Re: Next Alarm

["Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1124731931.904661.200150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Jackcsg wrote:
> > "Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:pdeig1t4ocl4vco412fhf6er0j40f1aqjr@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > That's not true. Their methods were in question...particularly the
non
> > UL
> > > > compliant ones...
> > >
> > > Which non-UL compliant methods?  I'm not doubting you.  I don't
> > > recall a discussion about that.
> > >
> > >
> > They use a device that intercepts the dial attempt, and re-routes it
over
> > the internet. They don't need to get into programming, nor even care
about a
> > lock code. They take advantage of the poor security you have with
> > practically every panel on the market. No message authentication. I'd
give
> > you some ideas why this is bad, and not a listed UL method of monitoring
> > LSD's, but I don't think this is the place to discuss a major, existing
> > security issue.
>
> Good call Jack.
>
> You'll remember that Fat ASS likes to let everyone know everything
> about anything. Security isn't the point with him. It's how good he can
> look to someone, by telling them things they really don't have to know,
> so they'll buy something from him.

I'm kind of like Progressive Auto Insurance. I might not be the cheapest,
but dollars to donuts, you'll know why....completely. Who's that company up
in NJ that always said, "our best customer...is an educated one" SMS? SIMS?
???

Jack