Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Security fasteners
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 03:06:36 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <vq6jbe$1qo1r$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq68c3$1p096$1@dont-email.me>
 <1r8nwrf.1f4hcwebwz608N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
 <vq6fgj$1pt47$2@dont-email.me>
 <1r8o0yw.174iprz1kbiu53N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 11:06:39 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="16a65e28050da4e8b9e8417bdb348229";
	logging-data="1925179"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Cc9peBpCJ8Zr/lZb1ddDX"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:P+LN+VFYiw4gbXutbrrkR/UbXMw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1r8o0yw.174iprz1kbiu53N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
Bytes: 3733

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.