Quote:
Originally Posted by CRussel
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...
|
Couldn't that also make it easier for someone to unlock all the doors at once for theft? I mean if they could get access to the system and send a master unlock command or something.