Re: Sabotage investigation of fiber cuts in Northwest
At 08:53 PM 11/2/2003, you wrote:
I'm fairly certain that the telco huts or CO's have to accomodate multiple groups having access, so I'd bet that a padlock probably is a tough sell
There are special latches that accommodate multiple padlocks, where unlocking any one padlock opens the latch. They are routinely used on private gates in remote areas where each property owner (and the local fire department) have individual locks on the gate and opening any one lock allows access. One such device is shown on here: <http://www.tayhope.com/mlus.htm> jc
Indeed many places have multiple padlocks locked together and then hooked to a chain. Any padlock opened unlocks the chain. This really only works for chained shut gates, but it's works rather well, and you can revoke access with the key from an adjacent lock and a pair of boltcutters. This is how the cell companies seem to do it around here in East Michigan, and it seems to work quite well. Point being, they should have -some- way to lock the place up so not just anyone can waltz in and cut fibers. It can't really be that hard. -Paul On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 01:24, JC Dill wrote:
At 08:53 PM 11/2/2003, you wrote:
I'm fairly certain that the telco huts or CO's have to accomodate multiple groups having access, so I'd bet that a padlock probably is a tough sell
There are special latches that accommodate multiple padlocks, where unlocking any one padlock opens the latch. They are routinely used on private gates in remote areas where each property owner (and the local fire department) have individual locks on the gate and opening any one lock allows access.
One such device is shown on here:
<http://www.tayhope.com/mlus.htm>
jc
-- Paul Timmins <paul@timmins.net>
Maybe I'm missing something, but, if you have the bolt cutters, I don't see why you need the key to an adjacent lock or any of the locks. Additionally, most of these things are in remote enough locations that you are unlikely to be observed using the bolt cutters to gain access to the site. It's not like the requirement for a set of bolt cutters is a high barrier to entry for a thug that wants into the site. John is right about American Towers. They use the same combination at ALL of their sites and their security company will happily tell anyone that they think should have access what the "standard" combination is. American Tower is one of the worst-run operations I have ever encountered. Owen --On Monday, November 3, 2003 2:59 AM -0500 Paul Timmins <paul@timmins.net> wrote:
Indeed many places have multiple padlocks locked together and then hooked to a chain. Any padlock opened unlocks the chain. This really only works for chained shut gates, but it's works rather well, and you can revoke access with the key from an adjacent lock and a pair of boltcutters. This is how the cell companies seem to do it around here in East Michigan, and it seems to work quite well. Point being, they should have -some- way to lock the place up so not just anyone can waltz in and cut fibers. It can't really be that hard. -Paul
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 01:24, JC Dill wrote:
At 08:53 PM 11/2/2003, you wrote:
I'm fairly certain that the telco huts or CO's have to accomodate multiple groups having access, so I'd bet that a padlock probably is a tough sell
There are special latches that accommodate multiple padlocks, where unlocking any one padlock opens the latch. They are routinely used on private gates in remote areas where each property owner (and the local fire department) have individual locks on the gate and opening any one lock allows access.
One such device is shown on here:
<http://www.tayhope.com/mlus.htm>
jc
-- Paul Timmins <paul@timmins.net>
-- If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 10:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but, if you have the bolt cutters, I don't see why you need the key to an adjacent lock or any of the locks.
If you want to reconnect the chain back together without replacing the lock, you'll need a key from an adjacent lock so you can lock the lock on the left back on the lock to the right, or vice versa.
Additionally, most of these things are in remote enough locations that you are unlikely to be observed using the bolt cutters to gain access to the site. It's not like the requirement for a set of bolt cutters is a high barrier to entry for a thug that wants into the site.
Agreed, of course, to a determined criminal, even doors and locks won't keep him out. But at bare minimum they could at least TRY to have some semblance of security. Actually locking things would be a start.
John is right about American Towers. They use the same combination at ALL of their sites and their security company will happily tell anyone that they think should have access what the "standard" combination is.
haha. Sounds like a nice, high security operation. -Paul
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Maybe I'm missing something, but, if you have the bolt cutters, I don't see why you need the key to an adjacent lock or any of the locks.
If you want to reconnect the chain back together without replacing the lock, you'll need a key from an adjacent lock so you can lock the lock on the left back on the lock to the right, or vice versa.
Nope! Just add your own lock. As long as it's not shiny new, no one will ever notice.....each party cares exclusively about her own access, not who else might also be getting in... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but, if you have the bolt cutters, I don't see why you need the key to an adjacent lock or any of the locks.
If you want to put the chain back together, you'll need to open one of the locks, or add another lock in it's place. This assumes a legit need to remove someones lock. If you just want to get in, boltcutters will usually do it. Or even a pair of dykes can get you past most chain-link fence.. ...david --- david raistrick drais@atlasta.net http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 07:27:49 -0800 (PST) David Raistrick <drais@wow.atlasta.net> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but, if you have the bolt cutters, I don't see why you need the key to an adjacent lock or any of the locks.
If you want to put the chain back together, you'll need to open one of the locks, or add another lock in it's place.
This assumes a legit need to remove someones lock. If you just want to get in, boltcutters will usually do it.
it's a terrible security mechanism regardless. suppose i want reliable unauthorized access. i determine the make and style of lock in common use, buy a bunch, buy a bolt cutter. go cut out links at each facility i wish to compromise and install my own locks right along side the "legit" ones. how long do you think it'll take anyone to notice the extra locks? cheers, richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
At 12:30 PM 11/3/2003, Richard Welty wrote:
how long do you think it'll take anyone to notice the extra locks?
The link I posted showed a *latch* for a door (which could also be used on a gate if desired), not a series of locks on a chain to chain shut a gate. With a latch such as this one, you can't sneak an extra lock onto the gang, although you can cut and replace one. However... there are similar latches that have a shroud around the locks - which makes it next to impossible to get to the padlock's hasp with ordinary bolt cutters. I went thru a gate with one such locking mechanism a few weeks ago, I'll take photos the next time I go by. It's not that hard to design a system that takes more than bolt cutters to get in. You don't even have to make your system impossible to break into, just harder to break into than some other place - in most cases the miscreants will go break into the easier place instead. So, we can conclude that the most likely reason this network was vandalized was A) the miscreant had some reason to go after this network and B) it was much too easy to get in. If we can have airlocks at colos, we can certainly have better locks at remote fiber huts. jc p.s. please don't cc me on replies, either send to me (if you want) or to the list (if you prefer, I do), but not to both.
Owen DeLong wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but, if you have the bolt cutters, I don't see why you need the key to an adjacent lock or any of the locks. Additionally, most of these things are in remote enough locations that you are unlikely to be observed using the bolt cutters to gain access to the site. It's not like the requirement for a set of bolt cutters is a high barrier to entry for a thug that wants into the site.
To lock somebody out, all you need is another of your own padlocks to lockout the padloct you want to exclude. The owner of the locked-out lock can then remove their lock if they want to without unlocking the gate. Bolt-cutters are the master key where you have no other key.
participants (7)
-
David Lesher -
David Raistrick -
JC Dill -
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. -
Owen DeLong -
Paul Timmins -
Richard Welty