wired vs wireless alarm system

steifanc

altor wrote: »

This is covered in clause 8.4 of the EN50131 standard 2006..
all devices on a wirefree system must report back to the panel within 100 seconds.
as for manipulation,a signal transmitted by a transmitter is subjected to reshaping in such a manner that its reproducibility and/or transmissibility are/is exacerbated, but also in such a manner that the reshaping can be detected in a detector in the receiver. In this way, the signal transmission is protected against the possibility of a deliberately short range between the transmitter and receiver being enlarged by manipulation by an intermediate transmitter/receiver.

hi altor,
this en50131 clause 8.4 have you got a link for it ?
Ive looked but to no avail .
is that a direct quote ?
I'm not arguing about this any more , you will just have to take my word that systems like this with the right know how and equipment can be over come, i get paid for finding flaws in control systems amongts other things
unfortunately signal manipulation and signal reshaping are not the same thing.
if one was trying to counter a signal ,you wouldn't be trying to change the signal rather the logic within the carrier.
if you changed the signal shape or jammed it or interrupted the signal with in the 100MS scan cycle of course the panel would detect the change.

this of course isn't any thing for people to be worrying about, the systems are secure enough to maintain there function.

KoolKid

steifanc wrote: »

systems like this with the right know how and equipment can be over come, i get paid for finding flaws in control systems amongts other things


this of course isn't any thing for people to be worrying about, the systems are secure enough to maintain there function.

Agreed!!
But at this level both wired & wireless are both vunerable.
Oldheads original point was that wireless systems were less secure than wired.

steifanc

koolkid wrote: »

Agreed!!
But at this level both wired & wireless are both vulnerable.
Oldheads original point was that wireless systems were less secure than wired.

hi koolkid,
taking a abstract view on all this,
the likelihood of this being the case in a domestic/commercial installation are slim, if you were looking for flaws and venerability in systems taking a six sigma approach you talking a statistic of about .000030 per million. so i wouldn't be worrying about someone breaching a system, unless your the central bank.

as for wireless vs wired ,hypnotically !
a wireless system due to its nature of signal transmission the signal can be harnessed,from an external source.
where a wired system cant , wired has security with in its self,
but then you can pose the question of a wired system ,once you connect to a gsm or a dialer you putting the protocol at risk again.

what would i put in my house , if its pre wired , a wired alarm , if not a wireless , save on mess .
an alarm is only a deterrent .

.G.

Is there anywhere online that the EN50131 standards for alarms are available to read?

altor

steifanc wrote: »

hi altor,
this en50131 clause 8.4 have you got a link for it ?
Ive looked but to no avail .
is that a direct quote ?
I'm not arguing about this any more , you will just have to take my word that systems like this with the right know how and equipment can be over come, i get paid for finding flaws in control systems amongts other things
unfortunately signal manipulation and signal reshaping are not the same thing.
if one was trying to counter a signal ,you wouldn't be trying to change the signal rather the logic within the carrier.
if you changed the signal shape or jammed it or interrupted the signal with in the 100MS scan cycle of course the panel would detect the change.

this of course isn't any thing for people to be worrying about, the systems are secure enough to maintain there function.

Hi steifanc,
i dont think you can get a link for it, i have the EN50131-1-2006 standards, that covers this.
i am sure someone can get into the wirefree systems and mess around with the signals, in this event it comes up as a tamper or fault on the system and activates the alarm. by the sound of it you know more than me.

altor

superg wrote: »

Is there anywhere online that the EN50131 standards for alarms are available to read?

There is no link to download or read them, all certified alarm installers have them..

fred funk }{

altor wrote: »

There is no link to download or read them, all certified alarm installers have them..

and had to pay handsomely for them too ye know......:)

altor

fred funk }{ wrote: »

and had to pay handsomely for them too ye know......:)

you bet

screwlox

Guys,

Never a member here before, but watching this thread with extreme interest.
Some of the information being provided here is laughable, so I just HAD to subscribe, sorry!!

ALTOR;
I have a copy of the TWO standards here in front of me:
EN50131 1997, AND EN50131 2006.

Clause 8.4 in the 2006 standard relates to PROCESSING OF SIGNALS to an ARC (Alarm receiving Centre).
Clause 8.4 in the 1997 standard again relates to processing signals to an ARC.
There is no such quote, as you claim.

I suggest wherever you bought those standards, you bring them back for a full refund immediately, because you've been HAD :eek:.
There is no standard in place yet for wireless Alarm systems. There is a European DRAFT standard, but it hasn't been passed yet.

Clause 8.9.2 in the 2006 standard relates to response processing times by the alarm panel - but this is for hardwired systems - NOT wired...

Now;
First of all, to fit an alarm, there are THREE main 'laws' (if you like);
1.) Compliance to Standard EN50131
2.) Compliance to SR40 (Standard recommendation SR40) - compulsory!
3.) PSA Licence.

You cannot get a PSA licence without 1 & 2, even though 2 is a 'Standard Recommendation', you still can't get a licence without compliance to it - therefore you cannot fit alarms.

Any of these standards can be purchased online from www.saiglobal.com - however they are copyrighted, therefore you will not find them on the Net.


Now with regard to the security of wireless/wired systems, they both provide exactly the same level, providing they are maintained properly...
As previously stated, any attempt to jam or block a signal will create an alarm condition back at the panel - therefore it is just as secure, albeit higher maintenance, as batteries will require replacing every 3 to 4 years.

As far as the integrity of the actual panel security goes, as an alarm installer for 25 years, in my opinion I would say wireless is MORE secure than wired - on a wired system, cables can be spliced open (by someone in the 'know') and the correct wires short-circuited. Such is not possible on a wirefree system.

STEIFANC:
You are correct that a 10-bit intelligent code can be cracked - however wireless devices use what is called a 'rolling code' - so the same 10-bit code is never ever repeated again. Therefore it is of no use to the person who decodes it.

With regard to the 'best make' of system, Aritech (G.E) sensors still work off 433mhz - along with every baby monitor, car alarm keyfob, garage remote etc. in the country.
868mhz will be the new European recognised frequency and it has already been allocated to the security sector by the European commission.
Any good manufacturer like Visonic or GSD (mentioned in a previous post) has had the cop-on to manufacture for 868mhz. Ok the G.E stuff is ok, but it also picks up a lot of other trash (Yes, I have actually measured the 'noise-floor' level on their equipment compared to 868mhz, so its fact, not fiction).

There is a new Wireless G.E Panel being launched into the domestic market this month however - the 'Advisor' (ATS1000) - which will take up to 64 zones. It can take wired OR wirefree sensors. It can also take 433mhz OR 868mhz radio equipment. USB flash programming, Access control capable, plus a new style 2-line LCD keypad.
About time, G.E!!!

dahamster

868MHz is the ISM band controlled by Zigbee. That will fill up pretty quickly with the new typse of sensor networks that are being put in place. So in a couple of years the same issues will apply.

fred funk }{

As far as the integrity of the actual panel security goes, as an alarm installer for 25 years, in my opinion I would say wireless is MORE secure than wired - on a wired system, cables can be spliced open (by someone in the 'know') and the correct wires short-circuited. Such is not possible on a wirefree system.

And as you will know, you should have your resistors EOL to prevent this.

steifanc

Clause 8.4 in the 2006 standard relates to PROCESSING OF SIGNALS to an ARC (Alarm receiving Centre).
Clause 8.4 in the 1997 standard again relates to processing signals to an ARC.
There is no such quote, as you claim:confused:.

Thats what i was thinking, if that was a direct quote i would be worried about the person that wrote the standards



STEIFANC:
You are correct that a 10-bit intelligent code can be cracked - however wireless devices use what is called a 'rolling code' - so the same 10-bit code is never ever repeated again. Therefore it is of no use to the person who decodes it.
when you know the codes whats to decode ?


H1 H2 H4 H8 Key Codes D1 D2 D4 D8 D16
A 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
B 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0
C 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0
D 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 0
E 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 0
F 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 0
G 0 1 0 1 7 0 1 0 1 0
H 1 1 0 1 8 1 1 0 1 0
I 0 1 1 1 9 0 1 1 1 0
J 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 0
K 0 0 1 1 11 0 0 1 1 0
L 1 0 1 1 12 1 0 1 1 0
M 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0
N 1 0 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 0
O 0 1 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0
P 1 1 0 0 16 1 1 0 0 0
All Units Off 0 0 0 0 1
All Lights On 0 0 0 1 1
On 0 0 1 0 1
Off 0 0 1 1 1
Dim 0 1 0 0 1
Bright 0 1 0 1 1
All Lights Off 0 1 1 0 1
Extended Code 0 1 1 1 1
Hail Request 1 1 0 0 0 1
Hail Acknowl. 1 0 0 0 1
Pre-set Dim 2 1 0 0 1 1
Extended Data 3 1 1 0 0 1
Status = On 1 1 0 1 1
Status = Off 1 1 1 0 1
Status Request 1 1 1 1 1



The bit sequence will have the following form:

1 1 1 0 H1 /H1 H2 /H2 H4 /H4 H8 /H8 D1 /D1 D2 /D2 D4 /D4 D8 /D8 D16 /D16

10 bit code , using binary logic , 0-9 conditions per bit, giving 10 possibility's per bit ,by 10 bits that gives 1e+10 conditions of code ,
depending on the panel scan cycle, 100MS, i wouldn't say its even that fast, ,at 100ms the same code is repeated every 100s

steifanc

As far as the integrity of the actual panel security goes, as an alarm installer for 25 years, in my opinion I would say wireless is MORE secure than wired - on a wired system, cables can be spliced open (by someone in the 'know') and the correct wires short-circuited. Such is not possible on a wire free system.

why do you think wireless are more secure ?

i assume you would have to be on the inside of the building to splice the cables, so how do you do that with the alarm on ?

fred funk }{

That could be done while the premises/house alarm in off. For example if it were a shop window in a changing area the thief could be working area shorting out the sensor/contact cable for that window and come back later that night and break in through the unprotected window. But if the alarm is installed properly and the end of line resistors are installed where they should be they would prevent this.

steifanc

fred funk }{ wrote: »

That could be done while the premises/house alarm in off. For example if it were a shop window in a changing area the thief could be working area shorting out the sensor/contact cable for that window and come back later that night and break in through the unprotected window. But if the alarm is installed properly and the end of line resistors are installed where they should be they would prevent this.

how did i know that would be the next answer !
so some one can get in and fiddle around with the wires ,as much as some one can fiddle with remote wireless sensor's.
there is nothing there to state that wireless is more secure or less secure than wired ?

why would a eol resistors prevent some one shorting the contact ?

fred funk }{

steifanc wrote: »

why would a eol resistors prevent some one shorting the contact ?

When they open the contact it will trigger a tamper condition on the alarm. If somebody tries to splice the cable going to the contact to short out the wires the panel will no longer see the resistors and will then generate a tamper condition. Thats why they're called END OF LINE resistors.

2011

If somebody tries to splice the cable going to the contact to short out the wires the panel will no longer see the resistors and will then generate a tamper condition

+ 1

jamesbond

i wouldnt touch visonic with a barge pole,ive installed a few,batteries range from 1 year to 3 in the different sensors,you tend to be changing batteries all the time,the shock sensors are verry poor,if a battery goes you have to reset the sensor after new battery in replaced,
send me a PM and ill advise you on some good systems,there are not many good wirefree systems on the market today

steifanc

fred funk }{ wrote: »

When they open the contact it will trigger a tamper condition on the alarm. If somebody tries to splice the cable going to the contact to short out the wires the panel will no longer see the resistors and will then generate a tamper condition. Thats why they're called END OF LINE resistors.

Daisey chain the Resistance and tap the cores .

being brief in an effort not to incriminate my self on a public forum .

jamesbond

oldhead wrote: »

watching to many james bond films, yea whatever, i would have wired over wireless anyday, even though there is a new wireless system coming out in the next month or so, that uses a higher frequecy, which looks to be very good. also on the batteries, ive seen them replaced well before 5 years.

i wouldnt touch visonic with a barge pole,ive installed a few,batteries range from 1 year to 3 in the different sensors,you tend to be changing batteries all the time,the shock sensors are verry poor,if a battery goes you have to reset the sensor after new battery in replaced,
send me a PM and ill advise you on some good systems,there are not many good wirefree systems on the market today

2011

Daisey chain the Resistance and tap the cores .

I dont know what you mean here and I dont think it would work, whatever it is! Even if you are correct the solution is simple, ensure that the wires are inaccessible.

Both wired and wireless can provide fantastic security for any installation once quality equipment has been selected and it has been properly installed.

It is the standard of installation that seems to be the weakest link in the chain IMHO.

I accept that in theory it is possible to get around a wireless system with the correct equipment and expertiese. But if you are a thief that has all of that at your disposal why bother with any building that has less than a few million in cash or a few gold bars????

KoolKid

Well this thread has certinly taken on a life of its own.
I think we have definitly proven that all systems have their vunerabilities at this level but Oldheads point that wireless are less secure has certinly been proved wrong.

steifanc

2011 wrote: »

I don't know what you mean here and I dont think it would work, whatever it is! Even if you are correct the solution is simple, ensure that the wires are inaccessible.

Both wired and wireless can provide fantastic security for any installation once quality equipment has been selected and it has been properly installed.

It is the standard of installation that seems to be the weakest link in the chain IMHO.

I accept that in theory it is possible to get around a wireless system with the correct equipment and expertiese. But if you are a thief that has all of that at your disposal why bother with any building that has less than a few million in cash or a few gold bars????

i cant really explain it any more,with out telling you how to do it,and that i can get into trouble for.! maybe if you read on multi taps, Resistance related,
think about this tho , an analogue system using Resistance to verify the integrity of the circuit , the CPU uses closed loop control with the resistor .
your using a series loop , what happens if your eol isn't where its suppose to be, how dose that affect the loop ?
i know the answer so don't post it !

as i have said before that both systems will preform fine for what there doing,
the reason i got involved in this one was firstly to counter the believe that the systems were impenetrable.
secondly was the idea that because something carries a standard , that it has to be right !
and finally why someone thinks one system is better than the other, on a security level that is

2011

i cant really explain it any more,with out telling you how to do it,and that i can get into trouble for.!

OK,I think I know what you are saying, but it would require access to the cables when the system is disarmed?
The solution is to ensure that access to the cables is not possible.

what happens if your eol isn't where its suppose to be, how dose that affect the loop ?

An EOL resistor can not be moved within 1 scan cycle while the alarm is armed.

as i have said before that both systems will preform fine for what there doing,

+ 1

the reason i got involved in this one was firstly to counter the believe that the systems were impenetrable.
secondly was the idea that because something carries a standard , that it has to be right !

I agree with both points. I also feel that the EN50131 needs to be looked at again. Some alarms that meet this standard are simple enough to defeat, (both wired and wireless) without any fancy technology or expertise.

and finally why someone thinks one system is better than the other, on a security level that is

I have found some of the points made quite informative and interesting.

steifanc

but it would require access to the cables when the system is disarmed?
The solution is to ensure that access to the cables is not possible.
very true , but remember why we were talking about this, someone stated that unwired systems were more secure than wired, i asked why, and this is the answer i got , that someone could mess with the cables,

so where are we now ?
wired system ,
someone has to get access to the building ,
has to be able to access the cables
has to understand how the panel works understand closed resistive control

wireless,
system can be accessed with in radio frequency of the units
no entry to the building is needed
having the skill set to change carrier code and manipulate the signal, finding someone willing and able , very slim





An EOL resistor can not be moved within 1 scan cycle while the alarm is armed.

once the panel reads the Resistance on the scan it doesn't matter where it is,

just as a matter of interest on my behalf, where is it recommended to put the eol in the panel or final contact, i am not an alarm installer so i don't know, many years ago i would of put them in , i have been involved in debate about the final position of the elo before, and out of pure interest id like to here your views.

bushy...

The main fact here is this "argument" is still going on.

Plain to see , Steifanc knows waaay more than he is prepared to say ( for good reason)

If the rest are putting their faith in

A: a resistor

B: wireless

it says a lot.

Jnealon

steifanc wrote: »

just as a matter of interest on my behalf, where is it recommended to put the eol in the panel or final contact, i am not an alarm installer so i don't know, many years ago i would of put them in , i have been involved in debate about the final position of the elo before, and out of pure interest id like to here your views.

IMO eols should be put in the sensor. Putting them in the panel is just lazy and defeats the purpose

2011

steifanc

very true

OK, so we are both talking about the same method.

Here is another thought for you wrt wired systems: Non PSA and non alarm people are permitted to first fix alarm systems. Would it not be easy for them to wire an alarm system in such a way that it would be easy to intercept cables? Perhaps they could even install a device on a cable within a wall so that zones for the alarm could be switched of remotely?? The alarm contractor would have no idea of this whatsoever.

steifanc

where is it recommended to put the eol in the panel or final contact

Where is this written? I dont know TBH. It is so fundemental that it must be stated in EN50131, somewhwere. What I do know is that this is the best place to install them from a security point of view.

Jnealon

IMO eols should be put in the sensor

I think everyone will agree with you there.

Putting them in the panel is just lazy and defeats the purpose

It would make it far too easy to bypass the system.

altor

screwlox wrote: »

I have a copy of the TWO standards here in front of me:
EN50131 1997, AND EN50131 2006.

Clause 8.4 in the 2006 standard relates to PROCESSING OF SIGNALS to an ARC (Alarm receiving Centre).

Sorry my mistake its TABLE 16, 8.8.3 that this refers too..
maximum permitted duration of unavailability
this requirement is intended to establish if communication is possible by monitoring the communication media to ascertain if it is available to convey a signal or message. monitoring may take the form of listening for jamming when rf techniques are employed or when an i&has shares a bus system with other applications checking that another application has not taken permanent control of the bus.

steifanc

bushy... wrote: »

The main fact here is this "argument" is still going on.


so lets get all the pros and cons and ill construct a positional weighted model and see what the figures say ?
any thing ye can think of