Jump to content
Security Installer Community

Recommended Posts

Posted

The problem in that respect is, where does the liability fall?

A lot of installers see that a product has been third-party tested, and you'll assume it's good. I'd wager that a lot of those installers don't realise that a large part of the standard is self-declared i.e. it's essentially worthless.

The insurers are similar. They've taken it on trust that the products comply with the standard.

Most end-users view the alarm and signalling as a grudge purchase. They don't care - unless they have a large estate of property they want to protect. That's why some of the bigger customers have had pen-tests done on systems.

After today though, it seems a number of insurers are going to start asking questions around signalling.

I have a blog, some of which is about alarm security and reverse engineering:
http://cybergibbons.com/

 

 

 

Posted

Insurers in the whole don't have a clue.

Bag and cat spring to mind though. Things might and should change. As an end user I'd be livid with the findings too. Having said that, I'm not an end user of said equipment and I'm not surprised with what CG has released.
  • Downvote 1
Posted

Does anyone know if any Dualcoms have ever been compromised?

Any comments / opinions posted are my opinion only and do not represent those of my employer or Company

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.