<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Secure Doors</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/</link>
	<description>Jacob's thoughts on technology, politics, and daily life.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:25:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/comment-page-1/#comment-34</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/#comment-34</guid>
		<description>Sure, they&#039;re easier to steal than a number in your head, but I&#039;ve worked at 2 Fortune 500 companies in the Financial &amp; Investment industry that used them, so it can&#039;t really be THAT big of a risk.  Definitely much better than telling all of your friends the code.

If someone loses their card, report it stolen, they deactivate it, it&#039;s worthless plastic.  Problem solved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sure, they&#8217;re easier to steal than a number in your head, but I&#8217;ve worked at 2 Fortune 500 companies in the Financial &amp; Investment industry that used them, so it can&#8217;t really be THAT big of a risk.  Definitely much better than telling all of your friends the code.</p>
<p>If someone loses their card, report it stolen, they deactivate it, it&#8217;s worthless plastic.  Problem solved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/comment-page-1/#comment-33</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/#comment-33</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I think you would have a maximum of 60 keystrokes to get it:&lt;/blockquote&gt;

No. There&#039;s 60 &lt;strong&gt;combinations&lt;/strong&gt;, but you need 210 &lt;strong&gt;keystrokes&lt;/strong&gt; to enter them -- when you make a bad guess, you have to start over and  re-enter all the previous (known) digits again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I think you would have a maximum of 60 keystrokes to get it:</p></blockquote>
<p>No. There&#8217;s 60 <strong>combinations</strong>, but you need 210 <strong>keystrokes</strong> to enter them &#8212; when you make a bad guess, you have to start over and  re-enter all the previous (known) digits again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/comment-page-1/#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/#comment-32</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;The real solution is RFID badges like every legitimate company in North America uses. Cheap to produce, cheap to maintain, easy to implement&lt;/blockquote&gt;

And easy to steal, oh yes. Use your brain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The real solution is RFID badges like every legitimate company in North America uses. Cheap to produce, cheap to maintain, easy to implement</p></blockquote>
<p>And easy to steal, oh yes. Use your brain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ryan</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/comment-page-1/#comment-31</link>
		<dc:creator>ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/#comment-31</guid>
		<description>This is still silly. You can just tell me the code and I spread it around, it&#039;s still not even slightly secure.

The real solution is RFID badges like every legitimate company in North America uses. Cheap to produce, cheap to maintain, easy to implement (eg, instead of a keypad that reads a code from someone&#039;s fingers, it&#039;s an RFID receiver that reads a code from someone&#039;s access badge).

Each person who has access gets a badge, then you can not only have better security against &quot;Oh the code is 555876,&quot; but also better security from logs of who entered when, this way people are deterred quite effectively from sharing badges/access to the area.

Duh?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is still silly. You can just tell me the code and I spread it around, it&#8217;s still not even slightly secure.</p>
<p>The real solution is RFID badges like every legitimate company in North America uses. Cheap to produce, cheap to maintain, easy to implement (eg, instead of a keypad that reads a code from someone&#8217;s fingers, it&#8217;s an RFID receiver that reads a code from someone&#8217;s access badge).</p>
<p>Each person who has access gets a badge, then you can not only have better security against &#8220;Oh the code is 555876,&#8221; but also better security from logs of who entered when, this way people are deterred quite effectively from sharing badges/access to the area.</p>
<p>Duh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/comment-page-1/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/#comment-30</guid>
		<description>I think you would have a maximum of 60 keystrokes to get it:

10 trys to get the first #
10 for second
10 for third
10 for fourth
10 for fifth
10 for sixth

60 tries and you find a correct #.

Brian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you would have a maximum of 60 keystrokes to get it:</p>
<p>10 trys to get the first #<br />
10 for second<br />
10 for third<br />
10 for fourth<br />
10 for fifth<br />
10 for sixth</p>
<p>60 tries and you find a correct #.</p>
<p>Brian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John B</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/comment-page-1/#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>John B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/#comment-29</guid>
		<description>yellowstuff, read the article again. The door TELLS you when you press the incorrect button.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yellowstuff, read the article again. The door TELLS you when you press the incorrect button.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Correcter</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/comment-page-1/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>Correcter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/#comment-28</guid>
		<description>The number 151,200 is not correct.  That is the number of ways you can choose 6 unique digits.  It doesn&#039;t account for duplicate digits in the code, or for the fact that the order of the digits in the code matters.

The correct number of possible codes is actually much easier to come by.  Note that the possible codes range from

000000
000001
...
999998
999999

You&#039;ll see that it is simply every number between 0 and 999,999 padded with 0&#039;s on the left.  So, there are actually 1,000,000 codes to try with the new system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The number 151,200 is not correct.  That is the number of ways you can choose 6 unique digits.  It doesn&#8217;t account for duplicate digits in the code, or for the fact that the order of the digits in the code matters.</p>
<p>The correct number of possible codes is actually much easier to come by.  Note that the possible codes range from</p>
<p>000000<br />
000001<br />
&#8230;<br />
999998<br />
999999</p>
<p>You&#8217;ll see that it is simply every number between 0 and 999,999 padded with 0&#8217;s on the left.  So, there are actually 1,000,000 codes to try with the new system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: yellowstuff</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>yellowstuff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jacobsheehy.com/technology/secure-doors/#comment-27</guid>
		<description>I believe the math at the end is wrong. There are 1,000,000 permutations
of 6 digits. Your math would be right if order were not important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe the math at the end is wrong. There are 1,000,000 permutations<br />
of 6 digits. Your math would be right if order were not important.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
