In response to Bernard Green

[cybergibbons]

There's no doubt lock picking has improved lock security over the last 100 years.

Why is "picking" alarms any different?

 

[JohnD]

I have not said what I think. I am just a householder.

I have however attempted to find out what you think.

You have made it clear that

1) you believe criminals might start doing it one day

2) you approve of publishing information purporting to educate on how to commit crime.

 

[cybergibbons]

It's lovely that you can say the same thing again and again without actually responding to any questions.

 

[toooluk]

We know where you stand now

1) you believe criminals might start doing it one day

According to Tony Makosinkski from Honeywell security jamming of wireless security systems is an issue that needs addressing. He recommends wireless to compliment wired systems.

2) you approve of publishing information purporting to educate on how to commit crime.

Yes, educating people to the vulnerabilities of security systems. In the case of security locks the industry are making improvements and the end user has more secure locks to chose from.

 

[cybergibbons]

Hah, that's not how Honeywell responded to me.

Thanks for the useful input though, it's good to see that others believe in vulnerability disclosure.

 

[cybergibbons]

To respond specifically to your points:

1. I believe that criminals may start to use more advanced techniques against alarm systems. Trust me - these issues are not limited to ungraded wireless alarms.

2. Why is showing how I can jam an alarm I own educating someone on how to commit crime? It's not illegal in itself. How is it different to a video about lock picking?

 

[JohnD]

I haven't needed to express an opinion on your position.

I have simply identified and noted it.

 

[cybergibbons]

You mean those two points of yours aren't your opinion?

What are they then?

 

[alumni]

It's lovely that you can say the same thing again and again without actually responding to any questions.

You're learning.

 

[Europlex]

It's lovely that you can say the same thing again and again without actually responding to any questions.

You're learning.

Best thing is to put him on ignore, he still won't go away, but at least you have sent a message.

 

[cybergibbons]

Ah. The £5 thing is a common post it seems.

 

[toooluk]

Hah, that's not how Honeywell responded to me.

It wasn't a response to me, it was an article I read. Honeywell never respond, that's my experience anyway.

Thanks for the useful input though, it's good to see that others believe in vulnerability disclosure.

You are welcome. Vulnerability disclosure is the only way companies like Honeywell are held accountable and forced to change for the better.

 

[mdf290]

Lets just put the correct perspective on this.

Wireless alarms can be jammed IF someone is so determined to do so.
However posting information about equipment and techniques is totally wrong.

You are more than welcome to state they are vunerable to jamming attacks.

However you are crossing the line for a number of reasons when posting information that is sensitive.

Consider that...

You may be revealing information that a prospective criminal does not already know. In that instance you could be arming that criminal to commit a crime he would not otherwise have done or known how to do.

Here you will argue that its common knowledge and public domain and if indeed it is so why do you feel the need to accelerate it's spread.

If its for the so called benefit of wireless alarm users , You are too late they already have their systems installed except now someone is actively seeking to spread information on how to defeat them.

In terms of why are your posts getting deleted...

Lets say burglar Bill gets arrested and he has used a jammer...where did you get it... Oh it was on DIYnot. Loads of information about how to use them... I thought they were legal...

Do you really think DIYnot want to be dragged into a legal case or be held accountable for hosting sensitive information?

 

[JohnD]

You mean those two points of yours aren't your opinion?

What are they then?

the two points I showed, are yours, not mine.

You have made it clear that

1) you believe criminals might start doing it one day

2) you approve of publishing information purporting to educate on how to commit crime.

 

[alumni]

Lets just put the correct perspective on this.

Wireless alarms can be jammed IF someone is so determined to do so.
However posting information about equipment and techniques is totally wrong.

You are more than welcome to state they are vunerable to jamming attacks.

However you are crossing the line for a number of reasons when posting information that is sensitive.

Consider that...

You may be revealing information that a prospective criminal does not already know. In that instance you could be arming that criminal to commit a crime he would not otherwise have done or known how to do.

Here you will argue that its common knowledge and public domain and if indeed it is so why do you feel the need to accelerate it's spread.

If its for the so called benefit of wireless alarm users , You are too late they already have their systems installed except now someone is actively seeking to spread information on how to defeat them.

In terms of why are your posts getting deleted...

Lets say burglar Bill gets arrested and he has used a jammer...where did you get it... Oh it was on DIYnot. Loads of information about how to use them... I thought they were legal...

Do you really think DIYnot want to be dragged into a legal case or be held accountable for hosting sensitive information?

Odd isn't it.
When your favoured brand of toot is ridiculed by the trade for being as week as a sieve, you get on your donkey and defend it to the hilt claiming no such weakness exists.
Yet, when someone comes along to show you are wrong you suddenly want them censored.
What's up. Your business plan suddenly worthless?

As i said earlier, there's a difference in showing it being done and how to do it.