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 12:58:56 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <vq7m23$211im$2@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>
 <vq6jbe$1qo1r$1@dont-email.me>
 <1r8o1sx.1jr3qohuqzruoN%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 20:59:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="16a65e28050da4e8b9e8417bdb348229";
	logging-data="2131542"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FaTusg6UFWDA+NveCFggM"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6p2Yn8qBykh2K2RKaA6JiR2IEBA=
In-Reply-To: <1r8o1sx.1jr3qohuqzruoN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3646

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?