Bulldog Vaults BD3000, From Handgun Safe Archives

[@HandgunSafe]

Let me know if you would like to see more from my archives! I have tons of unposted video.

[@vsevolodtokarev]

Yes, please! Especially of decent safes.

[@HandgunSafe]

@@vsevolodtokarev I don't have any of those. If I know of a decent safe, I will recommend it here. What I have are videos of security failures, lots of dangerous gadgets.

[@replacesoundboard]

Archived videos are always nice.

[@iFlyiRideiRace]

Always good to hear from you.

[@replacesoundboard]

2:25 _"The damage is done."_ - Dave

[@replacesoundboard]

I like how KZbin is capable of suggesting some videos in which you said these lines when I searched "the damage is done" on your channel. I think it's capable of searching (to some degree) within the automated captions of the videos for keywords. If I search "you could just give it a good shake", I instantly find the Union Safe with too many ways to break in.

[@HandgunSafe]

@@replacesoundboard I did not know this! I'll play around with searching...

[@replacesoundboard]

Before watching the video, the biometric and the hidden bypass lock reminded me of the Verifi Smart Safe, before they listened to your feedback.

[@replacesoundboard]

Well, at least the Verifi Smart Safe looked like it was worth its price

[@HandgunSafe]

This box is nearly identical to the Smart Safes. The basic box fabrication has been around for years and years.

[@iFlyiRideiRace]

If that button is moved to a different place, I wonder if this safe will get your approval?

[@HandgunSafe]

No. The bypass lock installed in this is a short-cylinder cross lock. I've demonstrated how to open them on this channel using tools any non-expert lock picker can use. Besides, the reason that some biometric handgun safes were recalled recently was this identical programming issue. If someone makes a mistake enrolling a fingerprint, that person has no way of knowing the safe will still open for any fingerprint without actively testing the safe. The risk of somebody leaving a safe available to anyone is too great, so devices that have this programming oversight are being recalled.

[@tomcepek498]

Did you ever do a GunBox video? Also, will you be doing a Wyze review as well?

[@HandgunSafe]

No, I never did a GunBox video. I doubt that I will. They just aren't that popular anymore. As for a Wyze review, I don't know. I'll think about it.

[@tomcepek498]

@@HandgunSafe you’re the only source I trust.

[@HandgunSafe]

@@tomcepek498 Flattery will get you nowhere. 😀Let me see if I have the money and time to look at the Wyze thing.

[@tomcepek498]

@@HandgunSafe lol appreciate it- hopefully they send you a freebie

[@LynxSnowCat]

() I keep forgetting how stupid these things are programmed to be. Instead of greeting them with the same cheerful tune - Just changing the response to a farting noise when there's no print registered would immediately inform the user that the safe is compromised - without increasing parts count. Making it hesitate/require confirmation to 'lock' without a registered print (illuminating the scanner until button pressed again) would inform the user that it wants a print - without increasing parts count. Making it refuse to lock (quickly) without using a registered fingerprint would force the user to return it to a more 'secure' condition - without increasing parts count.