Hubbry Logo
Safe-crackingSafe-crackingMain
Open search
Safe-cracking
Community hub
Safe-cracking
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Safe-cracking
Safe-cracking
Safe-cracking
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A still from the 1918 silent film Blindfolded, in which a character proves herself to be a competent safecracker

Safe-cracking is the process of opening a safe without either the combination or the key.

Physical methods

[edit]

Safes have widely different designs, construction methods, and locking mechanisms. A safe cracker needs to know the specifics of whichever will come into play.

Lock manipulation

[edit]

Lock manipulation is a damage-free, combination-based method. A well known surreptitious bypass technique, it requires knowledge of the device and well developed touch, along with the senses of sight and possibly sound.

While manipulation of combination locks is usually performed on Group 2 locks, many Group 1 locks are also susceptible. The goal is to successfully obtain the combination one number at a time.[1] Manipulation procedures vary, but all rely on exploiting mechanical imperfections in the lock to open it, and, if desired, recover its combination for future use. Similar damage-free bypass can also be achieved by using a computerized auto-dialer or manipulation robot in a so-called brute-force attack. These auto-dialer machines may take 24 hours or more to reach the correct combination,[2] although modern devices with advanced software may do so faster.

Mechanical safe locks are manipulated primarily by feel and vision, with sound sometimes supplementing the process. To find the combination the operator uses the lock against itself by measuring internal movements with the dial numbers. More sophisticated locks use advanced mechanics to reduce any feedback available to a technician in identifying a combination. These group 1 [3] locks were developed in response to group 2[4] lock manipulation.[5] Wheels made from lightweight materials will reduce valuable sensory feedback, but are mainly used for improved resistance against radiographic attacks.[6] Manipulation is often the preferred choice in lost-combination lockouts, since it requires no repairs or damage, but can be time consuming for an operator, with the specific difficulty depending on the unique wheel shapes and where the gates rest in relation to them. A novice's opening time will be governed by these random inconsistencies, while some leading champions of this art show consistency. There are also a number of tools on the market to assist safe engineers in manipulating a combination lock open in the field.

Nearly all combination locks allow some "slop", or deviation, while entering a combination on the dial. On average, 1% radial rotation in either direction from the center of the true combination number allows the fence to fall despite slight deviation, so that for a given safe, it may be necessary only to try a subset of possible combinations.[7] Such "slops" may allow for a margin of error of plus or minus two digits, which means that trying multiples of five would be sufficient in this case. This drastically reduces the time required to exhaust the number of meaningful combinations. A further reduction in solving time is obtained by trying all possible settings for the last wheel for a given setting of the first wheels before nudging the next-to-last wheel to its next meaningful setting, instead of zeroing the lock each time with a number of turns in one direction.

Guessing the combination

[edit]
Further information: Password cracking

A safe may be compromised by using a manufacturer-set combination. Known as try-out combinations, these allow an owner initial access to their safe in order to set a new unique one. Sources of try-out combinations exist by manufacturer.

Other easy-to-guess combinations include a birthdate, street address, or driver's license number.

Autodialer

[edit]

Autodialing machines have been developed to open safes. Unlike fictional machines that can open any combination in a matter of seconds, such machines are usually specific to a particular type of lock and must cycle through thousands of combinations before success. Such a device was created by two students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which took 21,000 tries to open a Sargent and Greenleaf 8500 lock on a Diebold Safe. Lockmasters, Inc. markets the QX3 Combi Autodialer (LKMCOMBI) that works on a variety of 3 and 4 Wheel combination safe locks.[8]

Another computer-aided method uses tools similar to autodialers, which instead make measurements of the internal components of the lock then deduce the combination in a way similar to that of a human safe cracker. Mas Hamilton's SoftDrill was one such device, but is no longer in production.

Weak-point drilling

[edit]
Safe-drilling with a drill rig

Some safes are susceptible to compromise by drilling. Manufacturers publish tightly-guarded drill-point diagrams for locksmiths for specific models. Drilling is an aid in bypassing the locking mechanism, as well as gaining more information about it in order to defeat it. It is the most common method used by locksmiths on malfunctioning or damaged locks, and commonly used in burglary.

Drill-points are often located close to the axis of the dial on the combination lock, but drilling for observation may sometimes require drilling through the top, sides or rear of the safe. While observing the lock, the attacker manipulates the dial to align the lock gates so that the fence falls and the bolt is disengaged.

Bypass attacks involve physical manipulation of both the lock and its bolt mechanism.

Punching, peeling and using a torch are other methods of compromising a safe. The punch system is widely used by criminals for rapid entry. Punching was developed by Pavle Stanimirovic and used in New York City. Peeling is a method that involves removing the outer skin of the safe.

All quality safes protect against drilling attacks through the strategic use of specially tempered or alloyed hardplate steel, or composite hardplate (casting tungsten carbide chips into alloys such as cobalt-vanadium, designed to shatter the cutting tips of a drill bit). These include protecting the locking mechanism, the bolts, and areas where drilling could be used to advantage. Special diamond or tungsten-carbide drill-bits can make some headway with some hardplates, but it is still a time-consuming and difficult process.

Some high-security safes use a tempered glass relocker. This has wires that lead from the glass to randomly located, spring-loaded bolts. If a penetrating drill or torch breaks the glass, the bolts are released, blocking retraction of the main locking bolts. A gas abrasive drill can sometimes be used to safely drill through a glass relocker.

Plasma cutters and thermal lances can be as hot as 2,200 °C (3,990 °F), much hotter than traditional oxyacetylene torches, and can be used to burn through the metal on a safe. Many modern high-security safes also incorporate additional thermal safeties to foil blow torches and thermal lances. These are usually in the form of fusible links integrated into the glass relocker cabling, which trigger it when a set temperature is exceeded.

Drilling is an attractive method of safecracking for locksmiths, as it is usually quicker than manipulation, and drilled safes can generally be repaired and returned to service.

Scoping

[edit]

Scoping a safe is the process of drilling a hole and inserting a borescope into the safe to get an intimate look into a specific part of the security container. When manipulation-proof mechanical locks and glass re-lockers are implemented as security measures, scoping is the most practical option. One common method is called "scoping the change key hole." The safecracker will drill a hole allowing him to get his scope into a position to observe the change key hole. While spinning the dial and looking through the change key hole for certain landmarks on the combination lock's wheel pack, it is possible to obtain the combination and then dial open the safe with the correct combination. This method is common for a professional safe specialist because it leaves the lock in good working order and only simple repairs are needed to bring the safe barrier back to its original condition. It is also a common way to bypass difficult hard plates and glass re-lockers since the change key hole can be scoped by drilling the top, side, or back of the container.

Brute force methods

[edit]
A safe broken open with brute force, showing destroyed electronic components

Other methods of cracking a safe generally involve damaging the safe so that it is no longer functional. These methods may involve explosives or other devices to inflict severe force and damage the safe so it may be opened. Examples of penetration tools include acetylene torches, drills, and thermal lances. This method requires care as the contents of the safe may be damaged. Safe-crackers can use what are known as jam shots to blow off the safe's doors.

Most modern safes are fitted with 'relockers' (like the one described above) which are triggered by excessive force and will then lock the safe semi-permanently (a safe whose relocker has tripped must then be forced, as the combination or key alone will no longer suffice). This is why a professional safe-technician will use manipulation rather than brute force to open a safe so they do not risk releasing the relocker.

Radiological methods

[edit]

Penetrating radiation such as X-ray radiation can be used to reveal the internal angular relationship of the wheels gates to the flys mechanism to deduce the combination. Some modern safe locks are made of lightweight materials such as nylon to inhibit this technique, since most safe exteriors are made of much denser metals. The Chubb Manifoil Mk4 combination lock contains a lead shield surrounding part of the lock to defeat such attempts to read its wheels.

Tunneling into bank vaults

[edit]

Large bank vaults which are often located underground have been compromised by safe-crackers who have tunneled in using digging equipment. This method of safe-cracking has been countered by building patrol-passages around the underground vaults. These patrol-passages allow early detection of any attempts to tunnel into a vault.

Safe bouncing

[edit]
See also: Lock bumping

A number of inexpensive safes sold to households for under $100 use mechanical locking mechanisms that are vulnerable to bouncing. Many cheap safes use a magnetic locking pin to prevent lateral movement of an internal locking bolt, and use a solenoid to move the pin when the correct code is entered. This pin can also be moved by the impact of the safe being dropped or struck while on its side, which allows the safe to be opened.[9][10][11] One security researcher taught his three-year-old son how to open most consumer gun safes. More expensive safes use a gear mechanism that is less susceptible to mechanical attacks.

Magnet risk

[edit]

Low-end home and hotel safes often utilize a solenoid as the locking device and can often be opened using a powerful rare-earth magnet.

Electronic methods

[edit]

Electronic locks are not vulnerable to traditional manipulation techniques (except for brute-force entry). These locks are often compromised through power analysis attacks.[12][13] Several tools exist that can automatically retrieve or reset the combination of an electronic lock; notably, the Little Black Box[14] and Phoenix. Tools like these are often connected to wires in the lock that can be accessed without causing damage to the lock or container. Nearly all high-end, consumer-grade electronic locks are vulnerable to some form of electronic attack.

TEMPEST

[edit]

The combinations for some electronic locks can be retrieved by examining electromagnetic emissions coming from the lock. Because of this, many safe locks used to protect critical infrastructure are tested and certified to resist TEMPEST attacks. These include the Kaba Mas X-10 and S&G 2740B, which are FF-L-2740B compliant.

Spiking the lock

[edit]

Low-end electronic fire-safes, such as those used in hotels or for home use, are locked with either a small motor or a solenoid. If the wires running to the device (solenoid or motor) can be accessed, the device can be 'spiked' with a voltage from an external source - typically a 9 volt battery - to open the container.

Keypad-based attacks

[edit]

If an electronic lock accepts user input from a keypad, this process can be observed in order to reveal the combination. Common attacks include:

  • Visually observing a user enter the combination (shoulder surfing)
  • Hiding a camera in the room which records the user pressing keys
  • Examining fingerprints left on the keys
  • Placing certain gels, powders, or substances on the keys that can be smudged or transferred between keys when the combination is entered, and observed at a later time.
  • Placing a "skimmer" (akin to those used for credit card fraud) behind the keypad to record the digital signals that are sent to the lock body when the combination is entered.
  • Examining wear or deformity of buttons which are pressed more often than others

Many of these techniques require the attacker to tamper with the keypad, wait for the unsuspecting user to enter the combination, and return at a later time to retrieve the information. These techniques are sometimes used by members of intelligence or law enforcement agencies, as they are often effective and surreptitious.

High-security keypads

[edit]

Some keypads are designed to inhibit the aforementioned attacks. This is usually accomplished by restricting the viewing angle of the keypad (either by using a mechanical shroud or special buttons), or randomizing the positions of the buttons each time a combination is entered.

Some keypads use small LED or LCD displays inside of the buttons to allow the number on each button to change. This allows for randomization of the button positions, which is normally performed each time the keypad is powered on. The buttons usually contain a lenticular screen in front of the display, which inhibits off-axis viewing of the numbers.

When properly implemented, these keypads make the "shoulder surfing" attack infeasible, as the combination bears no resemblance to the positions of the keys which are pressed.

While these keypads can be used on safes and vaults, this practice is uncommon.

Media depictions

[edit]

Movies often depict a safe-cracker determining the combination of a safe lock using his fingers or a sensitive listening device to determine the combination of a rotary combination lock. Other films also depict an elaborate scheme of explosives and other devices to open safes.

Some of the more famous works include:

Three safecracking methods seen in movies were also tested on the television show MythBusters, with some success.[15][16] While the team was able to blow the door off of a safe by filling the safe with water and detonating an explosive inside it, the contents of the safe were destroyed and filling the safe with water required sealing it from the inside. The safe had also sprung many leaks.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Safe-cracking

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Safe-cracking is the specialized process of opening a locked or vault without the proper key or , typically by exploiting mechanical, electronic, or structural vulnerabilities in the device. This practice, which can be non-destructive—such as through precise manipulation of the lock mechanism—or destructive, involving tools like drills or thermal lances, is employed both by professional locksmiths to recover access for owners and by criminals in burglaries. The history of safe-cracking parallels the evolution of safe design, dating back to ancient civilizations' rudimentary locked containers and intensifying in the with the advent of advanced mechanical locks. Innovations like Jeremiah Chubb's detector lock in 1818 and Linus Yale Jr.'s pin tumbler cylinder lock in 1861 spurred countermeasures, including Alfred Charles Hobbs' famous 1851 public demonstration of picking supposedly unpickable Chubb and Bramah locks, highlighting the ongoing between security and intrusion techniques. By the , as companies such as Mosler and Diebold introduced drill-resistant alloys and time locks, crackers adapted with methods like explosives—used in early 1900s burglaries—and later electronic bypasses for digital safes, with recent 2025 discoveries of backdoors in electronic locks like the Securam ProLogic continuing the trend. Key techniques in safe-cracking vary by safe type and desired outcome, with non-destructive manipulation being the most skilled approach, relying on auditory cues from a or amplified listening device to detect wheel pack movements and deduce the combination through systematic dialing. Destructive methods, often faster but riskier, include or to disable locking bolts, prying or peeling the door with hydraulic tools, and, in extreme cases, using explosives or thermal cutting to breach the body—though modern relockers and hardened materials render these less viable without specialized knowledge. Legitimate safe-cracking emphasizes ethical standards, requiring certification from bodies like the Associated Locksmiths of America, while illicit attempts contribute to significant annual losses, as documented in reports on trends.

History

Early Developments

The of the first modern in the 1830s marked a significant advancement in security, prompting early criminal responses with rudimentary tools. In 1833, Charles Chubb patented a burglar-proof safe in , designed to resist common burglary implements through reinforced construction. Around the same time, in the United States, Silas C. Herring became an agent for Enos Wilder's "Salamander" designs in 1841 and began manufacturing fireproof safes by 1844 using hydrated plaster of Paris for insulation. These innovations, exhibited at events like the Exhibition, protected valuables from both theft and fire but quickly attracted opportunistic thieves who exploited their nascent vulnerabilities using basic hand tools. Nineteenth-century safe-cracking techniques were primarily destructive and relied on physical rather than sophisticated manipulation. Basic prying involved using chisels and hammers to exploit seams or rivets on early safe , allowing to force entry without advanced equipment. Early drilling employed hand braces and bits to bore into lock mechanisms or weak points, though this was labor-intensive and often imprecise. For brute , was a common explosive method in America, where criminals poured it through keyholes to create a that burst the door's front plate and exposed internal bolts; safemakers countered this with "powderproof" locks featuring tin enclosures to limit powder volume. These approaches, detailed in Allan Pinkerton's 1886 memoir Thirty Years a , highlighted the era's trial-and-error tactics against evolving designs. A prominent figure in this period was George Leonidas Leslie (1840–1878), widely regarded as America's most successful 19th-century safecracker, who elevated cracking from crude violence to calculated artistry using insider knowledge and rudimentary manipulation. Born in , to a brewing family and trained as an , Leslie relocated to New York in the , where he leveraged blueprints of bank layouts to identify structural weaknesses and practiced on duplicate safes purchased for rehearsal. He avoided , instead inventing tools like the "Little Joker"—a mechanical device for decoding combination locks—and collaborated with experts such as William D. Edson to drill precisely and manipulate tumblers on bank vaults, as seen in the 1869 Ocean National Bank heist yielding $800,000 and the planned 1878 Manhattan Savings Institution robbery netting $2.7 million. Leslie's methods, blending social infiltration with technical skill, influenced a shift toward in the trade before his murder in 1878. By the late 1800s, safe-cracking evolved from isolated opportunistic thefts to organized efforts by itinerant gangs known as "yeggmen," a term emerging around 1894 initially for beggars but soon denoting skilled safecrackers who traveled by rail targeting rural banks and post offices. Possibly derived from the alias "John Yegg," an early user of for "soup jobs," these groups formed loose unions emphasizing explosives and division of labor, as reported in accounts of coordinated burglaries. This organization reflected growing criminal sophistication amid industrial expansion. As the century closed, techniques began transitioning to more advanced mechanical locks in the early , demanding refined manipulation skills.

20th Century Innovations

The early saw the widespread adoption of combination locks on industrial safes, which prompted the development of manual manipulation techniques by skilled locksmiths who often turned to . These methods relied on auditory cues from a and tactile feedback from to detect gate alignment in the lock's wheels, allowing crackers to deduce the combination without damage. The 1920s and 1930s marked a "golden age" of safe-cracking, characterized by professionalization among criminals and the use of explosives like , known as "soup," for "soup jobs" that involved injecting the liquid through keyholes or seams to blow open doors. Notable figure , a prominent safecracker, employed —stolen from quarries and inserted via improvised devices like condoms with detonators—to target cinema safes, successfully robbing around 40 in Britain before his arrest in 1939. These techniques built on manual manipulation as a precursor to later decoding devices, though early prototypes of mechanical dialers remained rudimentary and labor-intensive. Following , safe-cracking evolved with the introduction of torches for cutting through doors, a method that gained popularity due to its speed on non-resistant safes and was used by organized groups in the late 1940s to mid-1960s. Hydraulic prying tools also emerged, enabling forceful separation of doors or panels on lighter models, often in tandem with drilling for access points. These approaches were epitomized by "Peter Men," slang for professional safecrackers specializing in explosives and cutting, who targeted wage safes in shops and offices during the , as seen in raids yielding thousands in cash across the and . Mid-20th-century innovations included safe bouncing, a brute-force technique using mallets or sledges to jolt lighter safes and dislodge internal bolts, particularly effective on models without reinforced relocking mechanisms and rising in use from the onward as a rapid alternative to explosives.

Modern Advances

In the early , the widespread adoption of electronic locks in safes marked a significant from mechanical systems, driven by advancements in digital technology that offered programmable access and enhanced user convenience. By the , manufacturers increasingly integrated electronic keypads and solenoid-based mechanisms into high-security safes, replacing traditional combination dials in many commercial and residential models. This shift facilitated the development of specialized bypass tools, such as those targeting vulnerabilities in popular electronic locks like the Securam ProLogic L02, which was demonstrated to be crackable through digital exploits in 2025 security research. Advanced autodialers continued to evolve for remaining mechanical Group II locks, incorporating precision motors and wireless controls to automate decoding processes. Devices like the JACK Plus, designed for nondestructive opening of manipulation-resistant safes, exemplify this progress with their ability to handle most three- and four-wheel mechanisms efficiently. Similarly, the Combi QX3 autodialer, a high-speed tool for Group II locks, achieves an average opening time of under eight hours through optical encoders and operation, significantly reducing manual effort compared to earlier models. Non-invasive digital attacks have emerged as a key challenge for electronic safes, exploiting hardware weaknesses without physical damage. For safes relying on solenoids, the "bounce" technique leverages weak return springs to dislodge the locking pin by jarring the unit, allowing unauthorized access in seconds on lower-end models. New tools, such as the specialized device for Century SS series electronic safes introduced in 2025, enable locksmiths to locks rapidly using simple electrical interfaces, highlighting ongoing vulnerabilities in solenoid-driven systems. The application of these modern techniques underscores a divide between legitimate professional use and criminal exploitation, governed by strict ethical codes in the industry. Organizations like the Associated Locksmiths of America (ALOA) emphasize , requiring members to adhere to legal standards that prohibit unauthorized access while promoting on secure practices. Meanwhile, safe-related burglaries, often involving electronic models, have declined amid broader trends; U.S. residential rates dropped 19% in the first half of 2025 compared to 2024, and overall property crimes fell 8% in 2024, though experts note that digital vulnerabilities continue to pose risks for theft.

Non-Destructive Techniques

Mechanical Lock Manipulation

Mechanical lock manipulation is a non-destructive technique used to open mechanical combination safe locks by exploiting manufacturing tolerances and mechanical feedback from the lock's internal components, such as the wheels, , and drive cam. This method relies on the manipulator's ability to detect subtle changes in resistance and sound as is turned under controlled tension, allowing the deduction of without physical alteration to the safe. Developed primarily in the early , it remains effective against many standard mechanical locks despite advancements in security design. The core process involves identifying "contact points" on the lock wheels, where the lever nose interacts with the wheel gates or the drive cam's notch, creating detectable tactile and auditory cues. To feel these points, the manipulator applies light tension to —typically by pulling gently on a tension tool or the spindle—while slowly rotating in (often left). This tension causes the to bind against the wheel edges, producing a slight drag or "click" when a contact occurs, indicating the position where a wheel's aligns partially with the . Readings are taken at regular intervals (e.g., every 2.5 or 5 numbers) to map these points, as the lock's tolerances (often 0.005 to 0.010 inches) allow the wheels to reveal their positions through these interactions. Once contact points are identified, the "graphing" method is employed to plot wheel positions and isolate the true combination numbers. This involves parking the wheels at known offsets (e.g., setting all wheels to 0, then incrementing one by -3 or +3 numbers) and recording contact point data on a graph, where the x-axis represents dial positions and the y-axis shows tension readings or click locations. Convergence of lines on the graph indicates the wheel centers, narrowing the possible combination to a small set of variations (e.g., ±2 numbers per wheel). The technique accounts for wheel pack dynamics, such as the third wheel's fly interfering with readings, requiring multiple graphing passes (e.g., all wheels left, then isolating each). Essential tools for mechanical manipulation include a precision manipulation dial (often customized with a finer index line for accuracy), a to amplify internal clicks and reduce external noise, and tension tools like a or applied to the spindle for consistent pressure. These tools enhance sensitivity without modifying the lock, though skilled manipulators can succeed with the standard dial alone on simpler models. For a standard 3-wheel lock, such as the Sargent & Greenleaf 6730, the process begins by determining the contact area (typically around numbers 10-20 on ) through initial tension tests and click counting to confirm three wheels (e.g., three distinct clicks when parking wheels opposite the contact area). Graphing proceeds with three passes: first, all wheels left from a parked position; second and third, isolating wheels by offsetting others. High-low tests follow, dialing permutations like 80 left, 80 left, 70 right to identify the lowest wheel, then testing 6-24 variations around graphed centers (e.g., 20-50-80) until the lock opens, often within 30-60 minutes for experts. In a 4-wheel lock, the steps mirror those for 3 wheels but require additional graphing passes to account for the extra , increasing the number of variations to test (up to 24-48). After confirming four clicks for wheel count, graphing isolates each sequentially, with tension applied to detect the added complexity from wheel spacing. The process may take 1-2 hours longer due to the higher count (around 100 million possible). Common errors in manipulation include over-tensioning , which can cause the to bind prematurely and create "false gates"—illusory contact points that mislead graphing and lead to incorrect combinations. Inexperienced manipulators may also misinterpret third-wheel fly interference as a true contact or fail to account for dial backlash, resulting in offset readings; these pitfalls emphasize the need for light, consistent tension and multiple verification passes. Automated alternatives, such as autodialers, can accelerate decoding by mechanically testing dial positions but lack the precision of manual manipulation for complex locks.

Combination Decoding Devices

Combination decoding devices, commonly known as autodialers, are automated mechanical tools designed to systematically test possible on dial-based safe locks, eliminating the need for manual tactile feedback during the decoding . These devices attach to the safe's dial and use motorized components to rotate it through programmed sequences, detecting alignment of internal wheels via sensors or feedback. By automating the trial-and-error inherent to combination locks, autodialers enable locksmiths or security professionals to open mechanical safes non-destructively, particularly those with 3- or 4-wheel mechanisms rated for Group II standards. Devices such as the Autodialer Pro and Combi Plus exemplify this technology, employing high-torque stepper motors to precisely control dial rotation and sensors—including accelerometers or encoder-based position trackers—to detect without human intervention. The stepper motors, often NEMA 17 models delivering up to 65 Ncm of , ensure micro-precision movements, while sensorless techniques like StallGuard™ monitor motor resistance changes to identify when wheels "pick up" or align at their gates. These systems build on principles of lock manipulation but automate the feedback loop, allowing the device to iterate through combinations autonomously once calibrated. Setup begins with securely attaching the device to the dial using a universal clamp, magnetic feet, or flexible coupler to ensure stable contact. Users then program parameters such as counts—typically 100 positions per for a standard 3- lock—via a connected tablet, , or interface, defining the search space (e.g., up to combinations). Decoding algorithms, often based on , are initialized by measuring indent widths or contact points during initial rotations; this method subtracts known wheel pack tolerances to narrow potential gates, reducing brute-force attempts from millions to thousands. Knowledge of manual manipulation serves as a prerequisite for accurate of these contact points. Opening times vary by lock complexity and efficiency, averaging 1 to 8 hours for Group II locks like those from Sargent & Greenleaf (S&G). For instance, the Combi Plus achieves openings in about 1 to 1.5 hours on 3- or 4-wheel mechanisms by combining initial manipulation data with automated dialing, while simpler DIY autodialers using controls may take 40 minutes to 2.5 hours on low-security models with reduced sets. In worst-case scenarios without optimization, times can extend to days for high- locks. Despite their effectiveness on standard mechanical locks, autodialers have notable limitations, including ineffectiveness against time-delay mechanisms that enforce waiting periods between attempts or relock features that deploy additional bolts upon detecting repeated dialing patterns. Prolonged operation can also cause internal wear to the lock's wheel pack, potentially complicating future legitimate access.

Electronic Signal Exploitation

Electronic signal exploitation in safe-cracking involves the interception and analysis of unintended emissions from electronic safe components, such as keypads and processors, to bypass without physical alteration. These passive techniques leverage side-channel information—, acoustic vibrations, or induced electrical disturbances—to extract or override access codes, targeting vulnerabilities in electronic locks from manufacturers like Sargent & Greenleaf (S&G) and LaGard. High-security keypads on safes serve as primary targets for such exploits due to their reliance on digital processing that generates detectable signals. TEMPEST attacks, named after a U.S. government program to mitigate compromising emanations, capture unintentional electromagnetic emissions from electronic safe keypads or lock processors during code entry or validation. Attackers use (SDR) receivers, such as the , to intercept (RF) signals in the 100-500 MHz range emitted by the device's internal wiring and circuits, then apply to reconstruct the entered combination. For instance, keypresses on wired or wireless keypads produce distinct EM patterns corresponding to digit activation, allowing recovery of multi-digit codes from distances up to several meters with off-the-shelf equipment costing under $500. This method was demonstrated on keyboards in , revealing emissions that directly map to key identities, a principle extensible to safe keypads with similar architectures. Spiking techniques exploit electrical vulnerabilities in electronic locks by inducing controlled voltage spikes to trigger the mechanism, releasing the bolt without entering a valid code. Tools like the Ionic Spike Kit from Taylor Security & Lock employ a small-diameter (3/32 inch) through the spindle hole to access the lock's interior, followed by injection of conductive gel to bridge contacts and deliver a precise electrical from an adjustable module. This bypasses the processor entirely, opening locks from brands including AMSEC, LaGard, and S&G in under a minute, and is particularly effective on battery-powered models where low-voltage tolerance allows the spike to mimic an authenticated signal. The kit's calibrated gels (A, B, C) and depth gauges ensure compatibility across dozens of models, reducing the need for invasive while leaving minimal traces. Acoustic analysis captures sounds or vibrations from keypresses and internal motors to deduce codes through . Microphones or contact sensors record the unique audio signatures—differing in frequency and amplitude—produced by depressing specific keys on electronic safe keypads, which can then be processed using software like or models for classification. For example, algorithms analyze motor noises during code validation to identify correct digits based on timing and intensity variations, achieving up to 90% accuracy on digital locks with repeated entries. This non-contact method was shown effective on door locks in 2017, where vibration signals from keypresses revealed PINs via Fourier transforms, directly applicable to safe keypads with comparable mechanical feedback. Early demonstrations of TEMPEST-like attacks on electronic devices, including locks, occurred around 2005, as detailed in security analyses of electromagnetic emanations from processors and input devices. Modern adaptations incorporate deep learning for enhanced signal reconstruction in noisy environments.

Digital Lock Bypass Methods

Digital lock bypass methods involve physical manipulation of the hardware components in keypad and electronic safe locks, such as solenoids, circuits, and memory interfaces, to override the locking mechanism without entering the correct code or intercepting external signals. These techniques target vulnerabilities in the mechanical and electrical design of the lock, often exploiting weak components in consumer-grade models. Unlike non-physical approaches like signal exploitation, which capture electromagnetic emissions remotely, bypass methods require direct access and specialized tools for precise intervention. One common technique is solenoid bouncing, where controlled impacts are applied to the safe to dislodge the pin that secures the bolt. In many low-cost electronic safes, the solenoid uses a weak spring that can be jarred loose by tapping or dropping the safe while attempting to turn the handle, allowing the bolt to retract without code entry. This method is particularly effective on consumer digital safes with lightweight bolts and open solenoid designs, though higher-end models incorporate dampening to resist . Keypad shimming entails inserting thin, flexible tools behind or into the assembly to directly bridge electrical contacts or access reset mechanisms. For certain push-button digital locks, specialized shims can be slipped into the seam to short-circuit the solenoid release or bypass the code verification circuitry altogether, avoiding the need to interact with the buttons. This approach is viable on keypads with exposed or poorly sealed interfaces, enabling attackers to manipulate internal wiring or memory chips without disassembly. Recent advancements in bypass tools have targeted specific high-security models, such as those using Securam ProLogic locks. In 2025, security researchers demonstrated a hardware exploit involving battery removal followed by probe insertion into the lock's interface port; a custom Raspberry Pi-based device generates a reset code by exploiting backdoors, shorting circuits to unlock the safe in seconds. Similar probe-based tools apply to Century safe models, where insertion shorts key circuits after accessing the keypad's underbelly, bypassing encryption without full disassembly. These tools highlight ongoing vulnerabilities in even UL-rated electronic locks. Success in digital lock bypass often hinges on exploiting low battery states, as depleted power can weaken hold or prevent anti-tamper features from engaging fully. Attackers may induce battery drain through repeated invalid entries to reduce resistance, then apply shimming or probing while the is compromised. Additionally, avoiding activation of anti-tamper relocks—spring-loaded devices that permanently secure the bolt upon detected manipulation—is critical, as these can render the inoperable without professional intervention.

Destructive Techniques

Drilling and Inspection

Drilling represents a targeted semi-destructive approach in safe-cracking, enabling access to the lock's internal components for and precise manipulation without fully compromising the safe's structure. Locksmiths identify vulnerable points, such as the spindle hole or the wheel pack assembly in combination locks, to minimize damage while achieving entry. For instance, in standard mechanical safe locks, a 1/4-inch hole is commonly drilled above or to the side of to reach the wheel pack, allowing visibility of the wheels and fence mechanism. This location exploits the typical alignment of Group 2 combination locks, where the wheel pack sits offset from the dial center. The scoping process follows drilling, involving the insertion of a or fiber-optic camera through the newly created hole to examine the safe's internals. These devices provide a clear view of the wheel pack, levers, and boltwork, enabling the operator to align combination wheels or detect misalignments that prevent opening. , often flexible and equipped with illumination, are essential for navigating tight spaces within the lock case, typically penetrating 6 to 12 inches deep depending on the safe's design. Fiber-optic variants enhance detail in low-light conditions, facilitating non-destructive follow-up steps like manual wheel adjustment. Specialized tools are critical for overcoming protective features like hardplate relockers or carbide-relocker shields. Diamond-tipped or drill bits, ground with precise geometries, are employed to penetrate these hardened barriers efficiently, often requiring low-speed, high-torque to avoid bit breakage. Post-drilling, manipulation aids such as flexible levers or hooks can be introduced through the hole to engage and retract bolts or relockers. This technique contrasts with brute force by preserving the safe's integrity for potential reuse. Repairing drilled safes focuses on sealing the access points to restore and appearance. Small holes from scoping or can be filled using tapered pins hammered into place and ground flush, or professionally with compatible filler material to match the safe's composition. While provides a durable seal, modern repair offer field-applicable alternatives like plugs for non-structural fixes, ensuring the safe meets original resistance ratings after refinishing. Such methods allow drilled safes to be returned to service with minimal evidence of entry, underscoring the technique's preference over more invasive destructive approaches.

Brute Force Attacks

Brute force attacks on safes involve applying physical force to overcome locking mechanisms without the use of precision tools or manipulation techniques, often targeting vulnerabilities in the safe's . These methods, such as prying, , and bouncing, aim to dislodge bolts or deform components to allow access, but they typically result in visible damage to the safe itself. According to security expert Matt Blaze, the primary defense against such attacks relies on the safe's strength to resist prying, cutting, and , with low-end models particularly susceptible to hand tools. One common variation is safe bouncing, where repeated impacts from a rubber or similar tool are applied to the of lightweight electronic safes to jolt and dislodge the deadbolts. This technique exploits the in simpler locking systems, often requiring the attacker to simultaneously turn the while striking near the lock area. locksmiths note that bouncing can succeed on undersecured models but does not work consistently, as modern designs incorporate dampening materials like to inhibit the method. Prying and punching represent more aggressive approaches, using hydraulic jacks, crowbars, or sledges to exploit weaknesses in the hinge side or boltwork. Prying involves forcing the door or sides apart, effective on thinner constructions, while targets the door's rear to deform the lock assembly and retract bolts. These tactics were prevalent in mid-20th-century safe breaches before manufacturers introduced reinforced designs with and relockers that trigger additional bolts upon detecting force. Blaze highlights that punching can dislodge locks but is countered by such relockers, limiting its reliability on higher-rated safes. In contemporary contexts, brute force remains viable against budget or lightweight safes weighing under 500 pounds, where construction prioritizes portability over robustness, allowing quicker deformation with basic tools. Locksmith resources indicate these methods are fastest for low-quality units but require minimal skill, contrasting with refined digital bypass techniques for electronic variants. However, UL and GSA ratings demonstrate varying resistance, with basic safes yielding in minutes to hand tools while advanced models withstand longer assaults. Significant risks accompany brute force attacks, including irreparable damage to the and potential harm to contents from deformation or impact. Forced entry disregards repairability, often leaving obvious evidence like bent frames or shattered components, which can complicate covert operations and increase detection chances. Additionally, the noise and physical exertion involved heighten exposure risks for the attacker, as noted in analyses of safe breaches.

Advanced Destructive Methods

Advanced destructive methods in safe-cracking involve specialized tools and materials designed to rapidly and irreparably compromise integrity, often targeting , hinges, or boltwork for immediate access. These techniques surpass simpler brute force approaches by leveraging high-heat or forces to ensure penetration, though they carry significant risks of activating features like relockers. As of 2025, their use has declined due to advanced designs with composite materials and blast-resistant features, as well as stricter regulations on s. Thermal cutting represents a primary advanced method, utilizing intense sources to melt or vaporize components. Oxy-acetylene torches, which generate temperatures of approximately 6,000°F (3,300°C), can bore through standard doors but are limited against thicker plates or heat-sensitive relockers that may engage upon detecting . Plasma cutters offer superior efficiency, reaching 50,000°F to slice through up to 2 inches thick in minutes, though they require a stable power source and can inadvertently trigger protective mechanisms in high-security models. Thermic lances, burning at approximately 8,000°F via oxygen-fed iron rods, provide a faster alternative for piercing reinforced barriers, effectively handling dense materials but producing excessive noise and residue that complicates discreet operations. Explosive entry employs controlled to breach vault or heavy , with historical and occasional modern applications focusing on precise charge placement to minimize scatter while maximizing force. "," a term for nitroglycerin-based , was commonly poured into safe seams or keyholes in early 20th-century burglaries, exploiting pressure buildup to rupture . Modern adaptations include shaped charges, which direct energy via conical liners to penetrate specific points like hinges or locks, requiring calculations for standoff distance and charge mass to achieve clean breaches without excessive . These methods demand expertise in handling to avoid premature , and their use has declined due to advanced designs incorporating blast-resistant composites. Power tool attacks leverage portable, high-torque devices to grind, drill, or saw through vulnerabilities, enabling rapid entry in under 10 minutes for residential-grade safes. Angle grinders equipped with cutoff wheels effectively sever hinges or bolts on steel up to 1 inch thick, though they consume multiple abrasive discs on composite-filled walls. Cordless drills target lock mechanisms, using hardened bits to compromise dials or electronic interfaces, with professionals employing battery-powered models for mobility during 2024 operations. Battery-powered reciprocating saws (e.g., Sawzalls) excel at cutting thin-gauge steel frames (12-16 gauge), but falter against UL-rated Residential Security Containers (RSC) with 2-4 inch barriers, often requiring 30-60 minutes and frequent blade changes. These tools' cordless evolution has increased their prevalence in opportunistic burglaries, prioritizing speed over subtlety. Employing advanced destructive methods elevates safe-cracking to a serious , with penalties including up to 7 years in prison under statutes like 464 for vault or safe . The further intensifies consequences, imputing first-degree murder charges—and potential —if a occurs during the , regardless of intent, as seen in jurisdictions applying it to inherently dangerous burglaries. This legal framework, codified in most U.S. states, underscores the high rates associated with these techniques, often resulting in decades-long sentences.

Obsolete and Specialized Methods

Radiological Imaging

Radiological imaging techniques in safe-cracking utilize penetrating to non-destructively visualize internal mechanisms, particularly in mechanical combination locks, allowing attackers to identify positions and lever alignments without physical alteration. Portable backscatter X-ray systems, which detect scattered from the target, have been employed by skilled safe-crackers to reveal the configuration of packs, including openings that correspond to the combination numbers. These devices enable the of dense materials like metal components within safes, providing a clear view of alignments that would otherwise require manipulation or destruction to discern. Advanced implementations involve computed tomography (CT) scanning, where high-resolution systems generate 3D reconstructions of lock internals. For instance, industrial microfocus CT with a 240 kV tube and 102 μm resolution has been used to examine complex lever mechanisms in historical locks, identifying bolt positions, protective features, and even manufacturing defects like cracks without disassembly. Similarly, ultra-high resolution multi-slice CT (UHR-MSCT) and cone beam CT (CBCT) have demonstrated efficacy in decoding combination locks with up to 42,875 possible settings, achieving successful virtual "picking" by radiologists in under 16 minutes through detailed imaging of tumbler alignments, though metal artifacts can degrade image quality in highly dense structures. Such methods highlight the precision of radiological approaches for targeting wheel packs in safes. Thermal imaging, as a complementary non-ionizing radiological technique, detects infrared heat signatures from recent mechanical interactions, such as friction-generated warmth on dial contact points or spindle areas in combination safes, potentially revealing usage patterns or weak points for further attack. However, this application remains limited compared to methods for internal visualization. These techniques were historically prominent in the mid-20th century, with standards like UL 768 Group 1R (established to require 20 man-hours of resistance to radiological attacks) and GSA-approved containers reflecting their recognition as viable threats by government and industry from the onward. Limitations include significant radiation hazards to operators from portable emissions, necessitating shielding and monitoring to prevent exposure risks like tissue damage, as well as reduced resolution through thick barriers exceeding several inches, where beam obscures fine details. By the , high costs, safety concerns, and the advent of less hazardous alternatives like scoping through minimal drill holes led to their decline in practical use.

Tunneling and Vault Attacks

Tunneling attacks on vaults involve excavating subterranean passages to breach the structure from below or adjacent underground access points, allowing robbers to avoid direct confrontation with surface . This method requires specialized tools such as pneumatic jackhammers, hydraulic jacks, drills, and blowtorches for excavation, along with wooden beams or stanchions for to prevent collapse during digging. Ventilation systems, often consisting of narrow tubes connected to the surface, are essential to supply fresh air and remove dust in confined spaces. Early influences on such techniques can be traced to operations in the early , though detailed records from the remain sparse; by the mid-20th century, tunneling evolved into a hallmark of audacious heists inspired by logistical feats like the 1963 Great Train Robbery, which demonstrated coordinated underground movement of . Prominent historical cases occurred in Europe during the 1970s, showcasing the labor-intensive nature of these operations. In the 1971 Baker Street robbery in London, a gang dug a 40-foot tunnel over several months from the basement of a rented leather goods shop to the Lloyds Bank vault, using a 100-tonne jack, gelignite explosives, and a thermal lance to breach the reinforced concrete floor after initial tools failed; the operation spanned weekends to minimize detection, with robbers communicating via walkie-talkies. Similarly, the 1976 Société Générale heist in Nice, France, involved a gang tunneling nearly 30 feet from a nearby sewer over two months of nightly work, employing jackhammers, axes, crowbars, chisels, hydraulic jacks, and six blowtorches powered by 27 acetylene tanks; the tunnel was shored with stanchions, lined with carpeting for traction, and ventilated via a six-inch tube, enabling the theft of approximately $10 million in cash, gold, and jewels from 317 safe-deposit boxes. These cases highlight the use of urban infrastructure like sewers or adjacent buildings as starting points, with digging often limited to non-business hours and supported by generators for lighting. In the United States, tunneling persisted into the late 1980s but has become rare thereafter due to advancements in vault construction. The 1987 burglary at a Bank of America branch near Beverly Hills saw robbers excavate a 60-foot tunnel from a storm drain using cutting tools and a generator, shoring it with wood planks to reach the vault floor undetected over a single weekend, stealing $91,000 before alarms activated; this was part of a series by the "Hole in the Ground Gang," who targeted multiple Los Angeles banks in the mid-1980s with similar subterranean approaches. More recent isolated U.S. incidents include a 2025 tunneling heist in Marietta, Georgia, where three men dug under a busy street to breach a bank vault floor, and an April 2025 burglary in Los Angeles where thieves tunneled into a jewelry store's safes, stealing $10 million in gold and jewels. Globally, notable later cases include the 2006 Banco Río robbery in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where robbers tunneled from sewers into the vault and held hostages for over a week, and a 2019 attempted tunneling from an adjacent property into a credit union in Hendon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Modern bank vaults feature deep concrete foundations reinforced with steel and high-strength materials to deter undermining, often extending several feet below ground level to complicate excavation. Additionally, seismic sensors buried around perimeters detect ground vibrations from drilling or digging, alerting authorities to potential intrusions well before a breach occurs. Tunneling carries significant risks, including structural collapse if shoring fails under unstable soil or water ingress, which could trap or injure perpetrators, as seen in general underground operations where cave-ins have caused fatalities. Detection via ground vibrations from tools like jackhammers often leads to early intervention, as these disturbances propagate through soil and trigger perimeter alarms; in historical cases, such as , auxiliary risks like toxic fumes from explosives further endangered the crew during prolonged confinement. These hazards, combined with the weeks or months required for digging, have relegated tunneling to rare, high-risk endeavors in contemporary security contexts.

Magnetic and Other Risks

In electronic safe locks that employ solenoids to control the locking mechanism, strong magnets can be used to bypass the system by attracting the solenoid plunger, thereby retracting the bolt without entering the correct combination. This vulnerability arises because the solenoid's , when powered, generates a to hold the lock secure, but an external can overpower or mimic this field to disengage the mechanism. Such attacks have been demonstrated on models like early Sentry safes and certain hotel safes, where the magnet is placed near the lock body to influence the internal components. Reed switches, sometimes integrated into safe designs for detecting door status or as part of tamper sensors, present another magnetic risk; these glass-enclosed contacts close or open in response to a , but a strong external can trigger them remotely, potentially disabling alarms or simulating a closed state to avoid detection. This bypass exploits the switch's sensitivity to , allowing unauthorized access without physical alteration, though it requires precise positioning of the magnet. The technique is particularly effective against older or budget electronic safes lacking robust protection. These magnetic methods are limited in effectiveness to specific lock designs vulnerable to field interference, such as those relying on solenoids or unshielded reed switches, and fail against mechanical or advanced electronic systems without such components. Countermeasures include encasing sensitive parts in alloys, which redirect due to their high permeability, preventing external magnets from influencing the internals. Additionally, modern safe locks have largely phased out solenoids in favor of motor-driven gears and non-magnetic actuators since the early , rendering magnetic attacks obsolete for contemporary high-security models.

Cultural and Historical Impact

Media Portrayals

Safe-cracking has long been a staple in cinematic depictions, often serving as a tense climax in heist narratives where skilled criminals manipulate locks with stethoscopes or explosives for dramatic effect. Early films like the 1915 silent drama Alias Jimmy Valentine portrayed safecracking as a reformed criminal's lingering temptation, showing a using his expertise to open a undetected, emphasizing the allure of the skill over brute force. In the 1970s, heist movies glamorized destructive methods such as "soup jobs," where is used to blow open safes; (1978), inspired by a real 1950 robbery, dramatizes a crew meticulously preparing and applying the volatile explosive to crack a vault, highlighting the high-stakes coordination involved. Modern media continues this tradition but shifts toward technological aids. In the TV series White Collar (2009–2014), the character Neal Caffrey frequently demonstrates safe-cracking in episodes like "Most Wanted" (2012), using mirrors, paintings, and quick manipulation to access combination locks during cons, portraying it as an elegant, intellectual pursuit. Video games in 2024 have incorporated simulated autodialers, devices that systematically test combinations; for instance, Unlock-it: Safe Cracker Puzzle, released that year, challenges players to time inputs and solve puzzles mimicking real autodialer mechanics in a heist-themed format. These portrayals often exaggerate for entertainment, overemphasizing speed and simplicity while ignoring practical realities. Films and shows typically depict cracks in under 30 seconds using just ears or basic tools, whereas professionals note that manipulation can take hours and requires specialized like tension tools or decoders, with failures common due to wear or features. Moreover, media rarely shows post-crack repairs, such as realigning tumblers, which can be as complex as the entry itself, leading viewers to underestimate the trade's precision. Such dramatizations have shaped public perception, romanticizing safe-cracking as a glamorous "criminal art" akin to a high-society , influencing views of as inherently shady despite its legitimate applications in recovery and . This cultural lens, seen in expert critiques of movies like and , perpetuates myths that blur ethical lines between theft and craftsmanship.

Famous Safe Crackers and Cases

George Leonidas Leslie, an architect turned criminal in the 1870s, became one of America's most notorious safecrackers through a series of sophisticated heists in . Operating primarily between 1872 and 1878, Leslie masterminded robberies totaling over $2 million (equivalent to tens of millions today), employing safe manipulation techniques with a custom tool known as the "little joker" and tunneling methods to access vaults without detection. Notable among his crimes was the 1878 Savings Institution heist, where his gang stole $3 million in cash, bonds, and securities after Leslie practiced opening the safe multiple times undetected. Leslie evaded capture for years by leveraging his social connections in , but he was murdered in 1878 by associates amid suspicions of betrayal. Eddie Chapman, born in 1914, emerged as a prominent safecracker in Britain before his criminal career intersected with . Specializing in explosives to breach safes during numerous robberies, Chapman was arrested in 1939 but escaped from prison and offered his services to upon reaching the in 1941. Recruited as a spy codenamed "Fritzchen," he was trained in sabotage techniques, including safe-cracking with explosives, ostensibly to target Allied facilities and access funds, but he instead became a for , providing false intelligence that misled the Germans. Chapman's wartime activities, which included simulated bombings and safe breaches to maintain his cover, earned him the from the Nazis while he remained loyal to Britain; he retired from crime postwar and died in 1997. In contemporary times, Bill Johnson, known as BosnianBill, has gained recognition as a professional locksmith and educator who demonstrates advanced safe manipulation techniques without any criminal history. Through his LockLab platform and YouTube channel, launched in the 2010s, Johnson has produced educational content on methods such as impressioning (often referred to in lockpicking communities as "bitchpicking" for its finesse) and autodialing for electronic safe locks, training thousands in ethical lock manipulation for locksmith certification and security awareness. A Bosnian immigrant to the U.S., Johnson's work emphasizes non-destructive entry and has been praised for demystifying safe security without promoting illegal activity; he maintains a legacy in the locksport community. Among landmark safe-cracking cases, the 1983 in stands out for its scale and use of destructive tools. Six armed intruders, tipped off by an insider, breached the warehouse vault using thermal lances—oxygen-fueled cutting devices that melted through reinforced steel—stealing approximately 6,840 gold bars worth £26 million (about $100 million at the time), along with diamonds and cash. The heist, initially planned for cash, escalated dramatically upon discovering the gold, leading to convictions of key participants like Anthony Robinson and Mickey McAvoy, though much of the loot remains unrecovered and linked to subsequent . Recent advancements in electronic safe vulnerabilities have highlighted modern risks in corporate settings, as demonstrated in research from 2023 onward. Researchers identified exploitable backdoors in the Securam ProLogic system, used in across eight major brands for securing corporate assets like documents and valuables, allowing unauthorized access in seconds via simple hardware tools without physical damage. While no large-scale corporate thefts were publicly tied to these flaws in 2023, the disclosures prompted warnings from manufacturers and led to patches, underscoring the shift from mechanical to digital safe-cracking threats in environments.

References

  1. https://www.kcsecurity.ie/safe-services/what-is-safe-picking/
  2. https://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/safecracking.htm
  3. https://historyofsafes.com/history-of-safe-cracking/
  4. https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/alfred-charles-hobbs/
  5. https://www.wired.com/story/securam-prologic-safe-lock-backdoor-exploits/
  6. https://archive.org/details/techniques-of-safe-and-vault-manipulation-desert-publications
  7. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/safe-burglary-training-key
  8. https://www.officemuseum.com/filing_equipment_safes.htm
  9. https://historyofsafes.com/inventing-the-fireproof-safe/
  10. https://www.timhunkin.com/94_illegal_engineering.htm
  11. https://www.lockpicking101.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=59038
  12. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/george-leslie-bank-robber-heist-history.html
  13. https://grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/01/scrambled-yeggs.html
  14. https://www.nytimes.com/1901/09/15/archives/a-bank-burglars-union-story-of-the-yeggmen-and-their-expert.html
  15. https://www.thehistoryreader.com/historical-fiction/the-history-behind-the-mystery-safecracking-101/
  16. https://www.smokyhillmuseum.org/file_download/inline/bdbddbb8-d584-42c5-bd7b-bb8b88c9870f
  17. https://www.delawarecountyhistory.org/dchs-blog/muncies-nitroglycerin-safecrackers-of-1905
  18. https://www.locksmithledger.com/safes/news/10565148/keeping-money-from-peter-men-a-look-at-safecracking-in-the-1950s
  19. https://www.standingwellback.com/its-a-cracker/
  20. https://makezine.com/article/craft/safe-man-history-of-safes/
  21. https://historyofsafes.com/history-of-lock-mechanisms-in-safes/
  22. https://safesinternational.com/evolution-of-safe-locks/
  23. https://themodernlocksmith.com/products/jack-plus-autodialer
  24. https://qsecurityproducts.com/product/combi-qx3-autodialer/
  25. https://www.acmelocksmith.com/articles/how-to-open-a-safe-without-a-key/
  26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XuPa-WIbcs
  27. https://www.aloa.org/aboutaloa
  28. https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-mid-year-2025-update/
  29. https://www.safehome.org/resources/crime-statistics-by-state/
  30. https://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/safecracking3.htm
  31. https://blackbag.toool.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Safe-manipulation-101-v2.pdf
  32. https://lsieducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CLM-2024.pdf
  33. https://www.lockmasters.com/combi-plus-group-ii-combination-lock-manipulator-dialer
  34. https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/building-a-safe-cracking-robot/all
  35. https://qybera.com/product/autodialer-pro-safe-cracking-autodialer/
  36. https://hackaday.com/2023/01/29/opening-a-safe-with-a-stepper-motor-and-diy-auto-dialer/
  37. https://blog.arduino.cc/2025/04/01/forgot-your-safe-combination-this-arduino-controlled-autodialer-can-crack-it-for-you/
  38. https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sec09/tech/full_papers/vuagnoux.pdf
  39. https://www.rtl-sdr.com/spying-keyboard-presses-software-defined-radio/
  40. https://www.taylortechtools.com/product-page/ionic-spike-kit
  41. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8170414
  42. https://www.giac.org/paper/gsec/4287/tempest-electromagnetic-emanations-security-government-standard/106943
  43. https://www.lockpickworld.com/products/2pc-bypass-lock-shanks
  44. https://ericdraken.com/elsafe/
  45. https://www.yalehome.com/ae/en/stories/blogs/fireproof%2C-waterproof%2C-tamper-proof--what-to-look-for-in-a-safe-locker
  46. https://guardiansafeandvault.com/hollon-fd-4020e-security-depository-safe-w-electronic-lock/
  47. https://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/safecracking4.htm
  48. https://torontosafecracker.ca/safe-cracking-101-different-types-of-methods-locksmiths-use-to-open-a-safe/
  49. https://fortresslockandsecurity.com/safe-vault/safe-cracking-methods-opening-a-safe-without-a-combination/
  50. https://www.lockmasters.com/12quot-x-6quot-strongarm-drill-bit-for-safe-hardplate-sa12x6c
  51. https://www.lockmasters.com/ultimate-safe-repair-kit-lkmrk1
  52. https://www.mattblaze.org/papers/safelocks.pdf
  53. https://metrolockandsafe.com/blog/can-burglars-break-into-a-safe/
  54. https://www.locksmithledger.com/safes/article/21243398/safes-101-an-introduction-to-safe-opening
  55. https://dandllocksmith.com/unlocking-safes-professional-tips-for-access-without-damage/
  56. https://sandiegocitylocksmith.com/methods-and-tools-for-safecracking/
  57. https://freedomforallamericans.org/how-to-break-open-a-safe/
  58. https://www.arudicuellarlock.com/blog/2025/how-locksmiths-open-safes-without-damages.html
  59. https://www.safeandvaultstore.com/blogs/expert-advice-on-safes-and-vault-doors/modern-safe-cracking-tools
  60. https://www.gowelders.com/gases/oxy-fuel-processing/
  61. https://multipick.com/us/opening-entry-tools/safe-opening/thermic-lances/
  62. https://www.antiquesage.com/understanding-power-tool-safe-cracking/
  63. https://www.1911forum.com/threads/safe-cracking.1068870/
  64. https://www.fresnocrimeattorney.com/practice-areas/theft-crimes/burglary-of-a-safe-or-vault
  65. https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-murder/
  66. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_rule
  67. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/safecracking_wi.html
  68. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235316
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366938212_Lockpicking_using_Ultra-High_Resolution_Multi-_Slice_and_Cone_Beam_Computed_Tomography
  70. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-7e8a2f7a8038a0b6fed8bfabad76eacd/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-7e8a2f7a8038a0b6fed8bfabad76eacd.pdf
  71. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/radiation-safety-considerations-x-ray-equipment-designed-hand-held-use
  72. https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2024/09/banks/historical-heists/
  73. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwygxe102ydo
  74. https://www.nytimes.com/1976/12/19/archives/the-heist-of-the-century-inside-the-soci-t-g-n-rale-detectives.html
  75. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-08-24-me-2037-story.html
  76. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-27-la-me-then27-2009dec27-story.html
  77. https://www.facebook.com/gpbmedia/posts/three-men-spent-months-tunneling-under-a-busy-street-in-marietta-to-blow-through/1300102445458534/
  78. https://www.police1.com/lapd/in-cinema-style-heist-tunneling-thieves-steal-10m-in-gold-jewels-from-la-jewelry-store
  79. https://www.gq.com/story/the-great-buenos-aires-bank-heist
  80. https://www.cbc.ca/archives/the-small-town-bank-the-tunnel-and-the-abandoned-shack-next-door-1.4986840
  81. https://www.securityprousa.com/pages/seismic-intrusion-detection
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376648009_Risk_assessment_approach_for_tunnel_collapse_based_on_improved_multi-source_evidence_information_fusion
  83. https://www.identecsolutions.com/news/safety-in-tunneling-challenges-and-hazards-during-construction
  84. https://blackbag.toool.nl/?p=204
  85. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/unsafe_safes.html
  86. https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1049/tje2.70079
  87. https://moviessilently.com/2013/08/18/alias-jimmy-valentine-1915-a-silent-film-review/
  88. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/unlock-it-safe-cracker-puzzle/id6738165926
  89. https://www.businessinsider.com/safecracker-rates-10-safecracking-heists-movies-and-tv-2021-8
  90. https://www.vanityfair.com/video/watch/true-crime-vf-true-crime-reviews-safecracking-with-dave-mcomie
  91. https://entertainment-focus.com/2023/10/16/separating-hollywood-myths-from-real-life-locksmithing-techniques/
  92. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/12/professional-safecracker-reveals-his-craft/577897/
  93. https://thehustle.co/the-architect-who-became-the-king-of-bank-robberies
  94. https://www.boweryboyshistory.com/2021/11/historic-heist-the-great-bank-robbery-of-1878.html
  95. https://allthatsinteresting.com/eddie-chapman
  96. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/20/world/eddie-chapman-83-safecracker-and-spy.html
  97. https://locklab.com/tag/learn-safecracking/
  98. https://www.cbc.ca/archives/the-fast-and-ruthless-46m-brink-s-mat-gold-robbery-of-1983-1.5359437
  99. https://tavexbullion.co.uk/the-brinks-mat-robbery-a-look-into-the-infamous-1983-heist/
  100. https://www.wired.com/video/watch/hacklab-we-digitally-cracked-a-high-security-safe
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.