On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Matt Blaze wrote: > I have no particular interest in seeing you eat crickets (and before > I went veggie I've eaten a few myself; taste like whatever they're > cooked in), but I've done it on Medecos; it's no problem.
Well, unfortunately I specified "live", which probably precludes the cooking bit. Hmm. Cricket fondue, perhaps. > The angles will be the same on the master as the change key; only the > cut depth will differ. That isn't necessarily the case. High-security Medecos can have multiple valid pin rotation positions -- the pin's angled surface doesn't need to be flush with the key. This allows much larger number of possible pin combinations, and I think it would make your attack infeasible in practice (particularly since the attacker presumably doesn't know if there are dummy steps added, or if the key is part of a master-ring system. That's a lot of work to do only to find out the attack wouldn't have worked in the first place.) > If you have a code cutter at the oracle lock it's no different from > doing the attack regular locks, except that Medeco's MACS restrictions > mean you have to be careful about whether you use the change depth or > previously learned master depth at the positions adjacent to the > position under test. That would certainly be true. > If you're using a file at the oracle lock, just use a code machine to > pre-cut a #1 cut at the right angle at each position; the sharp angle > actually makes filing a bit easier than on locks with a standard cut. > I recommend a light garlic sauce. *grin* Have you found a source for the factory-controlled Medeco key blanks? --Len. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
