We've recently had a few robberies in my building. I had a Medeco lock installed a few months before, so I thought I was safe, but a policeman told us that even Medeco locks can be drilled (like the other locks were).
AFAIK with great difficulty - a 'Drermel' grinder is also needed. Time required and noise made would be a stiff deterrent to this sort of attack. The question arises of on how many occasions does a burglar attack a cylinder with hardened steel inserts (such as Medeco) etc. Probably very, very few.
Interesting, there are two distinct designs of Medeco (two and a half including Biaxial). It seems both designs have been picked, but only by the most skilled people and not guaranteed to succeed every time. Medeco should have learnt from Bramah and Chubb - Mr Hobbs picked their supposedly pickproof locks, and these locks from 200 years ago were pretty good, even when compared with today's standards (the Bramah mechanism has essentially remained the same to the present except for the addition of false notches as well as the first lock that could be decently masterkeyed).
As for drilling - do all types have drill resistant inserts or some less than others? Again a skilled person familiar with the design could compromise them moderately quickly, but fortunately suck skilled people can make a good living by legitimate means.
Three other points:
The Medeco was not drilled whereas other locks nearby were - it was obviously a sound investment.
Key control did not seem to be an issue except possibly for the building entrance, and even then someone could wrangle their way in unless there is a full time concierge.
If you are worried about cylinders being drilled, go and buy a 'BS
3621' certified Chubb, ERA, or similar brand lever tumbler mortise lock from a locksmith when visiting UK, New Zealand, Australia etc. That will have the average USA crook confused.
Obviously you have never observed the process of someone renting an apartment and then illegally sub-letting it to someone else...
A SAVVY landlord would want key control on ALL of his locks, not just the ones on the exterior doors... Control who can get copies of keys and you have a higher likelihood of knowing exactly weho has access to your property...
Evan, ~~formerly a maintenance man, now a college student
The tenant fitted his own Medeco in this instance. If this procedure is standard for that building, the only key control (with respect to tenants' areas) the landlord is responsible for is over the manager's set of tenants' keys (assuming tenants are obliged to provide them). If the cylinders on other tenancies were drilled, key control did not seem to be an issue with respect to these doors.
Sorry Fred, but you have some misinformation in your post. First of all, Medeco cylinders are UL 437 rated, look it up, you aren't drilling them in 5 minutes unless you are using carbide bits.
Medeco original cylinders were always advertised as pick resistant and the company advertised a $10,000.00 reward for anyone who could present a system to pick them. The conditions of that challenge were that three different brand new cylinders had to be defeated. No one was ever paid the $10,000.00. One gentleman did manage to defeat one cylinder after nearly 8 hours of picking and was paid $3,500.00. Later, when asked if he was the guy who picked the Medeco cylinder he always responded "I opened it on one occasion". After offering the reward for four years it was withdrawn due to lack of interest. Nobody could do it and people stopped trying.
The Lock Technology tool did not pick Medeco cylinders, it decoded the combination so that a key could be made. The way they suggested making the key from their 'build-a-key' kit was a patent infringement. It was also a patent infringement to make a key from the decoded information and it was on that basis that the suit was won. That same argument was used to win cases against Star and Kis for making blanks.
Changes were made to the original product to defeat the Lock Technology tool within 30 days. Since the suit was won, only 7 tools were ever sold and they have all been accounted for, there is no need for the added expense of one of the changes that was made to defeat the tool and it has been discontinued, other changes are still in effect to this day.
ehh, no offense, but I want to watch it doen THAT fast.. I had to do one, an suggested to the owner he take a 'hot knife' to it, considering how much OTHER damage was going to have to be brute force removed as well. and this was not one of the better grade 'door type' cylinders. --Shiva--
That's what I love about those standards. They preclude using commonly available tools. If it can be drilled in 5 minutes using a carbide bit, it can be drilled in 5 minutes.
I did not find the text of the UL437 standard, but if the security planner expects the Medeco cylinders to be drill resistant and sets up guard patrols based on a 30 minute interval, they could be suprised when the lock is compromised in 5 minutes.
Doesn't it seem strange that the existance of a device that can decode Medeco cylinders is discounted simply becasue it's illegal to sell them? It's not illegal to make them, and one who makes and uses such a device would not be prosecuted, they'd be sued.
From that comment we now know you have no idea what you are talking about.
Now we know why you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest that you research a little harder and you will find that the drill test is for 15 minutes and that 15 minutes is for continued drilling under pressure. If the tester breaks a bit or even gets tired they stop the clock. I am sure that there are many lock manufacturers who would prefer a real life test under real conditions but in fact they are subjected to a harsher standard.
Do you read? If so, you fail to comprehend. The important part of my previous post was this "Changes were made to the original product to defeat the Lock Technology tool within 30 days." There were many changes to the product that invalidated the Lock Technology tool, only one of those changes was discontinued due to the increase in cost it would cause. The locks can not be decoded by those methods any longer and I know of no other methods that will work either. BBE.