“`html

Weaknesses in digital safes featuring Securam Prologic locks:

Although both methods illustrate significant security flaws, Omo indicates that the one taking advantage of a function designed for legitimate access by locksmiths is the more prevalent and hazardous. “This breach is such that, if you possessed a safe with this type of lock, I could instantaneously retrieve the code without any specialized equipment, nothing,” Omo asserts. “Suddenly, based on our experiments, it appears that individuals can infiltrate nearly any Securam Prologic lock globally.”

[…]

Omo and Rowley mention that they alerted Securam regarding both their safe-unlocking methods in the spring of the previous year, yet until now, have maintained their confidentiality due to legal threats from the corporation. “We will consult our counsel regarding trade defamation if you pursue the route of public disclosure or announcement,” a representative from Securam communicated to the researchers prior to last year’s Defcon, where they initially intended to present their findings.

Only after securing pro bono legal counsel from the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Coders’ Rights Project did they choose to proceed with their intention to discuss Securam’s vulnerabilities at Defcon. Omo and Rowley emphasize that they are still being cautious not to reveal sufficient technical information that might enable others to duplicate their methods, while simultaneously seeking to alert safe owners about two distinct vulnerabilities prevalent in many of these devices.

The organization claims it intends to enhance its locks by year’s end, but has no intentions to rectify any locks that have already been sold.

“`