Alarm insecurity - jamming, replaying and brute-forcing on the Yale HSA6400

[bernardgreen]

That must be why I and my family were so content with Yales when circumstances suited them.

Are you trying to justify your decision and avoid having to accept it might have been the wrong decision

We even remember to close the windows and lock the doors.

And of course you remembered to check the magent for the back door sensor was still on the door. And that the shed that had a sensor on it was still in the garden.

New door fitted, old door complete with magnet taken away to the tip. Alarm still could still be set without any indication of the non operable sensor.

Shed removed, alarm did not report shed sensor missing ( wireless was used to traverse a public highway that separated shed from house )

 

[bernardgreen]

How often do you estimate that an ordinary domestic house, in an ordinary residential street, is burgled by a skilled person using a jamming or spoofing device to defeat a wireless alarm?

It takes no skill to buy a jammer and use it to enter a property without triggering the alarm siren. ( jamming detection turned off )

 

[Twenty Four]

That must be why I and my family were so content with Yales when circumstances suited them.

Are you trying to justify your decision and avoid having to accept it might have been the wrong decision.

I think that is absolutely evident or he wouldn't have bothered so vehemently to defend the indefensible.

 

[JohnD]

No, you are entirely mistaken

However I do often speak out against the suggestion that ordinary people with cheap alarms are at discernable risk of having their homes broken into by high tech criminals armed with electronic devices.

I am amused by your foolish suggestion that the "right decision" would have been to spend £150 and half a day on something else.

 

[cybergibbons]

Let's be blunt - if all you have is £150, then even with Yale you are not going to get great protection on a normal house. 2 PIRs and 2 DCs are not enough.

You'd be better with a bellbox and spend the remainder on upgrading physical security.

 

[JohnD]

For my £150 I got two bellboxes! And already had good physical security! Detectors for front door, back door, downstairs living room, hall and stairs.

So my telephone notification in the even of an alert must have been a bonus!

What a bargain!

And never encountered anyone or anything jamming it.

Lucky for me it wasn't in Bedfordshire where these things are apparently common.

 

[cybergibbons]

So all the more expensive alarms with things like 2-way RF, encryption, frequency hopping, active detector polling - all a scam?

 

[cybergibbons]

What about wired tampers? You don't see them attacked in most break-ins either.

 

[bernardgreen]

it is false information ( marketing hype ) like this from a professional

"security company" that deludes the man in the street into trusting a wireless alarm. Installers make more profit from installing wireless systems

A wireless system is quicker to install, has much fewer cables to be run, if any, and yes, can still have the occasional false alarm. However, in addition to a random false alarm, every now and then, even though intruder alarms have their own dedicated frequency, something transmitting nearby (if powerful enough) can cause the system to think it is being jammed.

""even though intruder alarms have their own dedicated frequency"" they do not, they share the licence exempt frequency with dozens of other types of equipment.

Lucky for me it wasn't in Bedfordshire where these things are apparently common

Last two incidents where 433.92 MHz became unusable for previously reliable use were near Newbury in Berkshire and a location in the Lake District. Both are line of sight telemetry links. The Lake District incident is almost certainly due to the use of drones.

 

[JohnD]

very few drones operate inside ordinary domestic houses once the occupants have gone out.

 

[JohnD]

So all the more expensive alarms with things like 2-way RF, encryption, frequency hopping, active detector polling - all a scam?

I'm surprised to hear you think that.

 

[cybergibbons]

I don't, that's why there is a question mark at the end.

 

[JohnD]

I'm surprised to hear you suggest it.

 

[cybergibbons]

I'm unsurprised you won't answer the questions.

 

[bernardgreen]

very few drones operate inside ordinary domestic houses once the occupants have gone out.

If anything shows how ignorant you are about wireless communication then you have just posted it. Telemetry and control of drones bought by members of the public is bi directional on licence exempt frequencies such as 433.92Mhz. These can have an operating range of several hundred yards ( non compliant ). The ( non compliant ) source of interference or blocking or jamming can be several hundred yards away and still knock out the system. It doesn't have to be close to the house

""Latest 2016 reports show that interference from the new 4G mobile phone networks are causing further reliability problems to wireless burglar alarms.""

Part of a marketing web site but it is honest. Read the last couple of paragraphs.