11–20 of 118 posts
"The fact that the combination was in a specific pattern and did not appear to be a random combination of numbers could also factor into a calculation of the odds, he added." Hehe. I guess he'll have to produce a list of non-random numbers to work those odds out.
EDIT: sorry, my research suggests that safe-cracking with thermic lances is plausible but not practical (source; Mythbusters, of course)
If this is the case, and there have been museum visitors having a go at opening the safe each day... this becomes a non story, right?
First time I played the game I just randomly entered 5 digits, and the door unlocked.
Reminds me of the time I was playing a computer game, and right at the beginning you are presented with a door 5-digit combination lock. The objective of the game was to explore the game world and eventually discover all 5 digits of the code. First time I played the game I just randomly entered 5 digits, and the door unlocked.
"he noted that some combination locks allow for wiggle-room and if this one had a three-digit leeway, Mr Rosenthal put the chances at 1 in 8,000, "which is still a small chance"." If this is the case, and there have been museum visitors having a go at opening the safe each day... this becomes a non story, right?
1 in 216000... seems like you could build some robotic device to brute force that pretty easily... or you know, introduce it to a thermic lance. EDIT: sorry, my research suggests that safe-cracking with thermic lances is plausible but not practical (source; Mythbusters, of course)
Reminds me of the time I was playing a computer game, and right at the beginning you are presented with a door 5-digit combination lock. The objective of the game was to explore the game world and eventually discover all 5 digits of the code. First time I played the game I just randomly entered 5 digits, and the door unlocked.
Now hands up everyone who's TSA luggage lock combination is 9-1-1. Social engineering is the most interesting cracking to me.