PDA

View Full Version : Unsafe Gun Safes Can Be Opened By A Three-Year Old


darkgrue
08-08-2012, 9:00 AM
I'd really highly suggest all gun owners read this Forbes article: Unsafe Gun Safes Can Be Opened By A Three-Year Old (http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcwebertobias/2012/07/27/unsafe-gun-safes-can-be-opened-by-a-three-year-old/) as well as the detailed report here (http://www.thesidebar.org/insecurity/?p=793).

The report details small gun safes that can be easily compromised. Many of the safes specifically examined are probably ones that CalGunners have in their homes and rely upon.

I was able to see the In.Security presentation this July at DEF CON, as well as demonstrate these design flaws for myself at the demo. I assure you, it's worth the read. There were completely unskilled members of the audience who were easily able to open these containers without the use of specialized tools, and in the worst case, with no tools at all.

TKM
08-08-2012, 9:06 AM
That's amazing.

We'd better tell everybody.

How could this have possibly gotten by the rest of the planet?

Montu
08-08-2012, 9:18 AM
Super dupe and also I've known about bumping for a while..you can't get a good cheap safe

If you Google stack on reviews on you tube you'll see weaknesses and how to some of them

darkgrue
08-08-2012, 9:26 AM
Geeze guys, the Forbes article just came out this month, and I thought it would be of interest.

I didn't see any other discussions specifically discussing this particular study. Just because there's other information on safe vulnerabilities doesn't mean this has no value. The particular focus of the DEF CON presentation was security vulnerability analysis in design, not just "hey, you can open cheap safes easy". =/

johnny_22
08-08-2012, 10:39 AM
Before I bought a low end safe, I checked YouTube for hacks. Saw this technique and others in use on these low end safes. Paid a few more hundred dollars and bought one that did not have any videos associated with it.

Now that it is at Forbes, the hacks will be common knowledge. Good time to upgrade if you have one of the shown models.

Which brings up the question: What does the California Bureau of Firearms do when they test a handgun safety device?

Montu
08-08-2012, 10:49 AM
Geeze guys, the Forbes article just came out this month, and I thought it would be of interest.

I didn't see any other discussions specifically discussing this particular study. Just because there's other information on safe vulnerabilities doesn't mean this has no value. The particular focus of the DEF CON presentation was security vulnerability analysis in design, not just "hey, you can open cheap safes easy". =/

sorry wasn't trying to be an *** but the youtube video of the kid opening the safe's that started all this has been posted before...then the Forbes article etc..

still I agree people should know (but now the wrong people)...and while my cheap safe isn't on the list tested..it has the same design as one of the stack ons so I'm pretty sure bumping would work..that's why I'm bolting it down to make it slightly harder

nick
08-08-2012, 11:04 AM
•Guns and ammunition should be stored in separate containers that are actually secure;

The article, while providing some valid points, is hyped up, which doesn't add to its credibility.

gesundheit
08-08-2012, 11:22 AM
still I agree people should know (but now the wrong people)...and while my cheap safe isn't on the list tested..it has the same design as one of the stack ons so I'm pretty sure bumping would work..that's why I'm bolting it down to make it slightly harder

The "wrong people" always knew about this hack. It is time the good people also know that the elcheapo saves they have are crap.

Montu
08-08-2012, 11:24 AM
The "wrong people" always knew about this hack. It is time the good people also know that the elcheapo saves they have are crap.

yea the smart wrong people but the thug breaking into your house is generally pretty damn stupid wouldn't you agree?

Librarian
08-08-2012, 1:20 PM
Dupe - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=600911

Your thread has the better title, though.