It isn't about the quality of the lock.
It is about thoughtcrime. Suppose you put a lock with a design flaw on your house. Using the design flaw to burglarize your house is clearly a crime. But suppose I posted the information about the defect on the Internet? Crime? Or thoughtcrime?
This isn't just theoretical. I can defeat many locks people think are secure. The information of how to do this is publicly available. I don't carry anything that could be considered a burglarious tool because I can quickly make a lockpick from a streetsweeper bristle - very easy to find if you know what you are looking for. Any NT machine without encrypted file systems or physical security is not secure, period. You don't need drills and explosives any more. All you need you can carry in your head.
By the way, an AT&T Labs researcher just published a fundamental sploit common to almost all key-operated locks. With knowledge of that sploit, you can make a master key without examining a lock cylinder. Should that publication have been suppressed or criminalized?
An interesting question to which I don't have a firm answer. I am drawn to the "fire in a crowded theater" argument, although it isn't a perfect analogy.
Perhaps a thought experiment might help. If you discovered a non-classified way to disable all American military weapons (perhaps some new technology that you personally invented) would it be lawful to post it on the internet? Would it be moral and ethical? Would it be the right thing to do?
I think that correctness of behavior is determined by its forseeable consequenses. The law is a shabby subset of morality.