Evaluation of 20 smart locks: 11 failed the test, involving Haier, Guojia, Mingmen and other brands

Nandou News Reporter Chen Yangkai The safety of smart locks has always been a topic of concern to consumers. On April 30, the Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee) released the \”Comparative Test Results of Electronic Anti-Theft Locks in 2019\” and tested 20 electronic anti-theft locks. The results showed that 9 out of 20 samples passed all test items, and 11 samples did not meet the standard requirements due to problems such as damage to the lock body after impact, no alarm function, and abnormal reactions under electrostatic interference, posing safety risks. In the \”little black box\” test, none of the samples were abnormally unlocked, but 5 of the samples had abnormal phenomena such as panel freezes and panel malfunctions.

20 electronic anti-theft locks

Involving Samsung, Loock and other brands

Electronic anti-theft locks The lock is an intelligent lock that uses circuits, chips and other electronic components to drive and control the opening and closing of the mechanical lock after recognizing the correct fingerprint, password and other information. In essence, electronic locks are a combination of mechanical locks and electronic components. The 20 electronic anti-theft locks tested by the Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee were purchased through home furnishing stores, e-commerce platforms and other channels, involving brands such as Samsung, Loock, and GC, including 10 each from offline physical stores and online e-commerce platforms. models, prices ranging from 999 yuan to 4800 yuan.

This test refers to the national mandatory standards to evaluate the mechanical safety of 20 electronic anti-theft lock samples (lock body withstands pressure and impact strength, lock tongue withstands axial/lateral pressure, lock tongue extension The output length) and the safety of electronic components (electrical strength, anti-static/electromagnetic interference, environmental adaptability, information preservation and misrecognition rate, anti-vandal alarm function) were tested. In addition, in response to the recently popular \”small black box that opens smart door locks in seconds\”, this test simulated the \”little black box\” currently on the market and tested whether the lock would be opened abnormally.

Mechanical safety test

The lock bodies of 5 samples including Haier were damaged

The lock body was The core component of the door lock, whether it is an electronic lock or a traditional door lock, the real anti-theft function is the lock body itself. The mechanical safety test simulates the impact damage that the electronic anti-theft lock may suffer, and the impact strength of the lock body of the sample is tested. The results showed that 5 sample lock bodies were damaged.

Testing the rear tongue of Guli modular fingerprint smart lock (nominal trademark: GULI; nominal specification: Guli WJ8D00 series modular smart lock) produced by Zhongshan Asa ABLOY Security Technology Co., Ltd. Unable to scale normally. The KEYLOCK smart lock (nominal trademark: KEYLOCK; nominal specifications: 6600-998) produced by Guangzhou KEYLOCK Intelligent System Manufacturing Co., Ltd. failed to expand and contract normally in the test. The fingerprint lock (labeled by Shenzhen Proback Technology Co., Ltd.) isWeighing brand: Probach; nominal specification: F2), the latch tongue could not retract normally after the test. The Haolishi fingerprint lock (nominal trademark: Haolishi; nominal specification: Future No. 1) produced by Shenzhen Haolishi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. failed to contract normally after the test. A smart door lock (nominal trademark: Haier; nominal specification: HL-33PF3) manufactured by Qingdao Haier Intelligent Home Appliance Technology Co., Ltd. failed to retract normally after testing.

Among them, Shenzhen Haolishi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. argued to the Shanghai Consumer Protection Commission that Haolishi fingerprint lock (nominal trademark: Haolishi; nominal specification: Future No. 1) does not provide matching lock body , if the lock system does not meet the requirements, the dealer will choose it separately. When the sampler purchased the product, the seller did not explicitly state that the product did not include a matching lock body, and there was no relevant instructions on the product packaging that it did not come with a lock body. Consumers had no way of knowing this. In this regard, experts pointed out that for products that do not come with a lock body, the lock body and the panel may not match during the installation process. Even if the installation is successful, if there is a size difference between the lock body and the panel, it may become damaged after long-term use. Because the parts are not fully engaged, the entire lock system is damaged or stuck.

Guli, Yunshuo, etc.6 samples

Damaged by external forcesNone Alarm function

When the smart lock at home is damaged by external force, will it issue a sound/light alarm indication and/or alarm signal output? The anti-vandal alarm function of the electronic anti-theft lock means that when it is subject to illegal intrusion or external damage, the lock can emit an audible and visual alarm to deter outsiders from stopping the damage. In response, the Shanghai Consumer Protection Commission conducted erroneous operations on 20 smart lock samples three times in a row, or damaged the protective panel of the electronic anti-theft lock through external force. The test results showed that 6 samples had no alarm function, that is, no alarm indication and signal output.

These 6 samples are smart locks nominally produced by Zhejiang Yunshuo Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: UNSO Yunshuo; nominal specification: 1002), nominally manufactured by Guangzhou Dijier Intelligent System Manufacturing Co., Ltd. The KEYLOCK smart lock produced by our company (nominal trademark: KEYLOCK; nominal specifications: 6600-998), and the VOC smart lock produced by Zhejiang Yaheda Mechanical and Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: VOC; nominal specifications: K77), a smart lock nominally produced by Shanghai Ziguang Lelian Internet of Things Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: UIOT; nominal specifications: /), a fingerprint lock nominally produced by Yongkang Lizhuo Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. Trademark: Li Zhuo LI ZHUO; nominal specification: 8668), nominally named Guli modular fingerprint smart lock (nominal trademark: GULI, nominal specification: Guli WJ8D00 series module smart lock) produced by Zhongshan Assa ABLOY Security Technology Co., Ltd.

Five samples including Guojia and Mingmen

Existed abnormal reactions under electrostatic interference

When the electronic anti-theft lock is subject to electromagnetic interference, the password The panel, fingerprint module, and circuit parts may be affected to varying degrees. The test results showed that 5 samples had abnormal phenomena such as panel crashes and panel malfunctions during the electrostatic discharge test.

These 5 samples are: The Digil smart lock (nominal trademark: KEYLOCK; nominal specification: 6600-998) produced by Guangzhou Digil Intelligent System Manufacturing Co., Ltd. The panel crashed after the test , unable to Normal unlocking; the fingerprint door lock is nominally produced by Guangdong Mingmen Lock Industry Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: Mingmen; nominal specifications: EZ0606A-AC-ET-R). After the test, the panel driver and panel malfunction; nominally produced by Zhongshan Ya Sahelay Security Guli modular fingerprint smart lock produced by Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: GULI, nominal specification: Guli WJ8D00 series module smart lock), nominal smart lock produced by Zhejiang Yunshuo Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: UN SO Yunshuo; nominal specification: 1002), Guojia Internet smart door lock nominally produced by Beijing Guojia Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: GC Guojia; nominal specification: F0 Guohei) and other 3 samples, After the test, panel misoperation occurred.

Five samples including Huitailong, Mingmen and Guojia

Abnormalities occurred after being challenged by the \”little black box\”

In 2018, a video of \”a small black box opening a smart door lock in seconds\” aroused the attention and concern of consumers. The picture comes from the Internet

In 2018, a video of \”a small black box opening a smart door lock in seconds\” aroused the attention and concern of consumers. The technical term for a \”little black box\” is a Tesla coil. The instantaneous field strength of the electromagnetic field generated by it can reach thousands of volts/meter, far exceeding the radiation intensity of common wireless devices in life. If the electronic lock itself has circuit structure or software program defects, or the electronic components have poor anti-interference ability, it may be unlocked by a \”little black box\”. The test results showed that none of the 20 samples were unlocked by the \”little black box\”, but 5 of the samples had abnormal phenomena such as panel freezes and malfunctions.

Nominal by GuangSmart door locks produced by Donghui Tailong Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: HUTLON; nominal specifications: T8), nominal fingerprint door locks produced by Guangdong Mingmen Lock Industry Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: Mingmen; nominal Specification: EZ0606A-AC-ET-R), both samples had panel crashes. The Haolishi fingerprint lock nominally produced by Shenzhen Haolishi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: Haolishi; nominal specification: Future No. 1), the smart lock nominally produced by Zhejiang Yunshuo Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal Trademark: UNSO Yunshuo; nominal specification: 1002), Guojia Internet smart door lock nominally produced by Beijing Guojia Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (nominal trademark: GC Guojia; nominal specification: F0 Guohe), three samples appeared Panel misoperation.