Sabotage investigation of fiber cuts in Northwest
paul at timmins.net
Mon Nov 3 15:23:34 UTC 2003
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.
More information about the NANOG