High Security Locks...

Well lets see how you like this question:

Which type of High Security locks do you like to work with ???

I like Best I/C but have also used Kaba's version 'Peaks'...

Are there any people out there who use:

Abloy Assa Medeco

What do you think of those manufacturers ???

Input would be nice...

Evan the maintenance man

Reply to
Evan
Loading thread data ...

Why do you consider Best a High Security Lock?

Ed

Reply to
Ed Jasper

Because you can obtain it in a 'restricted keyway' and the very precise tolerances used in the manufacturing...

But that is not solely my opinion, others here have made that point along the way...

Evan the maintenance man

Reply to
Evan

Best IC in my humble opinion is not a high security lock (others may disagree). It is a very good lock in terms of tolerances but it's main distinction is it's IC feature which is a godsend for applications that require it. These locks are to quickly defeated by several generic techniques however to be considered high security. Does Best even make a UL-437 compliant lock? If they do I can't think of it.

Assa Abloy is one group but for purposes of this discussion I guess you are talking about the proprietary design which is associated with abloy when you say abloy. They are high quality products. Offer high pick resistance and good key control. They are not however that commonly used around here. Assa and Medeco high security products are very good quality although Medeco has used about every possible keyway profile known to man at this point.

Schlage Primus is becoming more popular.

Reply to
Putyourspamhere

There are many locks which offer restricted keyways and have good to excellent tolerances which are not high security locks. IMHO to be high security a lock must be UL-437 rated. Best I/C is a fairly weak lock to some forms of attack (not IMO picking) unless there is one in common use I am ignorant of.

Reply to
Putyourspamhere

I understand what Even's trying to say, but that's not how the term is generally used in the industry.

"High security" usually means much more than "restricted keyway"; the latter is generally classified as "key control." (Which high security systems generally also offer, of course.)

Precision ... If you wanted to say "higher security" for that reason, I'd agree. Again, "High security" is usually taken to imply more than that -- secondary or unusual locking mechanisms, or MUCH higher (eg the

20-pin Fichet cylinder). There are generally other differences as well.

This is not a knock against Best -- but I think Best themselves would tell you that they aren't high-security, just higher than most non-high-security cylinders. They aren't quite over the hump where a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.

Reply to
Joe Kesselman (yclept Keshlam

BTW, Kaba has several lines, some of which are high-security and some of which are just key-control. I don't remember offhand which catagory the Peaks product falls in; I'd have to dig out the literature.

Again, some of these have several product lines at different price-versus-security points... but they're best known for their high-security cylinders. I'm a fan of all three, for somewhat different applications... but I don't actually stock any of 'em. (Problem with being a part-timer; I haven't been able to justify scraping together the cash for the minimum buy-in to become an official dealer, and I don't think I'd turn over enough stock to maintain that status.)

Schlage has a high-security system very similar to Assa's (it's actually licensed from the same basic patent, if I remember correctly, though it uses the concept differently -- ASSA codes the sidebars, Schlage codes the finger pins). There are plusses and minuses to that variant; one of the big plusses is that the high-security key fits their non-high-security cylinders as well, so you can intermix the two kinds of locks to suit the needs of particular openings.

(If I remember correctly, there is yet one more variant of that same patent running around... but I can't recall who was marketing it.)

And the list goes on...

Reply to
Joe Kesselman (yclept Keshlam

very precise

that point along

Still doesn't make Best a High Security Lock.

my2

Reply to
Key

I have worked with Primus locks and while their usefulness is clear (upgrading security of a few rooms or locations in a much larger established system) they present a rather important maintenance issue...

Several of the cylinders that are in place, here in one of the buildings I work at, are heavily used and the finger pins tend to jam on occasion... The 'side-bar' type security does add to the overall protection, however it is also a liability as well... If you have a whole building of these locks installed I can imagine that someone would have the sole task of lubricating these locks in order to keep them operating properly...

I call Best I/C 'high-security' because they are in fact a 'higher' level of protection as far as key control goes and picking resistance than standard commercial keyways made by Schlage, Sargent, Corbin/Russwin or Yale... I see your point that key control while a 'security' feature does not indicate an impenetrable obstacle to a determined intruder... But any cylinder that gets chosen is only as strong as the door it gets installed in... That is where security begins and ends... Not in the type of lock or its keyway...

I know that this will sound kind of basic to most of you, but once you install the I/C housing into the lock it stays there -- you don't have to worry about threading a standard mortise back into it's 'sweet spot' when you swap cylinders or re-key the locks... Time is saved... No on-the-spot disassembly is required turn a key pull the old core out and repeat the process with a new one... Its a time saving and flexibility issue...

I know that most of you out there have all the time to do your tasks that your clients are willing and able to pay for... Try working under the pressure of having more work thrown on you during the course of your day from co-workers who can't come up with a way to fix something properly or are lazy and don't want to if someone else will do it for them... Now add a constantly bawking walkie-talkie radio (with the boss on the other end) clipped to your belt and things get chaotic... How many of you have been interrupted while performing something like adjusting the bottom rod of a CVR locking assembly whose bottom rod is dragging on the floor ??? Ever try to fix that while constantly being called away to see to someone else's EMERGENCY... Ok now imagine spending an entire ten-hour working day attempting to fix that door but never finishing... Knowing that you were only about fifteen minutes away from finishing it but back on the door the crashbar goes so you can get to someone else's crisis...

Just food for thought...

Evan the maintenance man

Reply to
Evan

Medeco now makes a SFIC and they will be the first to tell you that it is not a high security cylinder.

I may have missed it but I don't recall anyone mentioning drill resistance. SFIC (Best or anyone else's) does not incorporate drill resistant inserts.

Bobby

Reply to
Bob DeWeese, CML

I have seen Peaks advertised as high security but as far as I know it isn't UL-437 compliant.

Reply to
Putyourspamhere

Most high security solutions give up a little in reliability due to increased complexity and tighter tolerances.

As far as I know all those manufacturers offer restricted keyways.

I

That's really not correct. High security locks in my opinion must at a minimum be UL-437 complaint. Best is not. They are VERY easy to defeat using appropriate methods which are not especially exotic, actually pretty basic. Far easier in fact than compromising the average industrial door/jam/hinge system they are installed in.

And all of this is the benefit of them. High security really is not.

I'm not really sure what all that has to do with this discussion. Unless you are pointing out that I/C can greatly simplify administering and maintaining a system. If that's the case I don't think anybody will disagree with you.

Reply to
Putyourspamhere

Which in and of itself precludes their being a high security lock. Although I thought the Medeco SFIC was drill resistant?

Reply to
Putyourspamhere

Exactly.

I don't think so but I could be wrong. If it is drill resistant, it would only protect the shear line(s). It wouldn't protect the other drill point (if ya know what I mean).

Bobby

Reply to
Bob DeWeese, CML

Actually it appears that you were right in the first place. None of the advertising I looked at mentions drill resistance at all. I probably just assumed it due to the manufacturer. That other drill point and the potential ramifications of it are another serious problem that should prevent anyone from considering Best I/C to be high security.

Reply to
Putyourspamhere

So you think that giving up reliability is an ok thing ??? Unless someone takes the time to READ instructions and follow through with the recommended maintenance... Or is it that you know sooner than later you will be able to get a 'frantic' call because the lock no longer operates and you will be able to make some money off it... No offense but please explain why loosing reliability for a small increase in overall security is desireable in any way ???

I agree that you 'professionals' will view I/C as not being 'high security' but to most of the people out there in the world they are... Do you think them less secure than a 6-pin Schlage 'C' or 'E' keyway... What about the standard Sargent 'LA' keyway... Or a Yale 8 keyway... Ooo I know maybe a Yale 'GA' keyway ???

Those 'restricted' keyways that you say are out there are only really distributed through locksmiths... Most people in jobs similar to mine order from a catalog -- I was lucky enough to know someone in the trade who steered me to a local locksmith supply house so I have a wider product array to choose from than someone who orders from 'Maintenance Warehouse', 'R. W. Grainger', or another one of those catalog warehouse chain suppliers...

"Putyourspamhere" wrote in a message:

" -- That's really not correct. High security locks in my opinion must at a minimum be UL-437 complaint. Best is not. They are VERY easy to defeat using appropriate methods which are not especially exotic, actually pretty basic. Far easier in fact than compromising the average industrial door/jam/hinge system they are installed in."

How many clients do you install products for that are actually aware of those standards... I know that Government installations and certain entities engaged in business with the government (i.e. defense contractors) must comply with those standards... But to almost everyone else out there that uses the standard issue keyways because the architect who designed the building doesn't know much more about locks than the pretty webpages the manufacturers have up for public display to show hardware types and finishes... As far as 'industrial' door jams and hinges how often have you come across a building that was designed for such security from the ground up... I have once seen the aftermath of a burglar who rather than messing with a door with a Medeco cylinder installed and a latch protector plate took a utility knife to the sheetrock wall next to the door and opened it from the inside... That kind of 'flimsy' construction is the rule these days rather than the exception... If a business is unwilling to spend money to have a 'securely' constructed facility what are the odds that they will spend big bucks on the lock cylinders that are used in each door ???

Evan the maintenance man

Reply to
Evan

Yes and/or no. Depends on what forms of attack you're expecting and how that 6-chamber lock is pinned vs. how the (typically) 6-to-7-chamber IC core is pinned.. I'm not convinced going into greater detail on an open newsgroup is in the net public good.

If you want key control, great. If you want a true high security cylinder, also great. If you want convenient maintainance due to I/C design, also great. But these are separate questions; do NOT confuse one with the others.

Reply to
Joe Kesselman (yclept Keshlam

Did he say "giving up reliability" or " give up a little in reliability"? There is a difference - and in this case it is an important difference. Engineering (and life) is full of trade-offs. There are a huge number of places in the security industry where trade-offs include security, reliability, cost, size, ease of use, etc.

How about trading a small amount of reliability for a large increase in overall security? Might this be desireable?

Or are you taking the absolute position that the only thing that matters is reliability? In that case, you can use sliding bolts and have the utmost in reliability. :-)

(I'm ignoring your silly slur on locksmith motives.)

Most of the people out there think such things as: a) there is a "master" key that opens *all* locks b) you hold a lock pick in one hand, put it in the lock and the lock immediately opens c) sanding your finger tips is a necessary part of breaking into a safe

Do you agree with them?

I agree that this happens often - unfortunately too often. But the lesson is that the locksmith/security expert needs to educate the owner. It doesn't make the Best I/C into a "high security lock."

Reply to
Henry E Schaffer

Do you ever actually read what is written? Where did I say loss of reliability is desirable? Some loss of reliability due to tighter tolerances and greater complexity is, all other things being equal, unavoidable. Desirable or not does not enter into it unless you decide that it is so undesirable that you don't want a high security solution.

Because it isn't. And if we were to sell it as such we would be sued.

All things equal and factoring all forms of attack I don't think it has any significant security advantage. If you disagree why?

That's not always true. Restricted systems can be sold directly to end users. Yale is one that is happy to do so. Of course it is going to cost more.

So talk directly to the lock manufacturers.

They may not know the exact specifications but they know they want a lock that will stand up to attack with commonly available tools.

I know that Government installations and certain

Virtually any building designed and built for industrial purposes. Many which are designed and built for assorted commerical purposes. Drive down the back of any strip mall. You typically won't see any doors there which are easier to breach than a Best IC is. You also frequently won't see any accessable lock on the outside of the door at all. The ones you do see are typically a UL-437 compliant lock. There's a reason for that.

I have once seen the aftermath of a burglar who rather than messing

Many buildings are not sheetrock construction. Many industrial/commercial buildings are steel, cinderblock etc. When you are talking about sheetrock you are talking about interior spaces which are usually protected by higher overall security at the perimeter entrances. The fact is Best I/C is not a high security lock. Everyone here who has stated an opinion agrees with that except you. If you feel we are all wrong call Best. They will tell you flat out that it isn't a high security lock.

Reply to
Putyourspamhere

Not my customers once I take the time to educate them. Fact is they are not. A high security cylinder *by definition* is drill resistant. Period.

Do you think

To be honest, other than a Schlage F line I would probably end up drilling it (not counting "knock-off" keyways). I'm not ashamed to admit that if I can't pick a cyl in 5 - 10 minutes, tops, I break out the rotary pick. My time is more valuable than my ego. :)

How much lockwork do you do? If it's a considerable amount, you might want to look into joining the ILA (Institutional Locksmiths Association)

Thanks for sharing. :*}

You'd be surprised.

Bobby

Reply to
Bob DeWeese, CML

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.