View Single Post
Old 08-29-2017, 06:06 PM   #30736
CRussel
(he/him/his)
CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CRussel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
CRussel's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,298
Karma: 80074820
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sunshine Coast, BC
Device: Oasis (Gen3),Paperwhite (Gen10), Voyage, Paperwhite(orig), iPad Air M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinisajoy View Post
It is my understanding on the key cards that the locks must be connected to the system to read the key card. No system, no way for the lock to read the card.
If that were true, NO ONE could get into their rooms for that entire time. Somehow, I doubt that was the case from the description that Bilbo1967 posted. Yes, _changes_ would require the system to be up. And I suppose at least some systems might work that way. But if I were designing it, I'd choose to have the authenticator required for changes, but the actual unlock handled locally based on what was downloaded to the lock. That's a far more stable and fail-proof system. Intelligent design avoids 'single point of failure'. A bad lock could fail _that lock_. But if all your locks require verification against a single server...
CRussel is offline   Reply With Quote