Access member only content, take part in discussions with comments on blogs, news and reviews and receive all the latest security industry news directly to your inbox. Join now for free.
A confirmation email has been sent to your email address - SUPPLIED EMAIL HERE. Please click on the link in the email to verify your email address. You need to verify your email before you can start posting.
If you do not receive your confirmation email within the next few minutes, it may be because the email has been captured by a junk mail filter. Please ensure you add the domain @scmagazine.com.au to your white-listed senders.
This seems a bit bizarre. In the same way that attackers find holes in computer security systems, problems are found with physical security systems such as locks, safes, intruder alarms, and so on. And like the IT security industry, the physical security people regularly attack their products to see how well they resist.
Where the two worlds diverge is regarding the release of information about weaknesses that are discovered. It's almost unheard of for advisories to be released about physical security systems. When Matt Blaze published his excellent paper on safecracking (see www.crypto.com/papers), it was met with cries of despair from the vendor community.
Login above or Register now and get unlimited access.
Already subscribed but have forgotten your login? Recover your password your here.