Schlage Primus

[Chucklz]

if you are in possession of a high security key that you did not sign for then you are a thief.

I have Abloy, Mul-T-Lock, TuBar, Miwa, Kaba, Kaba Gemini, Arfe and Ermhardt keys within easy reach. I have a lock for each of them, but I didn't sign for any of them in any way. Thief? I think not.

[Schuyler]

I started to write a long letter, but just let it go at this. I am a professional. I work hard to protect people and their assets from wise donkey punks who won't pay their dues to really learn the craft.... they want to steal enough information to be dangerous.... if you are in possession of a high security key that you did not sign for then you are a thief.

My name is Richie Martin. I am a locksmith.

If I don't trust you, you don't work in my shop.

Your post frustrates me. I won't get verbose about it, though, as I've had a drink and had to own up to a stupid mistake that hurt a lot of people tonight, so I'm just afraid I'm looking for something to vent about.

But, yes, very frustrating.

[zeke79]

While I see things from the hobby aspect, I see things from c123's aspect too. I "THINK" what he is saying is that "IF" you have a key to an area that you are not supposed to have then it is a problem. We can all agree that an unauthorized key IS a problem. Many of us may have them (unauthorized keys) and not know it. This is due to public stupidity mostly as unused locks from a masterkey system may be sold on ebay these days. I think that this is what C123 is getting at. Not necessarily that we know what we have, but those who sold the locks should. The blame really lies on no one's side as we know alot about locks we buy and sellers sometimes know nothing.

Bottom line is that it is very easy to compromise a system without knowing it. Fact is, most people do not know they are doing just that.

[DaveAG]

I think that eBay has the potential to cause problems for building managers when it comes to the sale of high security locks, but not everybody in posession of a high security key without signing for it is a theif!

To be a theif requires dishonesty, and if I purchase from eBay a cylinder with keys that turns out to compromise someones expensive locking system then so long as I didn't know ( or reasonably suspect) that the locks/keys were stolen I am as much a victim as their rightful owner as I've paid money for something but have no legal rights to keep it.

Also if a legitimate key holder lends their keys to someone they may be unauthorised to do so, but this doesn't make the borrower a theif. If the "borrower" were to find keys on a desk, unlock doors and help themselves to stock then yes they are a theif, anything short of that and we're talking against company policy, not theft.

Also, private individuals may very well have high security keys unsigned for that cannot in even the most extreme definitions lead them to being branded a theif. The best example I can think of is that I bought some Mul-T-lock cylinders for my house. I own the cylinders, have the rights to get the keys copied, but don't insist that I sign anything myself before taking my keys off the hook under the stairs and locking the door as I leave the house.

[Schuyler]

While I see things from the hobby aspect, I see things from c123's aspect too. I "THINK" what he is saying is that "IF" you have a key to an area that you are not supposed to have then it is a problem. We can all agree that an unauthorized key IS a problem. Many of us may have them (unauthorized keys) and not know it. This is due to public stupidity mostly as unused locks from a masterkey system may be sold on ebay these days. I think that this is what C123 is getting at. Not necessarily that we know what we have, but those who sold the locks should. The blame really lies on no one's side as we know alot about locks we buy and sellers sometimes know nothing.

Bottom line is that it is very easy to compromise a system without knowing it. Fact is, most people do not know they are doing just that.

And this is why I'm glad I just mumbled incoherently, rather than verboted.

[unjust]

a few thigns to weigh in on.


1- just because you have the key to the lock and authority to repin/replace it does not make it ethical to misuse it. it's costing the owner $$ and time to replace it shoudl it be damaged. similar to if you use shop tools to remodel your home. ok a lot of places, but you break it you replace it out of pocket not out of co $$ and NOT ok on company time.

2- the intent/background of a document does not negate it's informational and documentary utility. i.e. Mein Kampf is an important historical document, and having scholars read it is not the same as instructing them to follow it's precepts.

[lpjim71]

Picking a primus lock is on a par with a medico. The original post, however, asked for a method to bypass the security feature of the primus key blank which has unique features for each facility. Usually only one person has the authorization code to order the unique blanks from the manufacturer. I seriously doubt that the person in ultimate responsibility for securitywould find it amusing that anyone, especially a trusted employee, would attempt to obtain an extra key or blank to circumvent a security feature on their high security lock system. There are no key blanks for a primus system that are not purchased by the authorized end user and unauthorized possession of a unique key blank or key would be prima facia evidence of a crime in most if not all states.

[raimundo]

long twisty discussion started by a high school kid in 2005, hes probably graduated by now, any lock that shares a security sidebar bitting with a whole set of keys some of which will eventually be lost is not super secure, I think some of us know what I mean. if you don't, you havent' been around long enough, don't ask.