Guest Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Must agree with Pete on this one, The software issue has crossed my mind also on more than one occasion, which is why if you are worried you should always set the panel for secure call-back only, that way it will only dial the number YOU originally put into it and wont allow any UDL from any other number, unfortunately that rules out the use of laptops when you need remote access from another location etc, but it solves one problem.
Nova-Security Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Panel and wintex must have the same 9 digit UDL code in both to comunicate, so a laptop would work if the code matched the one stored in the panel, and you would not have to be at a set phone number. www.nova-security.co.uk www.nsiapproved.co.uk No PMs please unless i know you or you are using this board with your proper name.
bellman Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Evening folks, I also would have to agree with Pete on this one. (even though he uses me as an example ) On the issue of system "tamperability" several of us have used and continue to use "undocumented features" to assist us in our daily workload. at the end of the day, nothing is "tamper proof" it's just a matter of learning how to tamper with it. The correct term should be "tamper resistant". Any possible point of compromise and attack to the system should be looked at and if possible neutralised. Choice of equipment plays a big part in this. Using publicly available equipment as both Pete and Geoff have said does compromise system security for the valid reasons mentioned in the above posts. I and most of the other engineers on here could easily bypass the systems you find in the DIY stores in seconds, and without the end user even being aware that they have been bypassed. just my opinion. Regards Bellman Service Engineer and all round nice bloke ) The views above are mine and NOT those of my employer.
Guest Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 ... but there are people out there just as clever as Chris that would. ... Pete 62975[/snapback] don't insult my friend... :!:
Guest Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 ...Sure you need to know the phone number that the system is connected to but even that isnt that hard if you have the right contacts. ... Pete 62975[/snapback] That is the reason you HAVE TO use CALLBACK feature and have a callback number in such premises which can be controlled. Then we come to TCP/IP issue.. Some panels have TCP/IP modules available. So don't forget the firewall (and i don't mean the cheapest £40 zyxel or D-link you find on the market) and configuring it...
Guest Peter James Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 don't insult my friend... :!: 63017[/snapback] Now you dont want me to have to start editing your posts again george do you
Guest Peter James Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 That is the reason you HAVE TO use CALLBACK feature and have a callback number in such premises which can be controlled. Then we come to TCP/IP issue.. Some panels have TCP/IP modules available. So don't forget the firewall (and i don't mean the cheapest £40 zyxel or D-link you find on the market) and configuring it... 63018[/snapback] Easy to get round if you know how.
secboy Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Lots of things said concerning dobbins questions which should not have been said on the public forem in my humble opinion then lots of discussion due to dobbins questions which should have been in the trade forems or PM'ed between you guys. I confirm that it did start to make me nervous when dobbin steered the chat to defeating the systems, might have been best to finish it there? but I must say that if people are going to get the hump with DIY'ers in the public forem as this was I think one of the main reasons for Dave starting the site perhapes it would be best for everyone if they stayed away from it?? but its only my own humble opinion of course!!!!!! Paul
Guest Dobbin Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 SECBOY I confirm that it did start to make me nervous when dobbin steered the chat to defeating the systems It was never my intention to 'steer' the chat in that direction. It just naturally went that way. If you notice, I didn't want any details of how you could get around the systems I just wanted it verified that it was possible. I am not too worried because it became quite obvious that it would take a good deal of skill to do this and your average 'chancer/sneak thief/opportunist' probably wouldn't have a clue how to do it. I don't think many highly sophisticated knowledgeable diamond thieves will want to have a go at my fairly average 3 bedroom semi! I appreciate what you are saying about the site and DIYers and people either want to help or can stay away. Thanks for you input. I hope I have assured you that I don't want to gather 'alarm beating' information. Dobbin
Guest Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Now you dont want me to have to start editing your posts again george do you 63029[/snapback] Oh NO, please DON'T.. My nerves wouldn't tolerate it again..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.