Re: Next Alarm

["Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c81lg1t543ul88ov5nm7te48habippa810@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> 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....
>
> Oh, yes.  Thanks for the reminder.  But doesn't that only apply
> to folks using VoIP.  If so, then for most folks that shouldn't
> be an issue at present.  In a few years when POTS lines become as
> rare as good advice from Olson everyone will have to find a VoIP
> compatible solution.
>
No, it doesn't just apply to people using VoIP. The UL approved method for
transporting Alarm signals over IP, combines an alarm manufacturers "router"
specifically designed, and UL approved for this method.
This method, is a good example of the poor security features found in a
majority of manufacturers control panels. No message authentication. Signals
can be intercepted, and the control panel satisfied that it actually talked
to an alarm receiver, when in fact it never actually talked to the right
one. Now I'm not a Rocket Scientist, but thinking cap on, what do you
suppose the implications of this method would be?
The risk at the residential level may be minimal, but commercially, and
depending on the type of facility being protected....
Most dealers don't even realize this, most manufacturers think the risk is
minimal.