AdrianMealing Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 Beat me to it James, was just doing exactly the same exrcise, same table and same clause. amealing@texe.com Head of Industry Affairs Visit Our Website Texecom
james.wilson Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 50136 isn't something I know. The new 2012 version seems easier to get info from securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.
MrHappy Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 asking the daft question... When dualcom says "encryption" do they mean "there encrption" or just GPRS which I assume will has form of some encryption as standard? Mr Veritas God
AdrianMealing Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 asking the daft question... When dualcom says "encryption" do they mean "there encrption" or just GPRS which I assume will has form of some encryption as standard? http://blogs.computerworld.com/18776/mobile_phone_eavesdropping_made_easy_hackers_crack_gprs_encryption Maybe there is something else on top, i don't know, but there must be another level of DualCom encryption, i would imagine linked to the Gemini servers? amealing@texe.com Head of Industry Affairs Visit Our Website Texecom
MrHappy Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 Maybe there is something else on top, i don't know, but there must be another level of DualCom encryption, i would imagine linked to the Gemini servers? Dunno I just play with coloured wires, however it there's encryption there must be key & to keep these secure they have to be regularly changed ? Mr Veritas God
cybergibbons Posted June 26, 2013 Author Posted June 26, 2013 Some people classify XORing with 0xB3 as encryption. So GPRS could be it. No authentication or substitution protection with GPRS though. I have a blog, some of which is about alarm security and reverse engineering:http://cybergibbons.com/
AdrianMealing Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 Some people classify XORing with 0xB3 as encryption. So GPRS could be it. No authentication or substitution protection with GPRS though. So to comply with the standards you would need something more? amealing@texe.com Head of Industry Affairs Visit Our Website Texecom
cybergibbons Posted June 26, 2013 Author Posted June 26, 2013 Not sure about the standards yet. But without docs or independent tests being available, it would be hard to tell if any product met it. Anyway, with signalling devices I've got the goal of finding any vulnerability, not checking for standards. I have a blog, some of which is about alarm security and reverse engineering:http://cybergibbons.com/
AdrianMealing Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 Not sure about the standards yet. But without docs or independent tests being available, it would be hard to tell if any product met it. Anyway, with signalling devices I've got the goal of finding any vulnerability, not checking for standards. I guess my only point was if they don't meet the standards they may be vulnerable, I think it is important to understand what standards are in place, and if they are up to the job. If the standards do not provide requirements and test methods to highlight vulnerability then they are not worth the paper they are written on. When you have some test results we can review the standards and make a judgement. amealing@texe.com Head of Industry Affairs Visit Our Website Texecom
cybergibbons Posted June 26, 2013 Author Posted June 26, 2013 Agree. Think it's going to be a few weeks as these processors don't have a good disassembler, going to need to write something. I have a blog, some of which is about alarm security and reverse engineering:http://cybergibbons.com/
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.