Unpickable Lock? The Co-Axial Lock by Andy Pugh
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 30. 09. 2022
- Another beautiful and clever design for an unpickable lock đ Do you think you could pick it? Can you see a way? Let us know!
Remember: only pick locks that are yours and that are not in use! Keep locksport legal!
Contact me at: locknoobcontact@gmail.com
Support my channel! T-shirts and merch:
teespring.com/stores/lock-noo...
Lock Noob lock holder for 3D printers:
www.thingiverse.com/thing:288...
Lock Noob pinning tray for 3D printers:
www.thingiverse.com/thing:286...
#locksport #lockpicking #locksmith #pentest #hacker
![[1299] Unpickable Locks From Stuff Made Here](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ecy1FBdCRbQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![[45] Picking the "Unpickable" Abus](/img/n.gif)
Another beautiful and clever design for an unpickable lock đ Do you think you could pick it? Can you see a way? Let us know!
Super Cool Lock.
I'm pretty sure I could open that
You have to try to find a way to glue or solder the pins between them.???
Maybe when I pick assa twin sidebar pins i go cycling through them (pick one another drops) until it opens maybe that's how it would be to pick this
You could theoretically tension the outer sleeve by using a long back of keyway tensioner that grabs onto the slot for the rod to slide. Kinda like an SFIC control tensioner.
Till Lockpicking Lawyer gives it a go, I don't trust it to be "unpickable".
Yes
If he picks it he has to show that it was not a fluke
@@SevenToes2007 agreed
I have emailed him three times, he doesn't reply.
@@andypughtube - No doubt he gets many, many emails. He could be busy. I doubt he's avoiding you. This lock definitely presents a challenge.
I would like to see this lot sent to the lock picking lawyer and see if he could pick it that way it can be improved on if necessary. I also would like to say thank you lock noob for having your stuff online I had a friend of mine 3D print a couple of lock cylinder holders and a pinning tray for me which of course the pinning tray has your logo on it.
I'm pretty sure he did pick this one
@@eporter5071 How do you foresee it? Bypass flaw in the design? Single pin pick? Rake? Bump? Comb?
Name a method for us please.
@@fifiwoof1969 Probably a comb pick, pushig all the stacks beyond the outer sheer line; the bible looks to be deep enough to do that.
@@TimbavatiLion that's easily fixable, right?
I'd be worried about the thick wafers being an integer multiple of the thin wafers and the tolerances in trying to get those thicknesses right and how they would wear over time. That many moving parts it's just a matter of time.
@@TimbavatiLion also don't serrated and spool pins do the same job as this design.
I want to see Lockpicking Lawyer try this one!
When he hasn't yet doesn't tell you something?
As a designer (code, not mechanics), I can really appreciate the sheer beauty of the design. Not the physical beauty of the embodiment, though that is also wonderful, but the beauty of the ideas behind it. Thanks to you, and thanks to Andy for sharing.
*shear beauty.. how punny. Lol
This lock might be vulnerable to a hybrid attack. Push the key spacers above the main sheer line, then bump to make a space in the stack so the thin wafers don't jam on the inner sleeve.
Yes, it's a big question of the thin wafers can fill the moving sleeve instead of the dedicated thick wafer.
Also, 0.25mm wafers means the key must be cut to 0.1mm precision to work reliably, which is a problem for a production lock where keys are duplicated and worn.
Another thing is that this actually makes lock manufacturing easier - a factory don't need to stock different pins no longer, they only need to stock 5 types of parts for pin holes Key pin, Key wafer, Thick Wafer, Driver pin, Spring. Regardless of key, keycode is just amount of key wafers.
Iâve known Andy for over 20 years and he never ceases to amaze me - without doubt the cleverest bloke I have ever met. I never even knew he was into locks, so to pop up with this (and the beautiful machining) is just bonkers.
Wow. Just wow. Didn't realize there was two different sleeves at first and couldn't understand the deep false set. That's brilliant, yet supremely silly to see it in a padlock. That mechanism has some true high security applications. Would also like to point out the beautiful machining that went into making that prototype. Thank you so much for sharing and going into such detail. đ đ đ
Absolutely beautifully designed. Love it. Also love your videos. I'm very new to picking, about 10 months now but I love your passion and love seeing how and why these locks work. Thank you for sharing and being who you are!
Not saying that it will work, but the first thing I think about whenever I see a design like this is to see if an overlift attack combined with a tension wrench bounce will get the lock open.
Also after further watching and thinking about the design, it appears that the drivers are all the same height so it may be possible to decode the bitting somewhat by measuring max lift height of each pin stack. This could work only because in this particular design, the drivers and the first wafer are essentially known hieghts the only variability left is the key pins and the short stack of smaller wafers. If you max lift each pin stack and subtract the known lengths of the drivers and main wafer, you get the remainder of the pin stack height. It's all theoretical but that's at least how I'd try to attack it.
Good point, but also an easy fix.
I agree with trying the over lifting attack, but I also would try super controlled manual counter rotation and keep picking until more than a .25mm pin travel is required to "set" a pin. It kinda reminds me of the challenge lock keymaster sent around called jeck, that bound up because of milled slots cut into the core and driver pins that were essentially just brass nails that would bind up tight. But with really fine core control and trail and error I think it could be done, maybe.
I think theres a chance a electric pick with a comb like tool may throw the small wafers into the slot and allow an easy open. But i think if you push one of the key pins up high enough to bind the inner core you may be able to pick the other 4 chambers outer core before trying to move back to that first chamber and lowering it until it opens.
I think the driver pins being the same length is just to ease manufacturing of the prototype. Its not necessary for the design, and the animated scematics show them with different lengths matching the number of wafers.
The best way to attack it is if the bar shown at 12:45 and onwards can be reached though the keyhole. If you can tension that it might be possible to pick it.
That sleeve is static, it never turns. So it doesn't help to tension it.
Sorry, I made a mistake. I actually agree with you. In addition, I think a strategy with oversetting all of the pins first could also be useful.
On third thought... :D that bar does not help. It is fixed to the core. So if you are tensioning the core, you are tensioning that bar.
@@oracla Well, so much for that idea...
Beautifully machined; a real work of art. I've been enjoying lock-sport for over 10 years and would dearly love to watch what Lockpicking Lawyer makes of this. Many thanks!
Very neat concept. I've enjoyed watching all these new delayed authentication designs that have been coming out recently.
Because of how the drivers are laid out, couldn't you use the required lift to the first shearline to drastically cut down the number of key combinations? From what I can tell, at baseline position, the lower shearline either intersects the long top driver (high cut) or the gap-sized wafer (low cut). If you measure the amount of lift required for every stack to reach the first shear, then you know that the required key cut at every position will be that height plus one of only 2 values. You could then extract further information by attempting to determine whether the second wafer that hits shear in each stack is a thin or a thick wafer, which would be quite difficult but very possible with some trial and error. If you can distinguish that binary decision for each stack, then you'll have successfully decoded the lock.
I think the biggest flaw in this design is that the layout of the drivers that determines the correct key cuts is accessible via picking and measuring. This is in contrast to some other designs where the authentication mechanism cannot be probed in this way through picking.
That is a wonderful lock, and beautiful engineering!
Yeah!
Very clever design indeed! There are a couple of practical problems that I can see:
(1) The thickness of the thin wafers limits the maximum possible key differs. As the lock tolerance limits how thin you can make the wafer without the risk of wafer falling between tolerances within the sleeves even with wear, those wafers are already about as thin as possible. As a result, it seems that each key cut has maybe 3-4 different depths only. As a result, the whole system with 5 pins can have only 4^5 or 1024 different keys. It should be obvious to anybody why this is not a safe enough key system.
(2) The middle sleeve that must be in same orientation with the lock body. As a result, it can be directly attacked from the outside with the prototype implementation. If you attack the faceplate with a destructive attack and can twist the middle sleeve, you can pick the lock pretty normally after that. You could just move all the pins one stack worth backwards in the lock and add one extra pin to hold middle sleeve in position with a hole in it but that would make keys one stack worth of longer (basically sacrifice one pin worth of length from the middle sleeve and let it ride against this locking pin for the whole time). Maybe that's acceptable? That would also allow using just a tube form middle sleave with extra holes so it would be much more easy to manufacture.
One clear improvement would be to attach the cam to the outermost sleeve and use some soft material such as pure copper for the pin that connects the core (with the keyhole) to the outermost sleeve and if attacker applies too much force, the copper pin would deform and the lock would fail in locked state. This would also allow even more rotation for the core before checking the actual pins which would make any practical pin manimulation even harder.
To fix issue (1) above, you could simply add way more pins similar to my design "mtr-18pt.blend" (search for "mikkorantalainen community-core" with Google and open the file with Blender 3.2 or newer) but that would result in pretty weird looking keys. Compared to my design, if you go with longer keys as I described in (2) above, I guess this design would be more practical to implement with real world machinery. The only question is if the material thickness is enough for lock that's mechanically strong enough.
If the above issues can be fixed, then the only way I can see this lock could be opened without the correct key is _decoding_ it similar to mechanical safe locks where you create different make-up keys and accurately measure how much the lock can be turned. Change only one key cut at a time. Each time you can rotate the lock even a bit further, assume that the last changed key cut was the correct one and change some another cut a bit deeper. That will get the lock open but it will be slow and tedious process. However, with only 5 pins and 4 cut depths, that wouldn't be that bad so the keyspace must be extended a lot even to prevent decoding attacks.
I think each pin stack should have standard driver pin and key pin + identical number of thin wafers + one correct thick wafer. That way you cannot decode the lock from the stack height but that requires the thick wafer to be non-integer thickness compared to thin wafers so that you cannot substitute the thick wafer with some thin wafers.
I think there are three potential weaknesses. Firstly the 2nd shear line for each pin is the correct position so it might be possible to feel this. Secondly you might be able to overdrive the pins so that wafers fill the sleeve gap. Lastly a bypass tool might be possible to tension the sleeve.
Very smart design indeed. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks đ
Wow! Great idea and execution. Andy did great work there.
đ
Excellent description of a brilliant design. Is this the end of lock picking? Not while Masterlock still exists đ
Send it to the Lock Picking Lawyer. He's picked our best.
I'd like to see what the lockpicking lawyer can do with it.
Thank you for sharing, a very well designed and well thought out, doesn't seem impossible but very difficult to pick, I did enjoying seeing it and being taken apart, thank you
Thanks for sharing all of the aspects of that beautifully designed lock. It looks so unassuming that you wouldn't suspect that it is unpickable without some sort of special equipment if that's even possible. Beyond my comprehension...
Hi Lock Noob, Clever design, and obviously its number one criteria was its pick resistance. That's fine for Locksporters as it becomes a major challenge to one and all, from a practical situation, and as a Locksmith, I have some concerns. For a lock design to become a commercial success - and I've seen so many "clever" locks fail - it has to be long term reliable in the field. It also has to be able to be master keyed, for large installations. Master keying requires additional master wafers to be added en masse to an already large stack of "master wafers" in this cylinder. Stacked master wafers - particularly 15 thou. thick - often jam or roll over causing lock outs as the pins, keyways, and cylinders wear. The addition of extra sleeves, and wafers, long term, is adding to complexity. The old saying " Complexity is the enemy of reliability" has in my 60 odd years of Locksmithing, been true so many times.
As always, you're practical "Locksmith in the field" approach hits the nail on the head Brian.
You are correct, and I have had this conversation with a few lock company employees. The market needs key security (ie, it is hard to make unauthorised copies) and mastering systems. The only way that I could imagine this working in a mastering system would be with all keys in the system having the same basic profile, and with the access levels being controlled by secondary features, such as side-bars.
However, I will point out that this is a rather simple lock in many ways, all the parts look like normal lock parts, all just simple lathe-turned parts. It would require almost no re-tooling for any manufacturer to start making them.
The lock body in this prototype is wilfully complicated. But then my main hobby is machining (and my machining CZcams channel). A production version of this lock would have a body drilled from solid with an annular cutter.
Great design on this lock! Really impressive with what Andy has come up with.
Also a great execution on the prototype!
Excellent presentation of this very complex lock. Well done and thank you very much for sharing!
Cheers đ»
Excellent video, very well explained every part of the lock
Such a simple idea, it would seem that aside from picking, the next intrusion method would be to clone or obtain the matching key. Unless there is a skeleton key of course.
It would be great to get (before he sadly retired), Bosnian Bill's take on this , and of course LockPickingLawyer's view also.
It appears to be a potential game changer, and I really hope Andy Pugh gets his patent and these lock cores see the mainstream market, certainly here in the UK đđ€
I had this exact idea about a year ago. Never got around to making it. Glad to see that it works
Beautiful piece of engineering! I believe the design is similar to what Priyer was working on quite a while ago. Fantastic vid Ash and thanks for sharing mate. Take care and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Like you Gazz, I see a number of similarities between this design and the RMLC design Priyer was looking to patent 2 years ago.
Really great video and a really impressive concept. I admire people who implement great ideas so brilliantly. Andy Pugh has really created something impressive here and I hope that his patent also goes into series production. This simply has to be rewarded.
This is brilliant!
Brilliant design and execution!!!đ
Great video and explanation!!!đ
Thanks for sharing this!!!!
đđŸđââŹđŸđŹđ§đ»
Thank you for explaining that. I've long wondered why master wafers make a lock easier to pick, while doing what you described makes it impossible.
You are a wonderful teacher. You've answered so many of my questions without my even having to ask them. I've still got a couple of questions about keyways, but I'll bet there's something in your back catalogue (I'm watching in reverse order).â€
Extremely clever design.
It's a cool design idea but there is a few things that need fixing for this to be viable. Firstly, unless there is some overlift protection, those 'false' shear lines could still function assuming you can push wafers up to the second true shear line (which the animation actually shows is possible) making comb picking a real possibility. Secondly, the plug needs to be sealed off at the back to prevent manipulation of the connecting rod otherwise there is potential for a tool to reach in and tension the true shear line (once set the inner plug shear line is useless). Finally, from a repinning standpoint, it would be a pain in the ass to have both driver pin size AND wafer stack count determine the bitting. At least in the enclave the driver pin was the only meaningful part to the bitting with wafer counts being up to preference.
EDIT: Thought of another potential issue. The previous enclave has the possibility for mastering in the driver pins for commercial access control keys. The co-axial does not and therefore not suitable for that market purpose. It would prove prohibitively difficult to not only support a master bitting between the two shear lines but even more of a pain in the ass for a locksmith to repin.
That was beautifully presented and explained, really enjoyed that. Looks like an angle grinder lockpicking session to me đ€đđ
What a fabulous bit of engineering.
All the best to you and yours đ đ đ đ»
see the gutting went much smoother than the other lock (DOM) super cool lock thank you for the cool content
After re-examining this, I'm thinking the wafers make it easier to pick, if the thickness of the wafer stack exceeds the thick pin above them. Perhaps it would be advantageous if the stack of wafers which happened to exceed the thickness of the pin above them were also two thick or too thin. Example: 2 combined wafers were too short to equal the above pin while 3 combined wafers were too long to equal the above pin. I hope this makes sense. Happy new year and keep up the good work!
A beautiful piece of engineering.
This is an awesome design. Hell I just want a padlock that takes half euros. Let alone something built so beautifully. Still baffles me that it has so many wafers but only opens at one shearline. I would think that them wafers would have to lock up somehow. Or have a pin thru them to keep them from turning on a shear. Like something master keyâd. Gonna have to rewatch this. Think I missed somethingđ€·đŒđ. Very cool content! And AndyâŠ. Holy hell manđđđđ. Iâm looking to see if ya have your own channel. Very cool lock!
Very Cool design.
Amazing engineering
Thank you, this is helpful for someone very green!
Thanks
great concept.
Sure is
I'd love to see how LPL or Bill would tackle this.
Or Deviant Ollam
That was an excellent video. I enjoyed it.
Unbelievably complex. Thanks for showcasing another 'unpickable' lock. I certainly couldn't pick it. I would certainly buy it if I needed a lock that was truly high-security.
i wouldnt, as a locksmith i can tell you that this will fail rather quickly if used on a real door.
Nice one, Andy!
đ
This is actually brilliantly designed. Is it unpickable? As someone has already said, I'd like to see LPL give it a try. No question it would be a challenge.
Without giving too much away. There is a non destructive attack method for THIS lock. That can easily be resolved with how the the waifers are stacked. Trying not to give away too much on the "flaw" because it could be just a simplification for the prototype.
I absolutely love the design. Well done Andy.
I was thinking of a LPL decoder to count the wafers ?
Not a bad idea. My idea was based how they are stacked.
In this case, driver , main waifer , Nx waifer , pin.
Overtenstion the hell out of it. That will get the mainwaifer set nearly ever time.
Like I said easy solve though
@@itsdeebs5156 actually I just realised an easy way around all of this
Just push the whole lot up with a comb đ€Šââïžđ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
With the wafers up in the second sleeve it will turn?
@@maxgood42 unfortunately no looking at the design. There is insufficient height and the main waifer needs to be in that milled slot.
@@itsdeebs5156 that would be the only defence there but could that also work as first setup then reverse pick letting them drop down until you get the sleeve pins into place? Actually looking at the animation again I realised that the largest push on the key leaves 2 wafers in the body between the barrel and secondary sleeve , so when picking it just push up for 2 false positives for each pin.
If anyone wants to see how the lock was made: czcams.com/video/23fcHVlDfFQ/video.html
Well Done Andy. Great Lock
So it is the Andy Pugh from LinuxCNC. I was wondering that.
Send it to the Lockpicking lawyer and see if he can pick it :) Do a collaberation
very cool lock .... great video very informative
A definite downside is as the lock is used the key, and the key pins wear.. The lock will become unusable over time, and that will cause some very big problems for people. Also that lock must be kept incredibly clean as I can see even the smallest amount of dirt/weathering could possibly render it unusable. I do like the concept, and design tho, but have reservations about durability.
I know sh*t about lock picking, I'm total rookie. But this lock excites me. It's so simple and so powerful solution. I thing maybe wear and tear may be an issue. But - wow. I hope one day LPL will give it a try.
cool lock. Thank you.
City rake and tryout keys. Possible tensioning by going through the bottom of inner core or by jamming or wedging the two cores together
Wow Andy -- a masterpiece of engineering -- very well conceived and executed. Normally Master Keying by stacking master wafers is a total no no and makes picking child's play BUT you have successfully reversed the concept to make a very highly "pick resistant" lock, and in a usable EURO format to boot! Thanks to loaning it to Ash so we could actually see the guts -- most excellent
Very nice vid i really enjoyed every second of it
Hey Mr Noob! Fantastic video as always my friend. I think I have an idea on how to pick this and a potential fix for that. Im going to have to put on my thinking cap
Yes, thanks for the input. Your analysis is one of the reasons that I have tried to be open about this design. This particular lock concentrates possibly too much on single pin picking resistance. There are ways to mitigate your attack, but it is rather clever.
@@andypughtube care to share artichoke's insight with the rest of us?
@@fifiwoof1969 It relies on being able to tell if the outer shear line is binding for each pin chamber after setting with a max-lift key. (shims in the outer cylinder) to reduce the number of trial keys needed.
It isn't clear that it _is_ possible to tell, but the corners of the shim stacks (in the current implementation) do slightly interact in that condition.
More movement before engaging the outer cylinder fixes this, but then it becomes very hard to design a detente that can pull the outer cylinder back into position with the key centred. This is where there is a compromise between pick-difficulty and handling completely like a conventional lock.
This is an exceptionally clever lock. Brilliant that it fits in a standard lock body. Looks like there is a tiny gap to get a tensioning tool to the coaxial core. Might be enough to let you pick it? Also might be able to tension the coaxial core through the attached shackle or bolt?
That said, the biggest potential vulnerability I see is over lifting. Looks like if you can get the wafer stack into the coaxial core the lock will open. Might be able to stop this by making the coaxial core 2.5 wafers thick? Maybe add some traps for wafers in the wrong spot?
Interesting, good ideas
2 options.
You must only turn the outer core in some way. Maybe you can reach it with a long hook?
Another way is to go from deepest level to lower level. Due to the bigger size the inner core will not move when you have found the real pin. And then you know how many stacking disks you have. With the knowledge you can make a key-copy. Or try to hold the pins at the right height and see which stack binds first.
"Oh sir, it's only wafer thin."
Wow
Well done
The Lock Picking Lawyer's worst nightmare!
*LPL will pick it within minutes
Would probably happen.
@@FallenSyn23 If it takes LPL minutes to pick a lock then it's a good lock.
From a number of combinations perspective, only the "correct" ones matter, so you have 5 pins with 7 values each (from a password perspective, a very small space). So if you can sequentially go through them mechanically (not via picking and feeling) one at a time (00000, 00001, 00002, ...), it may take a few minutes, but it would be possible.
A 3D version of this would be amazing and significantly more difficult (i.e. 2, 3, 4, ... sets of pin stacks), but then the metal of the lock becomes easier to bypass.
As with all things like a password, length (# pins here) is the only actual protection against a determined attacker with lots of time. And also with all things security, "fixing" one weakness just moves it somewhere else, and if you're smart enough you know where you moved the weakness :).
Great video and awesome design!
I had a very similar idea a year ago, based on the Corbin master-ring lock. The Corbin master-ring lock by itself already has a multitude of pin height combinations that match shear lines on all pins amongst which only two will actually open the lock - one for each of the two shear lines. I added multiple wafers on the false shear line, and a similar limited-play connection between plug and intermediate cylinder as what's between the plug and sleeve here.
What stopped me from proceeding beyond that was that I didn't have what I felt was a satisfactory means to reset everything when re-locking the cylinder. The detent pin at the back of this lock was something I'd considered, but even with that, this lock may have the same shortcoming that I stopped at.
You didn't show using the actual key to both unlock and re-lock this lock. The turning the key in either direction, the sleeve lags the plug. This is fine when unlocking, as the false shear line is exercised first before tensioning the main shear line(s), at which point the upper pins are no longer manipulable. However, to re-lock things, the key would need to turn past the locked position in order to return the sleeve to its home position, and no further before coming back to the home position. A detent would give tactile feedback for when the sleeve has made it home, but if the detent doesn't have a capture range wider than the play of the plug/sleeve coupling, then a little overshoot/return wiggle may be required when re-locking. I suppose it's likely this lock has a wide enough detent range to deal with that, but it feels like a more fragile solution that I was happy with in my own efforts.
I think it also bears mention, that my dabbling in this space was very much inspired by the Shane Wighton's (of the Stuff Made Here youtube channel) unpickable lock videos which presented the idea of separating the setting of pin heights from tensioning of the working shear line. I think it's highly likely that both this lock and the Enclave share this source of inspiration, and if that's the case, I would find it very disappointing if they don't give Shane the credit he deserves; I haven't seen him acknowledged, but hope they did and simply missed it.
I will freely admit that I was inspired by Shane Wighton's lock, as I suspect were many other "delayed authentication" designs (that's a phrase I found in this CZcams chat, and it's a good description). I had been thinking about coaxial cylinder lock designs since my student days (in the 1980s) but had never thought of anything that they were good for until I saw his video.
If you look at my animation video (czcams.com/video/WqjB0saouNY/video.html) then the first link in the description text is the Shane Wighton lock video.
As you have observed, the detente has to have the same capture range as the free play in the coupling, or the lock is rather inconvenient to use. I would have liked rather more free play (to _completely_ cut off the outer pins from the core) but haven't yet come up with a practical implementation for the detente to handle that. (I have an _impractical_ one, using a rectangular shaft and a 3mm OD x 1mm bore ball-bearing, and a rectangular broached hole in the lock body, but that's not going to work in a commercial lock, I don't think.)
So, how do you reassemble it ? I have some thoughts that the small wafers could be on top and on bottom of the big wafer (for the center core.
Is there anyway a turner could be designed that locks the core and the sleeves together?
Wow! Incredible lock but how long will those wafers hold up with everyday use? I always thought the more shear lines the easier to pick but incredible design.
I'm concerned about the longevity of a lock like this. The more pieces it has, the more possible failing points it could have.
Genius but simple design. I may be misunderstanding the set up of the pin stacks, but from the animation it seems that the large wafer 'correct' is always on the top. If so this would mean a skilled picker who is able to set a pin on the first lift virtually every time, would be able to locate the large wafer in the Goldilocks zone pin by pin. In practice I imagine this would be very difficult but potentially possible? In order to protect against this there would need to (at least sometimes) be small wafers above the large one so the picker doesn't know the first shear line is the correct one. The height of the large wafers would also need to not be a multiple of the heights of the small wafers lest 2 or 3 wafers could perfectly fit between the 2 shear lines.
Interesting
Amazing engineering!
Perhaps oversetting each pin and trying to pick in reverse and work out where that thick wafer is?
I agree that this would work with the current implementation. However, if you made the correct wafer 2.5 times the thin wafer, then you could just add random amount of thin wafers above the correct wafer, too. In fact, you could always have identical key pins and driver pins and always have one correct wafer plus 5 thin wafers for each stack. And the attacker would need to guess the position of the thick wafer in the stack to get the lock open. The clever part of this lock is how the shutter mechanism is implemented that prevents checking which pin is binding when applying torque to the core in false set. Assuming pretty tight real world tolerances near 0.1 mm between the sleeves, you could go with maybe 0.3 mm thick wafers for the thin parts which would require maybe 0.75 mm for the correct wafer and that would make the outer sleeve wall thickness of 0.75 mm.
However, with such a thin sleeve and only 0.75 - 0.3 - 0.3 mm worth of incorrect wafer (again, assuming 0.1 mm tolerance between the sleeves), that would leave you 0.05 - 0.1 mm worth of metal to prevent brute force attack. As that's nearly the same as your lock tolerance, it should be to make sleeves bend enough to make the missing space.
Again, if you wouldn't need any tolerances to make this lock work in reality, things would be much easier. In reality, for a mass produced lock, you need pretty high tolerances for the parts and even with hand manufactured parts you would need some tolerances to deal with wear and dirt in the lock (at very minimum, you'll have oiled metal parts sliding against each other which will result in metal particles moving in oil between the parts).
@@MikkoRantalainen I think I understand what you mean! I agree with you.
I'ta a clever idea. I agree that brute force is probably always going to be a problem with this design.
It's such beautiful machining, it would be a shame to test that theory!
Hey Lock Noob, what happens if the key gets slightly worn? Would it go from unpickable to unusable?
I love your content.
Will this be available for purchase at some point?
That is freaking brilliant, did you try the simple attack on it shims
This is a great design. Perhaps on a false shearline, brute force will turn the cylinder.
Could you use different height blank keys, like a straight rectangle, to push every pin up to a specific position at the same time while tensioning and vibrate the lock until they fall into place? Trial and error with different height blanks until it works. In my mind you'd avoid the multiple false sets by starting backwards instead of trying to pick upwards.
From the thumbnail and title, I had guessed the lock would have different correct shear lines for different pin stacks. The core would be the shape of a stepped cone and different pin stacks shear at different radii. This design would be robust against an (unmodified) comb picking attack as the top of the comb brings the bottom of each stack to the same shear line, the comb itself would cross the shear line at pin 5 and prevent core rotation .
đ
I wouldnât expect a rake to have much of a chance, but I am curious to see how it holds up against "try out" keys.
It's not unpickable til LPL has a try đ
Interesting. Though overlifting or comb pick attacks might be viable here.
Iâm not sure there is space
Great video! Can the out sleeve be tensioned by pushing on the face of the inner plug or by reaching in and pulling on the plug, applying force to the pin that connects the two together?
I think that you might have spotted a potential weakness. You might be able to _push_ on the linking pin to load the outer cylinder axially and pick it that way.
Though, having tried it with one of my other prototypes it seems that the detente pin is tight enough to prevent that.
However, I think that a dedicated keyway blocker would be a good way to defeat the countless other exploits that I haven't though of that access to the back through the keyway give.
Would like to know if they are going to use hardened pins and pins to make it hard to drill
This seems like it might be SP pickable from the top down; i.e., overlift the pins and let them drop into place? Delicate pick, but with the right touch.... Could be solved by shorter driver pins and thin wafers on either side of the thicker one? đ€ Still seems like the right feel (not mine, lol!đ€Ș) might counter the wafer setup. đ€·ââ
If you had e.g. 4 thin wafers and 1 thick (correct) wafer per stack in random order, the problem is equally hard to solve either way and slowly lowering overlifted pins is harder in practice. As I see it, the practical problem with this design is that you cannot realistically go thinner than 0.2-0.3 mm for the thinner wafer and the thicker (correct) wafer must be at least 2.5x thicker, there will be only 4-5 possible keycuts per stack. In addition, even 0.2 mm thick wafers require really small tolerances for the actual manufacturing and it requires using 0.2-0.3 mm thick middle sleeve which would be prone to fail in practical use.
can lpl pick it?
Can a wafer be placed before the sleeve pin. Otherwise, don't you just have to set it the to the first sheer/top line?
Also, seeing as there is a mechanism connecting to inner and outer plug and sleeve, is there a way to tension the outta sleeve as well, I wonder if that'll make it more pickable.
The way I see it, it looks like it's actually two wafer thicknesses above the first shear line, which will pass trivial inspection for the attack you just proposed but isn't really _better_.
You need to lift the plug into the sleeve, but as it's the first thing in the stack and a fixed thickness that seems like it should be doable.
Iâll believe itâs unpickable if it stops Lockpicking Lawyer.
That was REALLY cool, but with those wafers being so thin, makes me wonder about longevity, and durability.
Wow very cool lock and a very nice presentation.
BTW what's the name of the southord rake set? I never seen this before and I'm very interested in buying one
I think those might be the Multipick Elite Bogota Variants, The Reina, the Monserrat (Fore/Aft) and the Sabana. Edit: No you're right they are southord. I guess they made a variant of them.
As thin as the parts are, I wonder how many times of opening before the mechanisms "wear out of alignment".
Does it have the same behaviour if you tension backwards?
Does the lock jam if you tension the core as you insert the correct key?
Jam or enter the false set.
I think itâs a risk, depending on bitting
Can the outer sleeve be tensioned? Maybe a Euro thumb turn bypass tool or something similar.đ€
It seems that the thick bar that connects core to the outermost sleeve is designed to fully block the keyway. If it doesn't do it currently, it would be an easy fix for this issue.
I have been thinking about this from a while ago, and yes, if you approach it using the normal lock picking method, it can be quite frustrating.
However, once you know how it works, all you need is another pick to try and push one of those zero-bits in between the inner sheer line and lock the inner core to the outer core.
And from the 3d model, it seems like it can be susceptible to comb pick attacks?
The fixed sleeve prevents the inner and outer cores being coupled this way, I think. Unless I am misunderstanding your idea? There are three shear lines that have to be open for the lock to turn.
Impressive
McNally doesnât care if itâs unpickable. He will open it with itself.
would a kind of overlifting attack work? im not very good at explaining what i mean liftint untill all the wafers are out of the plug then letting the keypins fall down into the plug keeping enough rotation to try to keep the wafers in the top but the key pins fall down to allow bottom shear point to move im not sure if ive explained it well