretty much useless for its original function?The concept might not be too smart but at least they decided having a replaceable battery would be a good idea...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 06:43:28 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on August 12, 2017, 03:30:02 pmThat never stopped iPhones from selling and the target demographic for this is the same.Besides, the battery won't have chance to wear out. This thing will be junked after the first couple of times the battery dies and the owner finds themselves looking for an emergency CR2032....or after they arrive at the gym and have to skip a session because it refuses to lock itself....orDave didn't mention battery life or if it has really good battery diagnostics in the app. Very remiss.(then again, Dave couldn't actually get it to unlock itself via bluetooth so it's understandable he went straight to the drill)

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 06:55:00 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 12, 2017, 12:21:53 pmNot sure about that. Depending on your use for the lock, you may not have the freedom to take it to a charger for a couple of hours -- it might have to stay in place, locking whatever you want to protect.I think we are in violoent agreement that the whole "smart" concept does not make much sense for a padlock. I can see the benefits for a stationary lock which is used by multiple users: Easy to grant someone temporary access; no expensive exchange of the lock and many keys if a key get lost or stolen. But for a padlock?! If I can carry my phone, I can easily carry a physical key as well. And if I should lose the key, just trash the lock and get a new one. And avoid any hassle with batteries etc. ...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 09:41:57 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on August 12, 2017, 06:55:00 pmAt $100 it makes perfect sense as a way of making money from the app generation.These people are used to buying things that end up in a drawer after a couple of uses.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2017, 09:05:59 pm
content: QuoteThe battery life is quoted as 2 years when using normal unlocking (ie go up to the lock and touch it, goes green, unlocks). The radio can be off, and only MSP430 is powered waiting for a keypress.Swipe is remote/guest access mode, so the bluetooth radio has to be on all the time, using much more battery.4401 uses a CR2 cell so if you have a need for guest mode, you'd get that ($90).2 years is plenty if the estimate is realistic and if it has a low battery warning. The keypad locks we use on our doors are rated over 3 years, and its a non issue to put in new batteries.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2017, 01:55:05 am
content: Quote from: alter Ratz on August 12, 2017, 12:04:19 pmI'll bet that the probabilities are the other way around.I will bet that a minimum of 90-95% of forum members will have a handy CR2032 on their person when they are out and about. It'll be on their key chain, on a car remote locking/alarm fob. I will also bet that less than 5% of them have a handy USB power source and cable about their persons under similar circumstances.Whether the average person has the presence of mind to realise that they are already carrying around a CR2032 is another matter; after all, you didn't realise it.

author: trophosphere
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2017, 02:37:01 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on August 15, 2017, 01:55:05 amI had a friend in highschool that carried a battery around just in case. He had drilled a hole in it and attached it to his keychain.

author: ThaddeusWrz
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: August 16, 2017, 07:52:16 am
content: Just two minutes with an acetylene blowtorch and "Boom", you're in like Flynn..

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2017, 09:20:49 am
content: Some of these products are just too early and lack any functionality that rationalizes their existence. I think a BT lock would make sense if it added the kind of features that could not be added to a regular lock.Just looking at feature sets of electronic locks - like Mas Hamilton's X-10 (love that lock!) there are various things Master could have done with the lock. Stuff like:- only allow open if a supervisor's phone is nearby (something you know and something you have)- allow a one time open (e.g. give a one-time-password to a service person who needs access)- retractable codes (so certain users can be removed from the lock)- logging (who opened the lock and when)- two person (split keys)- hierarchical keys (supervisor followed by employee)- master open (e.g company owner)Sure the X-10 is meant for National Security stuff.... But who's to say that there isn't a market for a lower cost version for a teenager that may be interested in giving a friend one-time access to a locker? Or share a password with a GF? Or have a master key for the school administration for contraband checking? Or two friends sharing a locker? Or a member's-only lock for the sport's team's shed?Given the current functionality of making a regular code padlock unnecessarily complex I would prefer a regular Master Lock or (even better) a used S&G8077 from eBay.

author: denverpilot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2017, 11:04:45 am
content: Quote from: Assafl on August 16, 2017, 09:20:49 amFTFY.- only allow open if a supervisor's phone is nearby (something you know and something you have)Get a double keyed lock.- allow a one time open (e.g. give a one-time-password to a service person who needs access)Hand them the key. Tell them to bring it back or you'll kill them.- retractable codes (so certain users can be removed from the lock)Take away the key. (With optimal death before or after.)- logging (who opened the lock and when)Know who has keys. Trust them. Or take away the keys.- two person (split keys)Get a double keyed lock.- hierarchical keys (supervisor followed by employee)Get a double keyed lock.- master open (e.g company owner)Carry a key.LOL sorry man, you can do all of those things with a regular lock, and I felt like being sarcastic tonight.You know what else? You won't have to make sure your phone battery is charged for the lock to do all of those things, too.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2017, 11:11:53 am
content: Quote from: Assafl on August 16, 2017, 09:20:49 amYou forgot: Allow government/law enforcement access without logging.(and anybody else who feels important, especially the TSA)

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2017, 07:28:16 pm
content: I can't find the story at the moment, but in the last week or so there was a small issue with a particular brand of front door locks. These are electronic to alow people to have time limited access (timeshared houses / rental etc). The electric locks are connected to the internet so the owner can see when the lock is opened.This particular manufacturer decided to update one of the models of lock. Unfortunately, they packaged it marked as updates for a different model so when that model automatically updated the result was it bricked the lock. Remove lock and return to factory for repair.<edit>Found ithttps://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/11/lockstate_bricks_smart_locks_with_dumb_firmware_upgrade/

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 06:36:03 am
content: Neat concept and half decently executed. I hate this whole trend with so many products that it requires to make an account though, this is completely ridiculous especially for an offline device.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 09:58:20 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on August 18, 2017, 06:36:03 amI would, and do, go further. If someone makes a device that requires access to their servers for it to work, or for me to create some 'account' to make it work, I will not be buying it. Even if it is just access during setup. I will not be buying it personally, I won't be buying it for work, and I'll actively be discouraging other from buying it. I don't want a product's life to be determined by how long the manufacturer can be bothered to keep the servers working for, and I don't want its security determined by how bad someone is at systems administration.As you point out, it's ridiculous for an off-line device, especially when it's a lock, a security device; that surely implies that you should remove any possible risk of information leakage that is notstrictly necessaryfor the operation of the device.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 12:16:04 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on August 18, 2017, 06:36:03 amSign up, it's free!

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 04:18:33 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 18, 2017, 12:16:04 pmFree-as-in, hand over your personally identifying information. If you as a human being aren't worth anything either, then, sure.(Give or take the privacy notes about what info they actually record, and what data the app actually has access to. If allowed to, it would be very easy for the app to record when, and where (GPS), it was used, as well as other invasive info. It would be remarkable if there is a registration process yet no collection even of basic things e.g. name, phone number or e-mail address, and so on.)Tim

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2017, 12:36:47 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 18, 2017, 04:18:33 pmYou can (and should!) lie to them.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2017, 03:10:02 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on August 15, 2017, 01:55:05 amIf you already carry a CR2032 on your keychain ( mine can only be extracted with a small TORX driver), then why not just add a key for a mechanical lock.This entire concept simply makes no sense.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2017, 03:33:28 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on August 21, 2017, 03:10:02 pmA CR2032 can be used for many things, not just this.You might even be able to rescue members of the opposite sex who were silly enough to buy one of these locks.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2017, 03:44:04 pm
content: These responses are mean.The pin and tumbler lock dates back to Nineveh (at least) which is 4000 years ago. It is even older than red LEDs.Isn't it time that it is improved upon?

author: Fredderic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2017, 06:50:29 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on August 21, 2017, 03:44:04 pmThey are indeed. Frankly, I'd say more along the lines of this is getting utterly ridiculous, and not a small amount down right irritating — I'm following this thread to see if any useful comments or product comparisons turn up, and wading through the sea of crud is not particularly enjoyable. Though it probably wasn't helped any by Dave's own response to the device — the sheeple always come out, in the shadow of their shepherd. Anyhow…While people are so busy tearing into the weaknesses of these locks, so few of you seem to have stopped to consider that just about any padlock can be bypassed with the old spanner trick (I think I saw one post that seemed to go mostly ignored), and even the front door of your home, no matter how good the lock(s), can be bypassed by a brick through your window. Most of the attacks on this lock which are being discussed, require substantially more sophistication than either of those. And many of the locks we rely on every day, are more of an advisory signal than actual real security (in most cases, the real security is the video camera watching over it, and the stupidity of most people trying to breach them).No, I wouldn't be using one of these to protect the crown jewels, or even the power tools in my shed. But my school locker if I were still in school, the plastic box I kept my oh so very private stuff in as a little kid, or if it was the weatherproof version, then the front gate, or the padlock on my bike back in school again — I'm fairly certain this padlock is still better than the ones I use (and have used) in any of those situations, and the convenience it offers doubly so; I'd much rather something like this on my gate than having to fumble with a key while it's pouring rain on a winters night (my current gate padlock is a $10 Coles jobbey, since anyone wanting to bypass it can — and all too often do — simply jump the fence anyhow. Yet I for one will be paying the extra for the convenience, since that signal, as weak as it may be, still has it's purpose — especially in a police report), same for my bike back in school (which was behind a locked fence most of the day, and more or less watched by teachers for the rest — and where there were plenty a time where I'd have much rather pressed a button, than have to fumble for the key).And yes, it's easy enough to tuck a spare battery in your bag, wallet, etc., for when it's needed — for the convenience (and sometimes safety) of not having to take out your keys at all. Not to mention keys can get lost, or stolen, and if you've leant them to someone who neglects to give them back, they're a heck of a lot harder to revoke. I also have more than one set of keys; the house keys are the smallest ring, the car keys have a clip so I can attach them to the house keys when I go out by car, or leave them at home when I go out walking. The shed and window lock keys and the likes stay at home, and the keys to the toolboxs inside the shed are on yet another key ring. Why don't I just put them all on the same ring and take the whole lot with me everywhere? It's the same reason I'd use one of these locks for some jobs but not others — the toolbox keys are separate because I sometimes leave the shed unlocked for a few hours, and it happens to be a whole lot harder to walk off with the whole toolbox, than it would be to swipe the not inexpensive spanner set in it. I honestly don't care if someone can open the padlock with a piece of cut up can, when it's locking a gate that can be more easily jumped over — either action is going to draw an observers attention, fiddling with the lock like that probably even more so than simply jumping the fence.Now, I do appreciate the discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of this lock, and I appreciate that there are some IoT devices that just, well, shouldn't be (just about every IoT device in the adult industry, for starters). But these padlocks — though certainly somewhat weaker than an equivalently priced keyed one — still have a good deal of utility within appropriate circumstances, and comments like the recent, "You might even be able to rescue members of the opposite sex who were silly enough to buy one of these locks" (and you're just the most recent of the seeming majority of posts in this thread saying such things), demonstrate a severe lack of ability to think outside your own limited world view, and really don't contribute positively to the thread (not to mention I know members of the opposite sex who would quite rightfully take significant offence at a comment like that), at least one of which was a fellow student back in University, studying Engineering.And while the digital security of many of these locks pains me even more than their physical security, I myself will still be keeping an ear open for further reviews of flaws (and fixes) regarding these bluetooth enabled padlocks with an eye to purchasing one well before next winter; give me time to choose at least the brightest of an admittedly not particularly bright bunch, for the very important job of locking a perhaps somewhat ineffectual front gate — so long as it stops random delivery people letting our dogs out, and posts that signal that you're not welcome beyond this point without invitation.

author: denverpilot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 04:22:18 am
content: Quote from: Assafl on August 21, 2017, 03:44:04 pmThey have been. You won't find them at the cheap end of the scale, nor at the local store. That's most of the problem right there... what people see at the big box hardware store or other local merchants, they think those are "locks".As you go into pricing for locks like the Bluetooth one here you barely touch into the price point of the bottom of the scale of what most folks actually trying to secure something, use.I was semi-joking about it when I responded with my early "get a dual keyed lock" but anything worth actually securing can use a multitude of types of locks that can even grant multiple access, etc... that also aren't "low end junk padlock" quality.Some jokingly (but not really) put it this way. If you bought a $20 lock to protect something worth more than $20, the their certainly won't mind breaking a $20 lock.Nobody serious about securing anything is using anything from Master, that's for sure.So, it falls into the "if you're really not securing anything and you want a gadget, go for it" category.If you are actually securing something, consult a locksmith or security company. There's usually more to it than a $2 hasp and a $20 lock that can be busted with a pry bar or cut with bolt cutters.Like someone said, a cheap Master lock is usually hung somewhere to send a message or tamper proof a patch from kids. Anybody else, it's a 30 second maximum break in device. Someone who knows what they're doing? 10 seconds.So... a Bluetooth lock is overkill at this quality level. It'll sell great to the gadget crowd. But it won't really secure anything.

author: dorin
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 09:48:18 am
content: Absolutely. And the utility of all the critique here is that somebody lurking on the nets will find this forum educative and not buy into their marketing crap.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 10:42:01 am
content: Quote from: Fredderic on August 21, 2017, 06:50:29 pma) The shepherdcouldn't actually open this with his phone.b) If it's raining then that's all the more reason to get something reliable (eg. doesn't depend on battery charge).c) It's better to spend $10 than $100 if people are likely to break it.Nope, this is aimed squarely at the locker-room-frequenting-hipster demographic. People who want other people to notice their shiny padlock.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 11:13:51 am
content: My note was a bit tongue-in-cheek (hence the red LED false equivalency).The Nineveh lock was nowhere as capable as some of the modern pin-n-barrel locks (or their higher security variations - from rings to magnets). But it goes to show that when something is JUST THAT GOOD - it needs a lot to replace it.BT locks are new. Early adopter products usually suck and are always somewhat silly. Routinely overpromise and under deliver. This one is no different. BT locks are gadgets. For now. BT locks are for early adopters - for now. But I can think of many reasons a BT lock would makes sense - needs for which a regular lock is either too limiting and cumbersome - or a purpose built lock - too expensive. (BTW - Electronic locks are not new - they have all but displaced the most security minded safes. Just look at what the Mas Hamilton x-09 and X-10 did to GES requirements. They are that good. They cost as much as well.)This product is somewhat silly. But if other people buy it - maybe one day we'll have a multipurpose lock that can give the gardener logged and timed access to the garden shed. Hey - you could even tell how many hours the gardener was at your home - when he opened the shed - and when he closed it. And who forgot to lock the shed. And who accessed dad's tool box.None of the above deter me from liking my 8077A S&G padlocks. And a point probably not lost on thieves is that if you do see any S&G (8077 or a 951 or an 833) or an Abloy 362 or an EVVA MCS Padlock on something - whatever is on the other side of the lock is probably extra worth getting at.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 12:20:07 pm
content: Quote from: Fredderic on August 21, 2017, 06:50:29 pmI wonder if it's firmware updatable.It's not hard to imagine there's a software bug lurking... maybe even a sniffer that lets you walk near the owner and pretend to be the lock so you can grab the code. If you see somebody put a bag in a locker and close it with one of these things there's a good chance there's a Macbook or iPad inside.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 03:03:21 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 22, 2017, 12:20:07 pmWe've seen from the recent debacle with the bricking of Lockstate locks by a remote firmware upgrade, that remote updating for electronic locksmustbe regarded as a vulnerability. At the same time, any experience with software security at all tells us that onemusthave the ability to update firmware/software to cover the inevitable vulnerabilities that will be found.Thus for any electronic lock to be secure there must be enough infrastructure in place to ensure that updates to software take place, but that they cannot be done 'over the air'. That implies warm bodies and well trained one at that, and that implies expenditure.Moreover, a Google search for 'bluetooth cracking' throws up 'About 637,000 results'. Bluetooth is not secure, it has been hacked many times. Bluetooth is not designed as a security protocol. It was designed for other tasks and, as always, security was designed in afterwards. If you want a secure wireless unlocking protocol then you're going to have to design one with security in mind.I'll bet that any Bluetooth lock that has a proximity unlock feature like this Masterlock padlock is trivially vulnerable to a 'MIG in the middle' relay attack that could be whipped up by the black cloaked, goat sacrificing, RF aficionados on the forum in half an hour.I would regard any Bluetooth lock as a gimmick. Treat it as a techno-toy and there's no harm in it, treat it as a serious way of securing anything of any value and you're in for a nasty surprise. Fungus example of a locker with a valuable bit of shiny electronics in it is exactly what would attract the kind of teen cracker with the skills to beat this lock.

author: Fredderic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2017, 08:20:43 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 22, 2017, 10:42:01 amWell, it does have to be pointed out that our esteemed leader does often have trouble with this new fangled technology (particularly anything associated with a smartphone) — if it doesn't smell of vintage, he's going to have trouble with it.Quote from: denverpilot on August 22, 2017, 04:22:18 amTalking about it's actual ability to secure something, certainly. I don't think anyone's arguing these locks are master thief proof, that was pretty well established when it was mentioned that they can be opened with a cut up soft drink can — no one's going to be securing the crown jewels with these things.But sometimes a signal is exactly the point; like when it's hung on a gate that someone can simply jump over anyhow, attached to a locker (which is usually fronted by a door made of pretty flimsy metal), or holding a bike in a mostly locked compound (where you're more worried about opportunistic theft, than planned). And in these cases, the utility of the lock is by far more important than the actual security of it.That's not to say it'snotbeing marketed to the "locker-room-frequenting-hipster demographic", that lovely blue light is certainly conducive to that market, but then, they are also the ones far more willing to pay for the convenience, and less likely to recognise it as fairly weak physical protection.So yes, we've established it's not great physical security, probably being marketed to hipsters, and seems to be Dave resistant. We know that relying on Bluetooth for security is dodgy, and this thing probably doesn't go overboard on it's crypto, so it's probably vulnerable there, too.However, on the insecure Bluetooth side, it's probably still on par with most RFID locks, which is an alternative that I've been considering for my front gate; I'd guess it's likely even a little better than regular RFID, since there's the Bluetooth "security", encapsulating a (probably) not terribly strong keyed exchange. That's still going to be a step up from copy tag, use tag.Quote from: Assafl on August 22, 2017, 11:13:51 amThis is also definitely true. Unfortunately,allthese kinds of devices have been a little flakey, not very secure (digitally), so on and so forth. But the techniques will improve, and they do need to start somewhere. Anything IoT is facing an uphill battle right off the starter, because the I in IoT is a wild and wooly place, with expectations not presently appropriate to a device of this class. It's one of the reasons there's so many competing standards vying to be "the new I in IoT" — trying to provide a more embedded-friendly gateway (or alternative entirely) to the wild and wooly internet. Devices like this one deal with that reasonably well by moving a lot of that into the Phone app — which I think almost has to be the way to do it for now — though at least a little more on the lock itself would be nice, from what we've seen on YouTube.But when it's the functionality it offers that you want, rather than the physical security, and especially also, with more and more of us living in rented housing, or for those locker room using yuppies, where modifying the property to suit our needs doesn't always go down too well for the landlord… something like this really does seem like a suitable choice. As silly as it may seem to many of you.Quote from: Cerebus on August 22, 2017, 03:03:21 pmFirmware updates are also a relatively new thing in commodity hardware, and they're hard to do properly, and all too often end up bricking the device (most certainly not just padlocks), especially when it's already struggling to fit in the firmware it needs (ie. having room for fallback firmware). To the benefit of these devices in particular, though, they do not need to directly interact with the internet, and that saves them a whole load of resources and vulnerabilities. Squeezing a little more real crypto onto the chip (at least one of them already does AES256, albeit rather poorly from what I recall), should render Bluetooth's issues far less relevant (the same reason SSL is so important — it doesn't matter nearly so much how insecure your internet connection is, once you've got an encrypted and authenticated connection). And that is coming; the dedicated crypto components are making their way onto increasingly smaller chips, but even without that, both the bottom-end chips are getting bigger, and the crypto libraries are also getting made smaller and more efficient. And most importantly, the companies making IoT gear are starting to realise they need to learn how to use them.And I still think a device similar to this (if not this specific one), would do just fine on my front gate, or any of the other situations I've listed.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2017, 11:38:13 am
content: Just saw this:A review of one by a lockpicker, plus a fast way to open it.