Eyes On Envisalink 3 Ip Security Interface

[alterEGO]

Without even giving it any though the following is enough for me to keep clear;

 

- CIE must be graded (IMO an app becomes CIE once logged into the system)

- System status should not be displayed

- CIE should not be outside the protected area (this one is a little grey)

 

Exluding the ARC option to set/unset I don't think it complies, end of. I don't understand what point there is to discuss, there is nor reg on apps with remote access so you have to run with whats in place.

The simple fact is your way may be compliant, who knows, but mine is 100% and thats how we work.

[matthew.brough]

it might take up a keypad address matt,but its not a functional keypad as you know so wont need a tamper,im guessing here you may know the correct answer,but isnt it to monitor the status of the connected mod,ie anything connected to say com 4 will report missing keypad 15,com 4,why its progd like that i havent a clue tbh..wich begs the question does a ipad take up a keypad address

It's not a functional keypad, until you connect rss to it then its a fully functional keypad. The reason it is like that is due to Honeywell not having a SDK. The only way to get a 3rd party device is to mimic the 2 modules. Com 4 being the Ethernet mod and key 15 being a keypad.

I don't have a definitive answer which is the point of the thread as there isn't one. One standard says yes, another says no and for half the stuff it says nothing at all leaving all the guess works to do you don't you. You can also manipulate the rules to fit your own desire. Set status is one if them. Installer rules say no, arc rules say its fine so if you want to do it, you'll just claim its complaint with arc rules.

Ipad does yes, we mimic keypad 15 on the bus.

Without even giving it any though the following is enough for me to keep clear;

- CIE must be graded (IMO an app becomes CIE once logged into the system)

With this theory, rss is not compliant. If the app is just being used as remote control of an onsite keypad that is compliant, does this comply.

- System status should not be displayed

Ac rules say this is fine.

- CIE should not be outside the protected area (this one is a little grey)

Again, begs the question is a remote control app cie?

Exluding the ARC option to set/unset I don't think it complies, end of. I don't understand what point there is to discuss, there is nor reg on apps with remote access so you have to run with whats in place.

Agreed, and thats the point. I'd love the regs to be clear so we know what's what.

The simple fact is your way may be compliant, who knows, but mine is 100% and thats how we work.

But if you don't allow apps because you're unsure if it is compliant, and we offer it because we believe it is, that give us a competitive advantage and that's not fair.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I might be wrong but without a clear standard, we will never know.

Be interested in other people's views on the above too.

[goncall]

It's not a functional keypad, until you connect rss to it then its a fully functional keypad. The reason it is like that is due to Honeywell not having a SDK. The only way to get a 3rd party device is to mimic the 2 modules. Com 4 being the Ethernet mod and key 15 being a keypad.

I don't have a definitive answer which is the point of the thread as there isn't one. One standard says yes, another says no and for half the stuff it says nothing at all leaving all the guess works to do you don't you. You can also manipulate the rules to fit your own desire. Set status is one if them. Installer rules say no, arc rules say its fine so if you want to do it, you'll just claim its complaint with arc rules.

Ipad does yes, we mimic keypad 15 on the bus.

but is it a mimic of kp 15 or the com4 mod,id presume its a mimic of com 4 which the panel can see,but it won't see another device ie an ipad on site connected to com4,id have thought an onsite kp be it a real kp or a virtual one should be added and removed as per the normal procedure to comply,imo,maybe honeywell will come up with something like the rf rkp i dream about ..lol

[matthew.brough]

but is it a mimic of kp 15 or the com4 mod,id presume its a mimic of com 4 which the panel can see,but it won't see another device ie an ipad on site connected to com4,id have thought an onsite kp be it a real kp or a virtual one should be added and removed as per the normal procedure to comply,imo,maybe honeywell will come up with something like the rf rkp i dream about ..lol

We use webways virtual keypad. The ipad uses the same method as rss virtual keypad does.

The other point (which kicked of the thread) is that these devices already exist and are being sold in the truck load world wide. We are at a competitive disadvantage to a non approved co as they don't have to worry about bs or en anything. The can do as they please. We are all cautions as we all want to do the right thing, but there is no clear guidance on what the right thing is. Remote maintenance was the same prior to dd263. There were no clear rules. Equally though, we don't want to be held back from offering customers things they want just because the professional industry can't keep up with progress.

You have been able to do UDL for over 20 years. It took until 2010 to get a standard around it, and only a dd at that.

[goncall]

We use webways virtual keypad. The ipad uses the same method as rss virtual keypad does.

The other point (which kicked of the thread) is that these devices already exist and are being sold in the truck load world wide. We are at a competitive disadvantage to a non approved co as they don't have to work a out bs or en anything. The can do as they please. We are all cautions as we all want to do the right thing, but there is no clear guidance on what the right thing is. Remote maintenance was the same prior to dd263. There were no clear rules. Equally though, we don't want to be held back from offering customers things they want just because the professional industry can't keep up with progress.

remote it was designed for,but now we have the means for smart phone apps to control the systems on site,but no rules i agree,needs looking at as you say,no answers but loads of opinions..tho lots of users with smart phone access will be a nightmare with no logs to see whos connected,will need a rewrite i suppose,ie access user xx smart phone unset etc

[alterEGO]

It's not a functional keypad, until you connect rss to it then its a fully functional keypad. The reason it is like that is due to Honeywell not having a SDK. The only way to get a 3rd party device is to mimic the 2 modules. Com 4 being the Ethernet mod and key 15 being a keypad.

I don't have a definitive answer which is the point of the thread as there isn't one. One standard says yes, another says no and for half the stuff it says nothing at all leaving all the guess works to do you don't you. You can also manipulate the rules to fit your own desire. Set status is one if them. Installer rules say no, arc rules say its fine so if you want to do it, you'll just claim its complaint with arc rules.

Ipad does yes, we mimic keypad 15 on the bus.

But if you don't allow apps because you're unsure if it is compliant, and we offer it because we believe it is, that give us a competitive advantage and that's not fair.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I might be wrong but without a clear standard, we will never know.

Be interested in other people's views on the above too.

I agree, but that is something that can not be determined on here.

 

I am happy so avoid them at the minute. Imagine;

 

Your punter: I lost my phone and I must of left my security app logged in, who would have thought they would have unset the golf clubs pro shop alarm and then proceeded to empty it.

Insurer: An app you say? (Rubbing hands together)

Your Punter: Yes its a great little thing, anyone can just unset the alarm from my phone.

Insurer: Please forward your alarm companies details, we will get back to you regarding your claim.

 

Then we have the Pier incident all over again, they call Aaron May, a well respected expert in the alarm industry (cough, poetic licence, cough) and he drills you into the ground.

 

Not for me just yet.

[matthew.brough]

I agree, but that is something that can not be determined on here.

 

I am happy so avoid them at the minute. Imagine;

 

Your punter: I lost my phone and I must of left my security app logged in, who would have thought they would have unset the golf clubs pro shop alarm and then proceeded to empty it.

Insurer: An app you say? (Rubbing hands together)

Your Punter: Yes its a great little thing, anyone can just unset the alarm from my phone.

Insurer: Please forward your alarm companies details, we will get back to you regarding your claim.

 

Then we have the Pier incident all over again, they call Aaron May, a well respected expert in the alarm industry (cough, poetic licence, cough) and he drills you into the ground.

 

Not for me just yet.

That's a very good point, same issue with being able to put things on test if the app remains logged in.

[GalaxyGuy]

but is it a mimic of kp 15 or the com4 mod,id presume its a mimic of com 4 which the panel can see,but it won't see another device ie an ipad on site connected to com4,id have thought an onsite kp be it a real kp or a virtual one should be added and removed as per the normal procedure to comply,imo,maybe honeywell will come up with something like the rf rkp i dream about ..lol

 

Com4 is the Ethernet module or compatible module consuming Com4's address. The Ethernet module also includes an emulated keypad on address 15. When you log in via the Ethernet module, then you are also granted access to the traffic for the emulated keypad at address 15.   That's basically how it works.

[matthew.brough]

remote it was designed for,but now we have the means for smart phone apps to control the systems on site,but no rules i agree,needs looking at as you say,no answers but loads of opinions..tho lots of users with smart phone access will be a nightmare with no logs to see whos connected,will need a rewrite i suppose,ie access user xx smart phone unset etc

This function is already in MASterMind, it's called archive review. Don't know about others though. If we don't get to grips with it, what position does that put us in. Can you imagine not having an app for any electronic gadget in 5-10 years time?

The non approved boys don't have all these worries, they can do what they like.

What about CCTV apps that can change DVR settings. Same issue applies.

[goncall]

We use webways virtual keypad. The ipad uses the same method as rss virtual keypad does.

The other point (which kicked of the thread) is that these devices already exist and are being sold in the truck load world wide. We are at a competitive disadvantage to a non approved co as they don't have to worry about bs or en anything. The can do as they please. We are all cautions as we all want to do the right thing, but there is no clear guidance on what the right thing is. Remote maintenance was the same prior to dd263. There were no clear rules. Equally though, we don't want to be held back from offering customers things they want just because the professional industry can't keep up with progress.

You have been able to do UDL for over 20 years. It took until 2010 to get a standard around it, and only a dd at that.

remote access has been around a while i agree,and has its uses,rri,s not a fan,as an engineer i wont ever will be either..