That’s actually not true. See the other comment about Shamir Secret Sharing. Very clever stuff where you can split a key in m parts and require n<m of the pieces to get it back.
But with SSS and m=3, n can only be 1, 2 or 3. If n=2 there is a possibility for a conspiracy of 2 and a redundancy of 1, if n=3 then all three have to agree, but there is no redundancy, which was the case here.
That’s actually not true. See the other comment about Shamir Secret Sharing. Very clever stuff where you can split a key in m parts and require n<m of the pieces to get it back.
But with SSS and m=3, n can only be 1, 2 or 3. If n=2 there is a possibility for a conspiracy of 2 and a redundancy of 1, if n=3 then all three have to agree, but there is no redundancy, which was the case here.
Right. Re-reading your comment, I agree. n=3 is too small, even with SSS. BUT without it, 3 was too big in this case. So yey SSS!