Re: DSC 1555MX and PC1616 in alarm

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:40:55 AM UTC-5, tourman wrote:
> On Mar 19, 10:52=A0pm, mleuck <m.le...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 11, 2012 7:52:30 PM UTC-5, tourman wrote:
> >
> > > The 1616, 1832 and 1864 series of panels are another matter
> > > altogether. The bastards at DSC have deliberately engineered things
> > > such that it is at the moment, impossible to unlock. And the reason
> > > why they have done that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the
> > > lockout feature or not; it's simply done for monetary reasons.
> >
> > And you know this how? Which manufacturer told you this?
>=20
> RHC: Well, with no real value at all, there is no other reason why any
> company would take the deliberate action of blocking someone from
> entering the back door of the panel other than money !!
> Since YOU challenge my assertion, YOU tell us why a manufacturer would
> deliberately go out of there way to redesign the board so a few little
> guys like Jim and I can't crack the board any longer. They have no
> idea (nor do you) how many boards we actually default, so they, like
> most large companies today, simply put the bottom line over ethics,
> and deliberately re-inforce a software procedure which has no
> redeeming value. In all the years I've been in business, I can't think
> of a single valid reason for this feature other than to frustrate
> someone taking the board over.

They redesigned the board because the older 1555/5010 processor was discont=
inued. I don't know why they changed the design other than that nor did I c=
laim to, I just choose not to make baseless accusations that may have no fo=
undation in truth. You have no justification for the statements you made ot=
her than it apparently costs you money.

BUT, lets look at it another way, if a security company found out someone w=
as cracking their hardware don't you think it would make sense to remove th=
e possibility of being able to do that? This is after all a SECURITY panel =
and not jailbreaking an iPhone.

At one time I could easily crack older PC1550's and PC2500/2530 panels, the=
y then came out with later versions that I couldn't. I never assumed they d=
id it because they didn't want me breaking into their boards (mostly since =
I doubt they knew the procedure).

BTW Napco did the same thing with their old MA panels, so did Ademco and if=
 I recall Caddx....

> > Lets do the math, you and Jim unlock maybe a few dozen boards a year (o=
kay let's say 100 total) and DSC sells several hundred thousand boards a ye=
ar. Considering the low profit margin of an alarm board I somehow seriously=
 doubt they do it for revenue. If I remember there was a time they didn't w=
ouldn't take locked boards at all back in the mid 90's. A company I worked =
for was sending several hundred PC1500 v3 panels monthly at the time.
>=20
> RHC; I'm sure it had to do with the price of labour for them to unlock
> the boards. Plus what do they do with a used board once it's available
> for re-use.....same old reasoning, bottom line !!

Why would you assume that? They built the board I imagine it's fairly easy =
for them to get into it. I would hazard a guess (note this is an opinion) t=
hat they wouldn't want to sell customers old used boards.

 Plus, should our
> techniques become known out there in the world, and this activity
> become much more active, there goes far more boards than the number
> that Jim and I unlock. It's called "knipping it in the bud", all with
> a view towards the bottom line. They want to sell new boards, not
> allow a feature that keeps older ones working longer......

I seriously doubt they know or care what you and Jim are doing. The change =
in design may have had more to do with how the board functions and not beca=
use a couple of guys are cracking them

And the older boards ARE working properly, just because you can't crack the=
m doesn't mean they aren't.

> >
> > > A very strong case can be made for eliminating this lockout feature
> > > altogether from alarm boards since it serves NO legitimate purpose
> > > today. It was originally brought in to allow the "free system"
> > > marketeers some freedom from other companies "raiding" their accounts=
.
> >
> > And you know THIS how? Which manufacturer said this?
>=20
> RHC: This is certainly the only reason I can see after 20 years of
> being in this business. And no manufacturer is going to come right out
> and advertise the availability of a feature which they know deep down
> shouldn't even be in their panels.They did it because of a large
> demand by these same marketeers !!

Who? I've worked with several large companies who have some influence in so=
me manufacturer's panel designs and I've never seen them ask for it.

You continue to state things you have no basis of fact.

> If YOU think this feature is valid,
> YOU tell us why this feature is still used (even actively modified as
> with DSC) in these alarm boards ! You're always so quick to challenge
> others - now you put up or shut up !!   And when you do, I'll give you
> the email address of the detective in Denver who was going to campaign
> to make it illegal in Colorado to do this....

Well I can think of several hundred if not thousands of instances where oth=
er companies poached existing accounts.

And again since we are talking security I'd be more concerned about a compa=
ny that ignores security backdoors than I would one that fixes them.

> > Actually that isn't true either, in most cases the new company will eas=
ily replace the panel with a new board or whatever complete system they nor=
mally install.
>=20
> RHC: Exactly, and in doing so, the manufacturer sells another
> board !!!!

That is assuming the installer uses the same brand. Many times they do not.=
 But then the case could be made they are ALL in on the racket eh?

> I can't count the number of times this has been the situation...take
> off your rose coloured glasses. I've had it happen many, many times
> (and know it was for those reasons, by listening over a speaker phone
> as the old company tried it's extortion techniques.....)

I've heard it as well, however I have no problems replacing a locked panel =
since usually the customer is getting a better system anyway. I just choose=
 not to think of it all being a huge conspiracy by the manufacturers especi=
ally when you consider the massive number of panels sold compared to (my gu=
ess) the pitiful few you and Jim crack.


> RHC: I would seriously like to hear from those who think this is a
> good feature ! Over the years I've brought this up many times, and all
> I get is complete silence.

I stated it earlier in this reply. The issue you have isn't with the panel =
design it's the installing company who put the panel in and now will not un=
lock it.=20

> Those of us in the industry that really care about making it better,
> have a duty to bring up the nefarious and outright dishonest practices
> that we all face. If we don't, who the hell will !! We talk about the
> usefulness of a newsgroup, well here you go.....

I could be wrong but manufacturers tend not to listen to people who make ba=
seless accusations of dishonest and fraudulent practices about them, then a=
gain that's just me.

> It sure as hell won't be the large corporations who always put money
> first. Companies like ADT who should be the market leader, simply
> aren't when it comes to hazy practices that affect our industry
> (although in all honesty, I've never found a locked ADT board that
> wasn't locked by some some subcontractor unbeknownst to them....).
>=20
> So, you first Mark....

I've never found one either, so much for those evil marketeers you keep tal=
king about, and ADT has had much more influence on what Ademco/Honeywell ma=
de than any other company out there.

Hey didn't Tyco buy DSC a few years ago right about the time the PC1616 cam=
e ....... yea it must be their fault since it fits the narrative.