What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/4/2025 1:27 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

In the UK, the seals are now designated "Tamper Evident" - which is more accurate.

Yes, that is likely the designation, here, as well.

Note that even they (at least adhesive ones) aren't
"tamper proof" *or* "evident" as one can remove all traces
of the seal and REPLACE it with another, identical, mass
produced seal.

(This is why holographic seals have been used)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

In the UK, the seals are now designated "Tamper Evident" - which is more accurate.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 3/4/2025 1:27 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

In the UK, the seals are now designated "Tamper Evident" - which is more accurate.

Yes, that is likely the designation, here, as well.

Note that even they (at least adhesive ones) aren't
"tamper proof" *or* "evident" as one can remove all traces
of the seal and REPLACE it with another, identical, mass
produced seal.

(This is why holographic seals have been used)

Some can be carefully soaked off with the appropriate solvent and then
replaced after the item has been reassembled - I am not at liberty to
tell you how I know this.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/4/2025 2:58 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 3/4/2025 1:27 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

In the UK, the seals are now designated "Tamper Evident" - which is more >>> accurate.

Yes, that is likely the designation, here, as well.

Note that even they (at least adhesive ones) aren't
"tamper proof" *or* "evident" as one can remove all traces
of the seal and REPLACE it with another, identical, mass
produced seal.

(This is why holographic seals have been used)

Some can be carefully soaked off with the appropriate solvent and then replaced after the item has been reassembled - I am not at liberty to
tell you how I know this.

Most of the ones that I have encountered have "perforated" adhesives
(for want of a better term). As you remove the seal, portions of the
adhesive remain behind -- i.e., they adhere more strongly to the
applied surface than to the seal, itself.

[MS licenses can be removed with a fair bit of effort -- less if you
are doing this on a large scale. But, they, in themselves, tend not
to have much value (unless you are undergoing a license audit -- in
which case, you will likely have to show proof that you PURCHASED
however many you are found to claim)]

Typically, this results in words like "VOID" appearing where the
seal had been.

*THIS* can be removed with mild solvents. But, unless replaced
by a similar seal, its absence makes the tampering very apparent.

Even solvent-welded cases can be replaced with similar counterfeits.
The question becomes how much value can be obtained by accessing
your "no user serviceable parts, inside" vs. the cost of mimicking
your "seal-ing" method.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 3/4/2025 2:58 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 3/4/2025 1:27 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

In the UK, the seals are now designated "Tamper Evident" - which is more >>> accurate.

Yes, that is likely the designation, here, as well.

Note that even they (at least adhesive ones) aren't
"tamper proof" *or* "evident" as one can remove all traces
of the seal and REPLACE it with another, identical, mass
produced seal.

(This is why holographic seals have been used)

Some can be carefully soaked off with the appropriate solvent and then replaced after the item has been reassembled - I am not at liberty to
tell you how I know this.

Most of the ones that I have encountered have "perforated" adhesives
(for want of a better term). As you remove the seal, portions of the adhesive remain behind -- i.e., they adhere more strongly to the
applied surface than to the seal, itself.

You need to soak it longer and peel from both ends and the sides ;-)


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

One way clutch head screws exist, can be tightened clockwise but cam out counter clockwise.


--
piglet

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/4/2025 7:25 AM, piglet wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

One way clutch head screws exist, can be tightened clockwise but cam out counter clockwise.

There are a couple of similar designs. But, they can still be removed.
E.g., we have decorative "bars" on our windows, held in place by such
hardware. That didn't stop us from *removing* them when we painted
them and the house.

Likewise, the "locks" for the hubcaps on cars. These things just make
it "tedious" but not impossible:
<https://www.brycefastener.com/>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 02:01:05 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

On 3/4/2025 1:27 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

In the UK, the seals are now designated "Tamper Evident" - which is more
accurate.

Yes, that is likely the designation, here, as well.

Note that even they (at least adhesive ones) aren't
"tamper proof" *or* "evident" as one can remove all traces
of the seal and REPLACE it with another, identical, mass
produced seal.

(This is why holographic seals have been used)

I rented a competitor's instrument to test it and see what it looked
like inside. It was generously plastered with stickers that said
WARANTY VOID IF SEAL BROKEN. Fortunately, Amazon sells reels of that
exact same sticker.

It was pretty ugly inside. And the boards were signed (some people do
that) by a former employee of mine.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lq3m0xpc704us2hn59nfd/DSC06740.JPG?rlkey=9kofe5tnjblh2t06jqvyswicf&raw=1

Looks like the front-panel BNCs soldered to the bottom of the board
and the joints broke, so wires were added.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/4/2025 3:17 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 3/4/2025 2:58 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 3/4/2025 1:27 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

In the UK, the seals are now designated "Tamper Evident" - which is more >>>>> accurate.

Yes, that is likely the designation, here, as well.

Note that even they (at least adhesive ones) aren't
"tamper proof" *or* "evident" as one can remove all traces
of the seal and REPLACE it with another, identical, mass
produced seal.

(This is why holographic seals have been used)

Some can be carefully soaked off with the appropriate solvent and then
replaced after the item has been reassembled - I am not at liberty to
tell you how I know this.

Most of the ones that I have encountered have "perforated" adhesives
(for want of a better term). As you remove the seal, portions of the
adhesive remain behind -- i.e., they adhere more strongly to the
applied surface than to the seal, itself.

You need to soak it longer and peel from both ends and the sides ;-)

That increases effort and time. To a "John Doe", neither may be
important as deterrents. To a *business* (e.g., someone refilling
printer cartridges), BOTH likely would!

Which brings me back to my original question:
Is the goal to discourage or prevent disassembly? *Or*, to leave
*evidence* of said activities?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <vq68c3$1p096$1@dont-email.me>,
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)?

That's probably part of it.

Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Another part of it, likely.

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

In some cases, it's a question of "anti-circumvention". Products
which are handling secured media (e.g. any high-definition video which
has Denial-of-Rights-Management involved) often have to meet a
security standard which requires that any access to the decrypted
media data would require the use of "non-ordinary" tools and
equipment. If they don't, the DRM/encryption provider won't license
the product and provide the necessary product provisioning keys.

Using "security" fasteners which can't be opened using a flat-blade or
Phillips screwdriver can be enough to move the product out of the
"access using ordinary tools" category, and be good enough to meet the requirements of the media license holder.

Back when I was working for TiVo, and this issue came up with one of
the vendors we were working with, I suggested that the only way to
really deter people from opening up the DVR case and trying to access
the disk and its contents, would be to install at least one alien
face-hugger egg inside each unit. A few people open the cases, die
horribly, and unleash a plague of vicious acid-blooded monsters on
their communities... eventually the word would get around and people
would stop doing that :-)

Management wouldn't go for it, and decided that security torx screws
would be sufficient.

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

For warranty purposes, possibly so. However, this won't
"protect" the internals of a product where the owner has
no intention of ever letting the product get back into
the hands of the manufacturer for examination.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/5/2025 2:56 PM, Dave Platt wrote:

In article <vq68c3$1p096$1@dont-email.me>,
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)?

That's probably part of it.

Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Another part of it, likely.

I'm just looking at the types of places that I encounter them
(in electronic kit). PTZ camera assemblies, securing the mounting
ears to servers, etc.

These are markets where the "user" would likely have ready access
to such tools; it's not like using them to secure parts of a
*dishwasher* or other device that would likely be used by
The Masses.

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

In some cases, it's a question of "anti-circumvention". Products
which are handling secured media (e.g. any high-definition video which
has Denial-of-Rights-Management involved) often have to meet a
security standard which requires that any access to the decrypted
media data would require the use of "non-ordinary" tools and
equipment. If they don't, the DRM/encryption provider won't license
the product and provide the necessary product provisioning keys.

Using "security" fasteners which can't be opened using a flat-blade or Phillips screwdriver can be enough to move the product out of the
"access using ordinary tools" category, and be good enough to meet the requirements of the media license holder.

<frown> Seems like a pretty low bar, given that the tools are dirt
cheap (e.g., one can buy a set of "security bits" at Harbor Freight;
an Avsafe tool might be a bit more obscure but, in the days of internet
search, that doesn't seem all that high a bar, either!)

Back when I was working for TiVo, and this issue came up with one of
the vendors we were working with, I suggested that the only way to
really deter people from opening up the DVR case and trying to access
the disk and its contents, would be to install at least one alien
face-hugger egg inside each unit. A few people open the cases, die
horribly, and unleash a plague of vicious acid-blooded monsters on
their communities... eventually the word would get around and people
would stop doing that :-)

We used a similar ("consequential") approach to protecting against
literal counterfeiting -- design the product so that copies (created
without knowledge of how they were detected as such) would fail
*randomly*.

A device that fails HARD when it detects that it is a counterfeit is
relatively easy to work-around. OTOH, a device that just "misbehaves"
is difficult to diagnose as the cause-effect change, rapidly.

The user/purchaser gets disgusted with the shitty performance and
returns it -- or, gets word around that the particular vendor sells
crappy products (need not know that they are counterfeit).

I had a client who wanted a "foolproof" accounting system for
"amusement devices" (think "coin-op"). His hope (delusion?)
was that he could then entrust UNTRUSTWORTHY people with the
maintenance of his equipment (including access to the coin
handling portions thereof) and always be assured an accurate
accounting of "play".

I proposed a dozen different schemes -- and then demonstrated how
easily they could each be subverted (often with no/low-tech).

"Hire trustworthy people. Better yet, require TWO people to
be present to perform such actions and hope BOTH can't be
compromised." (this is how gaming establishments work; but,
then, there is "real money" at stake, there!)

Management wouldn't go for it, and decided that security torx screws
would be sufficient.

You can store "stuff" as charge and coat the die with aggressive
agents that would make microprobing (a live circuit) difficult.
But, all this (and any similar measures) does is raise the bar
for the "aggressor".

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

For warranty purposes, possibly so. However, this won't
"protect" the internals of a product where the owner has
no intention of ever letting the product get back into
the hands of the manufacturer for examination.

That's the nature of the question. I don't see any sort of
fastener that does anything meaningful /if the device can
be in an unsupervised situation/.

[Note that fasteners on garage hardware (tension springs) are
simply painted RED and accessible using standard tools. If
you are silly enough to dick with them, be sure to count your
digits afterwards!]

OTOH, if you expect to see the device *again*, all you want is
something that makes such tampering evident.

E.g., the "do not remove this screw" fasteners on disk drives are
just "hidden", undisguised, under an adhesive label. That, alone,
should tell a casual user "don't mess with this" (cuz you gonna
break things!)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 23:59:14 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers"
for damn near any of them, cheap.

Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that
anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to
be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party
took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals
of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it
shouldn't fall on your shoulders)

Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly?

I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more
conclusive?

I read that when a car maker introduces a new model, the first ones
are bought by competitors for teardown. A 7-point Torx won't bother
them.

Maybe lawyers want products to have visible and nominally difficult tamper-resistant fasteners, so when people lose a fingertip to a fan,
they can argue that they tried to prevent that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)