unican button locks

[powercity]

Can anyone tell me how to bypass the unican, ive striped it,pulled it apart, and put it back together again, but its like a chineese puzzel

[CitySpider]

Do a web search on a fellow called Hobbit. I've never used the method myself.

[Grudge]

The Unicam version of the Simplex lock is a little harder because you must partially turn the handle to bind the buttons, which causes variation in the process of determining the numbers. Also not all locks exhibit the same tendancies to bind, so the system may work only on some locks.

If you haven't already found it, check out: http://www.blackmarket-press.net/info/l ... button.htm

[Chucklz]

Also somewhere there is a guide listing all possible combinations for these locks. I forget where though. I do have it as a txt file somewhere, so if anywone has webspace, id be glad to share.

[tonsofquestions]

Does anyone actually have some experience with figuring these out? I've read through Hobbit's guide mutliple times, and searched online for other guides (to no avail). It's finally starting to make sense, but how does one determine the "zeros", as suggested in the guide? I also found a different (and mostly useless) guide suggesting that after finding the "zeros", one should then find the "ones". However, it (quite helpfully) neglects to mention how to determine them. Anyone know of some way to find them? Any other information/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

[Chucklz]

The Hobbit guide gives good information about determining how far one needs to advance a single tumbler. Using information from just one tumbler, you can reduce the number of possible combinations considerably, and try them if you wish. Two tumblers limits possible combinations even more.

I've only had the chance to play with one lock, and the owner left it on the default combo.

[McSwede]

Hi guys...i'm certified in simplex and unican locks...i wasn't taught how to manipulate one from the outside....i asked and was told it was extremely unlikely to do so especially with the possible 2+ number combinations such as 1+4 then 3 or 1+3 then 2+5 then 3...easy from the inside but haven't seen it done from the outside yet...good luck...let me know if you figure anything out.

[tonsofquestions]

Hi guys...i'm certified in simplex and unican locks...i wasn't taught how to manipulate one from the outside....i asked and was told it was extremely unlikely to do so especially with the possible 2+ number combinations such as 1+4 then 3 or 1+3 then 2+5 then 3...easy from the inside but haven't seen it done from the outside yet...good luck...let me know if you figure anything out.

Of course they're going to tell you that it's extremely unlikely. They wouldn't admit any weaknesses in their design! In any case the "2+ number combinations" shouldn't make any difference. One would still figure out the position of each tumbler individualy, which isn't affected by whether or not multiple buttons are pressed at a time. And "1+3 then 2+5 then 3" isn't a valid combination. You can't push any button more than once.

The Hobbit guide gives good information about determining how far one needs to advance a single tumbler. Using information from just one tumbler, you can reduce the number of possible combinations considerably, and try them if you wish. Two tumblers limits possible combinations even more.

Yes, I understand that you can drastically reduce the number of possible combinations by determining the position of one, or even two tumblers. However, that still leaves a significant number of possible combinations. It also doesn't answer my question about finding the "zeros" or "ones" that are mentioned.

[Chucklz]

If Zero's are numbers that aren't pushed, they should be fairly easy to find, but I fear that finding them is fairly pointless. Upon careful thought, using Hobbit's instructions, find the button(s) that bind the most, push them and advance them with other buttons until you find its position. That button is obviously NOT 0. Repeat to find all the buttons that are pushed in the combo. the remaining buttons are 0. Considering you already know the combination to your lock, learning the feel shoudlnt be to hard.

Set your lock to something easy like 234 and try to "feel" that. You know that 1,5 are "0". Applying torque to the knob should bind 2 the most. Press 2. Next continue as in Hobbit's instructions about continuing to test the 2 with the other numbers, ignoring that you know that 3,4 are used, but not 1,5. You find that the 2 must be engaged two more times. I would make a table at this point of 1,2,3,4,5 and write down that 2 can be the 1st , 2nd or third press in the combination. There are 1081 unique combinations for a 5 digit simplex lock. During the learning process I would probably print out the 6 pages of combinations that this is, and cross off all that dont have a 2 in the first three presses.

[plot]

Chucklz sent me the document containg all possible combinations, here it is if you're interested:

http://www.brainwashed.us/upload/files/ ... exLock.doc

[McSwede]

tons...my mistake...made a typo...meant 1+4 then 2+5 then 3...that's what makes edit buttons nice.

[tonsofquestions]

If Zero's are numbers that aren't pushed, they should be fairly easy to find, but I fear that finding them is fairly pointless

Quite the contrary. They are exremely useful to find (if I could figure out how). Not only do they narrow the combination possibilities significantly, not knowing them can screw up your efforts to determine the other button's places:

Be aware of this; often enough the first button with pressure can be a 0, and if you aren't watching for 0 positions you can easily assume it's a don't care, push it, and screw your chances of feeling others. Make sure your "don't care" test buttons aren't supposed to be at 0 either. It's a good idea to run through and try to find all the zeros first thing.

Upon careful thought, using Hobbit's instructions, find the button(s) that bind the most, push them and advance them with other buttons until you find its position. That button is obviously NOT 0. Repeat to find all the buttons that are pushed in the combo. the remaining buttons are 0.

Are you sure you understand Hobbit's method properly? Once you have one button, you must make sure to keep it's tumbler in the correct position, in order to pass the pressure from it to the other buttons. It's the same principle as picking tumbler locks. If you pick a pin that's too loose first, it will not bind, and so will just fall back down.

Considering you already know the combination to your lock, learning the feel shoudlnt be to hard.

Perhaps, but knowing the combo also means that you have a tendency to try to read too much into your button presses and feelings. I prefer to have a friend set the combination to something I don't know, and try it from there. I haven't had terribly much success yet, but I write down how far I get, and compare it to what it actually is when I'm finished trying.

Set your lock to something easy like 234 and try to "feel" that. You know that 1,5 are "0". Applying torque to the knob should bind 2 the most.

Most certainly not. The button that will bind should be the one that has the least amount of give (ie the one with the highest tolerance). Therefore, on the same lock, it should usually be the same pin that binds first. For example, on my lock it is button 1 that always binds first.
If all it took was figuing out which button's binded in which order, it would be a simple matter to reverse the order and obtain the combination. It is the fact that you have to figure out _where_ each pin must be placed that makes it more complicated.

[Chucklz]

My experience with one single lock leads me to disparate conclusions. When I manipulate this lock, the zero pushes come out to be superfluous information. While this information is eventually available to me, it comes only after learning enough from the lock to narrow its combination to about 20 possibilites. I used a modified method. I rejected hobbits continual method in favor of one that narrowed the combination significantly then trying a brute force attempt with the remaning few combinations. But again, I am limited to one lock, and only occasionally do I have a chance to play with it.

[Chucklz]

And I must add that perhaps I am misrepresenting the method I use. Sometimes its hard to translate from brain to text. All I know is that it works for me. In general, I tend to be a very analytical person, carefullly eliminating possibilities, and thats how I tend to approach these locks.. I wish I had a simplex with me at school so that I could carefully step through what I do, but simplex locks are far to expensive for me... currently.

[tonsofquestions]

I know exactly what you mean. Simplex locks are very expensive. I am fortunate enough that there are a few in my school that I can practice on when no one's looking. If I might ask, what is your modified method? It wasn't very clear from the posts above. Do you determine the position of one pin, using the method, write it down, and then try a seperate pin, completely ignoring your knowledge of the first pin? I remember trying that, to no avail, because if the first pin is not moved, it will always take the brunt of the pressure from the lever arm. I can push all the other buttons in whatever order I want, and button 1 will always have the most pressure (almost all the noticable pressure, in fact).
I understand completely about being analytical. I tend to be the same way. So much so, in fact, that I prefer to try and deduce the last few buttons, even when the number of combinations remaining is brute-forceable in a moderate amount of time.