3Rd Party Certification

[Lwillis]

If the insurers are issuing certificates against a system which they know isn't 3rd party tested and from what I gather here as such doesn't comply. What's stopping the test house doing the same?

I understand manufacturers have spend lots of money on 3rd party testing and I can see its plus points but if we are assuming manufactures who don't get their kit 3rd party tested and liers then IMO I'd treat everyone as if they are.

[datadiffusion]

AFAIK (i.e. they told me) the Scantronic i-On series is 3rd Party certified?

 

I do seem to remember they said they thought they were the only ones, at the time doing that;

I'm sure Adrian might want to differ from the sound of things?

[AdrianMealing]

If the insurers are issuing certificates against a system which they know isn't 3rd party tested and from what I gather here as such doesn't comply. What's stopping the test house doing the same?

I understand manufacturers have spend lots of money on 3rd party testing and I can see its plus points but if we are assuming manufactures who don't get their kit 3rd party tested and liers then IMO I'd treat everyone as if they are.

 

Biggest problem is the insurers and many others believe what manufacturers say, don't get ,me wrong some don't lie BUT IMHO the onlyu way to insure the product m,eets the requirements is via an independent test house certified and inspected themselves to do the tests.

 

AFAIK (i.e. they told me) the Scantronic i-On series is 3rd Party certified?

 

I do seem to remember they said they thought they were the only ones, at the time doing that;

I'm sure Adrian might want to differ from the sound of things?

Not at all Cooper security are one of the good guys, they have al of their product third party certificated and tested.

[datadiffusion]

Oh no I meant them claiming to be the only ones..! Mind you it was a little while ago.

[arfur mo]

Self certification works like this mpst of the time:

• Read standard
• Design system with the intent of it meeting the standard
• Assume design meets standard
• Sign it off

Some times it works like this:

• Read standard
• Copy some words off standard into marketing material
• Sign it off

Both of them are rubbish.

I've worked on a system that had to undergo third-party testing, and it means that not only does the third-party test the product properly, so do you, because each time you get it back from the third-party as failed, it costs you as much as it would for it to pass.

Third-party testing to standards is a lot better, but as LWillis points out, it is still testing to the standard, so you rely on the standard being good. It sounds like good work is being done here, but it's slow going.

I think there should also be penetration testing done. I realise that a lot of you don't agree that that these vulnerabilities are exploitable, but they still exist and importantly, are fixable. A lot of them are caused by laziness. As the number of attack surfaces on alarms gets higher (with the increasing use of wireless and now IP), they will get exploited. Will it be burglars? Who knows. Spammers? DDoS bot networks? They are all possible.

So my legendary skills installing cc wiring, t&b frames, vi ro's, knock out rods, safe limpets,, pressure pads valve rays might yet still be valuable?

[matthew.brough]

You can hope I suppose

[AdrianMealing]

So my legendary skills installing cc wiring, t&b frames, vi ro's, knock out rods, safe limpets,, pressure pads valve rays might yet still be valuable?

If the EU get their way (and i hope they do) then no not worth anything, there are no EN standards that cover most of that stuff.

[Oxo]

If the EU get their way (and i hope they do) then no not worth anything, there are no EN standards that cover most of that stuff.

 

 

With another recognised voice saying against, will you get the idea now?

[arfur mo]

If the EU get their way (and i hope they do) then no not worth anything, there are no EN standards that cover most of that stuff.

the we should LEAVE the EU then -

simples .

[matthew.brough]

Why would we want to do that?