Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#71

Post by daxterspeed »

300bps wrote: post #47
daxterspeed wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On top of the software aspects many smart locks neglect the actual locking mechanism leaving the lock vulnerable to easy tricks like shimming. Smart locks also have to consider how they'll function without electricity. An exposed slot for a battery could let an attacker instantly fry the lock from the outside.

An exposed slot for a battery could let an attacker instantly fry the lock from the outside. A long time ago I got drunk at my birthday party so my wife drove us back to the beach house we rented. She parked my car so that it was about five inches overhanging someone’s driveway. Their driveway wasn’t blocked but it was a dick move and they retaliated by shaving off candle wax into my car’s door locks. Fortunately I a…

While I agree that the bar is high for smart locks I think that comes down to the promises made by making a lock "smart". Good software security should make a smart lock safer than even some of the best traditional locks.

I'll admit my example is poor. A good smart lock wouldn't default to unlocked if electronically fried. I still think it's worth being worried about how easily and discreetly you can vandalize a lock.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#72

Post by calgoo »

I dont know how your system works in the US, but here in Spain, I change the lock when i move into a rented apartment. When i move out, i hand the new keys to the owner. That way i make sure no old tenets or the owner can enter my apartment as they have no right to enter once its rented.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#74

Post by rlpb »

privateSFacct wrote: post #59
rlpb wrote: post #45

Clearly it wouldn't be reasonable to impose a lower standard of safety and security than a non-smart lock. I don't think landlords would attempt to argue that principle. The argument from them will be that smart locks do not regress security and safety. Given the widespread and well known security problems with IoT devices across the industry, I think it'd be reasonable to demand assurances on this. For example, an a…

Breach of contract? Huh? Most tenants do not have "audit trail" requirements in their contracts and their existing physical locks don't provide one. I always wonder if the folks making legal claims on hn actually practice law - the arguments are often nonsensical. Or maybe this type of logic is why law seems so backwards to folks

> Most tenants do not have "audit trail" requirements in their contracts and their existing physical locks don't provide one.

No, but the contract was signed at a time when physical locks were the only norm and the security and safety characteristics of a physical lock can be considered to be implied by that contract.

[For example a typical rental contract does not say "the landlord will maintain a working and suitable lock on the front door" but clearly a landlord would nevertheless be in breach of contract if the lock needed replacing due to wear and tear and the landlord refused to fix it]

This wouldn't rule out installing a smart lock in the future, but only if the security and safety characteristics, as implied by the contract, are not regressed by doing so.

A remote unlock facility wasn't agreed by the tenant, so it's reasonable to ask for an audit trail requirement in this case as previously the landlord (or their agent) would have had to be physically present, so their memory would serve as an audit trail.

I think that the perspective that [the addition of] a remote unlock facility without an audit trail compromises the security and safety of a physical lock and thus breaks the implied contract is a perfectly reasonable argument, especially given the prevalence of general industry failure (known vulnerabilities in specific models) in this area.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#76

Post by fyfy18 »

daxterspeed wrote: post #71
300bps wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An exposed slot for a battery could let an attacker instantly fry the lock from the outside. A long time ago I got drunk at my birthday party so my wife drove us back to the beach house we rented. She parked my car so that it was about five inches overhanging someone’s driveway. Their driveway wasn’t blocked but it was a dick move and they retaliated by shaving off candle wax into my car’s door locks. Fortunately I a…

While I agree that the bar is high for smart locks I think that comes down to the promises made by making a lock "smart". Good software security should make a smart lock safer than even some of the best traditional locks. I'll admit my example is poor. A good smart lock wouldn't default to unlocked if electronically fried. I still think it's worth being worried about how easily and discreetly you can vandalize a lock…

Do any smart locks actually do that? That just seems negligent from the manufacturer. To access my apartment building I need to go through two magnetically locked doors, so if the power is off they are off, but I assume that's for safety reasons so you can easily get out in an emergency. I was under the impression smart locks just exposed the normal locking mechanism on the inside.

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#77

Post by Faaak »

First thing I did when I moved into my flat was to change my locks.

I bought various cylinders that open with the same key. Thus I can open my garage, my flat, and my other small spaces with the same key.

Advantage too: the previous tenant wouldn't be able to access my home if they've kept the key. The landlord too.

And if there's an unlikely urgence ? Well, just break the door (it's a cheap cardboard-y one)

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#78

Post by dkarl »

nicolas_t wrote: post #35

Is there any secure smart lock? I would want one because I'm away 3 months a year and it would simplify renting my apartment on airbnb when I'm away (especially with the rent I pay in HK) but I'm also rather worried about the security implications. And from my brief research, a lot of vendors have very little documentations about security. I would obviously only consider one that has a fallback to an actual key.

If you're looking for convenience, a basic $30 (USD) lockbox (example[1]) from a hardware store is an easy way, albeit without much extra security. Whoever cleans up between guests can change the code. That's what I stuck with when I was renting my house short-term. There was always a risk that a guest could copy the key and come back a month later, but I felt like I would rather live with that risk than pay $100+ for a smart lock and potentially make myself an easily visible target for a simple hack. If some teenage hackers looking to cause mischief took a hammer or spray paint to the interior, they could easily have cost me more than a hypothetical burglar walking away with the TV and other electronics.

[1] https://www.homedepot.com/p/Master-Lock-5400D-9-6-cu-in-Set-...

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#79

Post by Faaak »

HelloNurse wrote: post #68

What about connecting the lock to your network, collecting full network logs, and having the landlord arrested for hacking as soon as the wrong packet comes out of the device?

I suppose that the lock only talks with a central server via an encrypted connection, so you wouldn't see any proof

Re: Landlords forcing smart locks on tenants

#80

Post by cmg »

adenhoed wrote: post #73

In The Netherlands you have the right to replace the locks with your own locks, as long as you can re-install the original lock once you move out. How is that arranged in the US?

Do you need to provide your landlord with a copy of the key to your new lock?

In the US, it's standard for a rental agreement and/or state law to specify that the landlord can enter your property with 24 hours notice even if you're not there, or to enter immediately in case of an emergency.

Post reply on HN