Comment

Comment on

I love LPL, but he tends to focus on mechanical bypasses. I feel pretty sure that the safes mentioned in this article are actually listed by UL as safes. UL, of course, fucked up with the electronic locks themselves by underwriting them, but I have much more confidence in UL's mechanical expertise. The common bypasses that LPL uses would not be present on one of these safes, and he'd likely consider them to be truly secure (this vuln nonwithstanding, of course).

source

Sort:hotnew top

higgsboson@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I note that they don't mention it resisting an angle-grinder for any amount of time. 🤔

source
- Badabinski@kbin.earth ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Yep, although using angle grinders can possibly destroy what's inside. UL does have much more stringent standards. To quote the Wikipedia article on safes:
  
  TL-15 - This is a combination-locked safe that offers limited protection against combinations of common mechanical and electrical tools. The safe will resist abuse for 15 minutes from tools such as hand tools, picking tools, mechanical or electric tools, grinding points, carbide drills and devices that apply pressure. While the UL 687 defines this as a "limited degree" of protection, that standard is used for commercial applications, and the TL-15 rating offers significantly better protection than many unrated safes.
  
  source
violetsoftness@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
ahh that's some good perspective thank you

source