I got some Pinhead locking skewers, and was dismayed to be able to remove the rear one with vise-grips (lawyer lips on front dropouts made that one ungrippable).
So I ordered Pitlocks, and made a disappointing discovery there too: the elaborate little spring ratchet-disc which is supposed to prevent unscrewing except by the regulation tool is far too flimsy to have any real effect. It's barely thicker than foil. I tested, and found that indeed it achieves nothing: taking care to leave its teeth engaged, I unscrewed the nut while measuring torque - and it took no more torque than that used to tighten the nut. I bought more disks to study further, and found that they always fail easily - sometimes splitting, sometimes stripping the central hex hole. So the supposed sophisticated mechanism is a sham, albeit one that has fooled the Pitlock designers to judge by their proud promo literature.
That got me thinking, and I ended up working out two methods for removing skewers without cutting or lockpicking, in under a minute. One is specific to Pitlocks, and one works on any skewer. Both are easily dealt with by design changes.
So - what's the moral course? The argument for publishing is that the vulnerabilities, once identified, can be corrected (and people will not be investing in a flawed system that can be suddenly rendered defeatable by an internet post). The argument for secrecy is that the vulnerabilities have gone unnoticed (or at least unpublished) this long, and may stay unknown to thieves forever. My feelings on the issue wobble .
(Mods - I'd be obliged if you'd fix typo in title - seems I can't.)