House Alarm GSM

fiestaman

Hi i had a guy round to price an alarm for my new build.i dont hav a telephone line yet so he said a gsm would be good job. Does it cost much per year for gsm or would i be better off getting a phone line and going that way?

KoolKid

Are you just looking for self monitoring?
Most reputable companies will not recommend GSM for central station monitoring where Garda response is required. It is no longer considered by most as a secure form of monitoring.
What system were you looking at?

2011

KoolKid wrote: »

Most reputable companies will not recommend GSM for central station monitoring where Garda response is required. It is no longer considered by most as a secure form of monitoring.

I assume the same applies to unprotected PSTN phone lines?

KoolKid

While I agree an unprotected phone line its not ideal. It is considered as big a risk as GSM.
There are rumors abound that GSM monitoring is to be removed from grade 2 of the standards . I don't envisage that happening for PSTN lines any time soon.

fiestaman

yes self monitering as im in the country and it would take ages for a guard or a company to get to house. its a HKC. Local fellow doing them around my area.

2011

KoolKid wrote: »

While I agree an unprotected phone line its not ideal. It is considered as big a risk as GSM.

I see. Therefore if they are of equal or equivalent risk, surely the same logic should apply?

i.e. not reccomended for central station monitoring by reputable security companies.

KoolKid

You would think so. The various methods available for alarm monitoring needs some form of regulation now I think. Using PSTN the line can be disconnected from outside the house. Likewise with broadband via DSL or cable.
I think the difference with the use of GSM jammers is that there is no physical tampering required and therefore, from an insurance point of view, no evidence of same.

fred funk }{

Most secure method of monitoring is through a secure PSTN line. A UPC or PSTN line exposed externally is liable to be tampered with. GSM is liable to jamming.

Alarm companies should do a site survey and propose a security risk grade. This is based on the intruders knowledge of a security system and the premisess to be protected. A grade 3 alarm is installed on the presumption that the intruder is competent with the workings of an alarm system so the system must be protected against this intruder. A grade 1 presumes the intruder has little or no knowledge of alarms thus the system is installed to that level.

I have never heard of an intruder using a jamming device on a domestic alarm, commercial, yes, several times. That's not to say they aren't being used but it's certainly very rare. So it's not really unacceptable to recommend a GSM device once the customer is aware of the risks but that's the same with any form of monitoring as they all have their vulnerabilities.

2011

KoolKid wrote: »

You would think so. The various methods available for alarm monitoring needs some form of regulation now I think.

+1

Using PSTN the line can be disconnected from outside the house. Likewise with broadband via DSL or cable.

Exactly.
ETU boxes installed at a very accessible level on typical new builds makes tampering of phone lines very simple.

I think the difference with the use of GSM jammers is that there is no physical tampering required and therefore, from an insurance point of view, no evidence of same.

I see your point, and there is a certain logic to it.
However, it could also be argued that considerably less technical understanding/expertise is required to cut a phone line (at 52VDC) than to operate a GSM jamming device.
I accept that such devices are easily obtained (on the internet for example), but they are a little harder to explain possession of and to obtain than say a snipes. I know that it can also be argued that GSM jammers are simple to operate, but may opportunist burglars are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

creedp

KoolKid wrote: »

While I agree an unprotected phone line its not ideal. It is considered as big a risk as GSM.
There are rumors abound that GSM monitoring is to be removed from grade 2 of the standards . I don't envisage that happening for PSTN lines any time soon.

For the uninitiated - is a phone service supplied by an ariel attached to your house a PSTN line? Or is it a service supplied by skype or bluface or the like?

2011

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Most secure method of monitoring is through a secure PSTN line. A UPC or PSTN line exposed externally is liable to be tampered with. GSM is liable to jamming.

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Most secure method of monitoring is through a secure PSTN line.

Define secure. Do you mean with a high degree of mechanical protection??

I get concerned when I see posts such as this recent one:

Phone line cut

Alarm companies should do a site survey and propose a security risk grade. This is based on the intruders knowledge of a security system and the premisess to be protected. A grade 3 alarm is installed on the presumption that the intruder is competent with the workings of an alarm system so the system must be protected against this intruder. A grade 1 presumes the intruder has little or no knowledge of alarms thus the system is installed to that level.

I have never heard of an intruder using a jamming device on a domestic alarm, commercial, yes, several times. That's not to say they aren't being used but it's certainly very rare. So it's not really unacceptable to recommend a GSM device once the customer is aware of the risks but that's the same with any form of monitoring as they all have their vulnerabilities.

All good points, well made.


My point is even simpler:

If as Koolkid says:

Most reputable companies will not recommend GSM for central station monitoring where Garda response is required. It is no longer considered by most as a secure form of monitoring.

(I agree with this)

…and as you say:

A UPC or PSTN line exposed externally is liable to be tampered with. GSM is liable to jamming.

(I also agree with this)

How can a “reputable” alarm companies use on unprotected PSTN pone lines for central station monitoring?

As far as I am concerned it is easier to cut a phone line in an ETU than jam a GSM signal. Less expensive, simpler, more obtainable and more explainable equipment is required too.

fred funk }{

Define secure. Do you mean with a high degree of mechanical protection??

Yes, mechanical protection. No phone access point outside the premises in boxes for a start. When you get outside the premises it gets tricky as you then have no control over where the telecom lines are accessed eg. pillars or manholes.

I get concerned when I see posts such as this recent one:

Me too. That's why it's essential end users are fully aware of all the vulnerabilities of the system they have BEFORE installation. Some alarm companies will tell the customer anything to get the sale, Phonewatch door to door salesmen are notorious for that.

How can a “reputable” alarm companies use on unprotected PSTN pone lines for central station monitoring?

Again it comes down to the level of competence of the intruder and what the alarm is protecting. It is deemed acceptable for a grade 2 alarm to have exposed Phone/cable wires outside as the intruder is deemed to be incapable of disabling it. There are ways, which I personally do, to protect some external lines but I wont post it here.

2011

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Yes, mechanical protection. No phone access point outside the premises in boxes for a start. When you get outside the premises it gets tricky as you then have no control over where the telecom lines are accessed eg. pillars or manholes.

This is the point I wanted to make: PSTN can'e be made very secure. That is why I would not rate it any more than GSM

Me too. That's why it's essential end users are fully aware of all the vulnerabilities of the system they have BEFORE installation.

+1
So this applies to PSTN and GSM

Again it comes down to the level of competence of the intruder and what the alarm is protecting. It is deemed acceptable for a grade 2 alarm to have exposed Phone/cable wires outside as the intruder is deemed to be incapable of disabling it.

I agree with this point, but it does not deal with my point, which is:

If we accept that reputable alarm companies should not use GSM for monitored systems as they are not secure, then they should not use PSTN as we all seem to agree in this thread that PSTN is not secure either.

There are ways, which I personally do, to protect some external lines but I wont post it here.

I can guess, handshakes etc... Surley these methods can be applied to GSM too?

KoolKid

A lot of that has to do with insurance. There is proof of physical tampering. Unless the equipment is left behind how do you prove jamming. ?

2011

KoolKid wrote: »

A lot of that has to do with insurance. There is proof of physical tampering.

So are you suggesting that reputable security companies will use unsecure PSTN phone lines rather than a GSM module just because the insurance companies have some form of traceability in the event of a burglary?

If they are reputable surely they should steer clear of all unsecure methods of communication when connected to a monitoring station?

If reptuable their primary concern should be security and proving how an alarm was defeated should be way down the list of priorities.

As you and others have made clear it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how a GSM signal can be blocked, although I agree with you it is a little harder to prove that it has been done.

KoolKid

The way I deal with GSM is , I explain the risks to the customer. I also explain that phone lines can also be tampered with & the steps we take to secure the lines & reduce this risk.If the customer still wants GSM (They rarely do ) then the only way our monitoring station will accept that connection is by the customer signing a disclaimer stating they have been made aware of the risks of jamming.
Its not a case of only pleasing the insurance companies , its about what the monitoring stations want as well as the installation company & the customer.
Take the scenario of a breakin in & a GSM fails due to jamming:
The blame game will go around in circles.
Why did the ARC not get a signal?
Was there a fault with the digi?
Was there a problem with the ARC
Was there a problem with the alarm?
Was there a problem with the network?

The insurance company will be looking for an out & they will want proof of everything . Other methods of defeating alarms by physical tampering can be proved .
Now, you may well say we are not here to please the insurance companies but at the end of the day they, along with the ARCs & the guards will be involved in any standards that are written or changed.

The methods of monitoring are changing. IP is going to get a lot bigger, especially with the possibilites of polling etc. But that too is vunerable to attack. Regulation is needed to cover all reporting methods.
With IP what happens with a power cut? Will a UPS be any good in the event of a power cut? How long should a UPS hold up a modem/router?
I could go on & on. I will stand over my decision making process on GSM as I have explained above.

fred funk }{

This is the point I wanted to make: PSTN can'e be made very secure. That is why I would not rate it any more than GSM

Can a PTSN line can be made very secure? Depends on what you call very secure. Most banks etc. don't have a pillar outside where the lines can be accessed easily but even if you had a direct line to the local exchange, would that be secure? to me, yes it would but where does it end, what if someone working in the exchange was to tamper with the line?

So this applies to PSTN and GSM

Yes, but in my experience when customers are told of all the risks they often respond with the old adage "It's not Fort Knox we're living in".

If we accept that reputable alarm companies should not use GSM for monitored systems as they are not secure, then they should not use PSTN as we all seem to agree in this thread that PSTN is not secure either.

No form of monitoring is 100% secure. Most burglars will not have the know how to disable a PTSN line from a manhole etc while GSM blockers a very easily got and are carried in the burglars pocket.

My house is monitored using a PTSN line. If a burglar approaches my house they will not be able to disable my phone line without having knowledge of the underground ducting of the entire estate. If I had a GSM unit and the burglar had a jammer in their pocket, my alarm would be disabled as soon as they are in the proximity of my house.

Again, It goes back to whom you're trying to protect the property against. 99% of alarms are to protect against your average burglar with little or no knowledge of alarms.

I can guess, handshakes etc... Surley these methods can be applied to GSM too?

No. It involves a mixture of distraction and deterrent.

2011

Interesting post Koolkid, very informative. Thanks for taking the time to reply in such detail.
It does not really address my question, but I will answer/comment/give my own views on your post anyway.

KoolKid wrote: »

Its not a case of only pleasing the insurance companies , its about what the monitoring stations want as well as the installation company & the customer.

Ok, I was focusing on the level of security only. Some might say "What about pleasing the customer?"

For many end users the most important issue is, how secure the alarm system is. How secure it is will be directly related to how easy can it be defeated.

Take the scenario of a breakin in & a GSM fails due to jamming:
The blame game will go around in circles.
Why did the ARC not get a signal?
Was there a fault with the digi?
Was there a problem with the ARC
Was there a problem with the alarm?
Was there a problem with the network?

All valid points, but these are issues to look at after the horse has bolted i.e. after an alarm activation with a failure to communicate.
With respect these are issues for the installer/insurance company, not the end user.

The insurance company will be looking for an out & they will want proof of everything . Other methods of defeating alarms by physical tampering can be proved .

Once the home owner is honest with the insurance company and they can prove that the alarm has been installed and maintained by a registered installer they would have a legal obligation to pay out. I agree that they will always try not to pay if they can. I was told by an assessor that a well known alarm company (that specialize in wireless alarms, not Koolkid either) have frequently paid out to the insurance companies.

I can see how demonstrating that the phone line was cut could be of benefit to the installer in some cases.

Now, you may well say we are not here to please the insurance companies but at the end of the day they, along with the ARCs & the guards will be involved in any standards that are written or changed.

We will have to wait and see with this one.
Personally I have found the advice concerning alarms very poor from the Gardai.

The methods of monitoring are changing. IP is going to get a lot bigger, especially with the possibilites of polling etc. But that too is vunerable to attack. Regulation is needed to cover all reporting methods.

With IP what happens with a power cut?

UPS kicks in I would think.

Will a UPS be any good in the event of a power cut?

I don't see why not.

How long should a UPS hold up a modem/router?

At least as long as the battery from the alarm panel lasts. As far as I know the regulation is that the alarm panel must last at least 24 hours (I am open to correction on this). I think most modern panels will easily do 48 hours (unless the battery is poor).

I could go on & on. I will stand over my decision making process on GSM as I have explained above.

I agree with you on all of the points in your last post.
I accept that GSM is easily defeated if the correct equipment is to hand.
I also agree that this equipment can be bought on the internet for small money.
However I also think that an unprotected phone line is as easy or easier to defeat and the equipment required is even easier to acquire for even less money.

That is why I find it hard to understand why a company can be described as unrepeatable because for installing GSM units, but not for using unprotected phone lines.

My experience is the same as Fred's:

I have never heard of an intruder using a jamming device on a domestic alarm, commercial, yes, several times.

Fred also made another important point that highlights one of the weaknesses with pone lines:

When you get outside the premises it gets tricky as you then have no control over where the telecom lines are accessed eg. pillars or manholes.

2011

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Can a PTSN line can be made very secure? Depends on what you call very secure.

Exactly, that is why when you said "Most secure method of monitoring is through a secure PSTN line." my reply was "Define secure"

Most banks etc. don't have a pillar outside where the lines can be accessed easily but even if you had a direct line to the local exchange, would that be secure? to me, yes it would but where does it end, what if someone working in the exchange was to tamper with the line?

Trust me the banks do not depend solely on a phone line!

Yes, but in my experience when customers are told of all the risks they often respond with the old adage "It's not Fort Knox we're living in".

I agree with you here. I can see from your posts that both you and Koolkid do your best to explain to customers the pros and cons of different systems.

In my job I often have to explain technical issues to different people. I can see their eyes glaze over, but what can you do?? There is no option, but to try to explain.

No form of monitoring is 100% secure. Most burglars will not have the know how to disable a PTSN line from a manhole etc while GSM blockers a very easily got and are carried in the burglars pocket.

I agree 100%
In my first post on this thread I said:

I assume the same applies to unprotected PSTN phone lines?

because as you correctly point out phone lines that have some protection are much harder to defeat.

My house is monitored using a PTSN line. If a burglar approaches my house they will not be able to disable my phone line without having knowledge of the underground ducting of the entire estate.

Because you have either:
1) Mechanical protection
2) Hidden the phone line
3) A combination of 1 and 2

Which all makes sense, but I would not describe this as an "unprotected phone line" such as one that can be accessed in an ETU.

Where I live there is one clearly marked manhole for the entire estate. It is a few hundred meters from the nearest house and there is no street lighting.

Again, It goes back to whom you're trying to protect the property against. 99% of alarms are to protect against your average burglar with little or no knowledge of alarms.

True.
This is why I don't think an alarm company should be described as unrepeatable for installing GSM modules, once the risks are clearly explained. The same should apply when using phone lines IMHO.

No. It involves a mixture of distraction and deterrent.

OK, decoy type stuff? I can imagine.

KoolKid

2011 wrote: »

Ok, I was focusing on the level of security only. Some might say "What about pleasing the customer?"

I was commenting on all 3. As I said, when the customer is informed of the risks re jamming vs the risks re PSTN lines they generally steer away from GSM,

2011 wrote: »

For many end users the most important issue is, how secure the alarm system is. How secure it is will be directly related to how easy can it be defeated.

I agree . Its all about the level of burglar you are protecting against.
No point in the customer worrying about James Bond types either.

2011 wrote: »

All valid points, but these are issues to look at after the horse has bolted i.e. after an alarm activation with a failure to communicate.
With respect these are issues for the installer/insurance company, not the end user.

Issues with insurance companies do affect the end user. If there was a risk of non payment because of some event I would like to know about it prior to an issue not after.

2011 wrote: »

Once the home owner is honest with the insurance company and they can prove that the alarm has been installed and maintained by a registered installer they would have a legal obligation to pay out.

They may very well place the burden of proof on the customer.
Suppose they say prove the GSM was jammed.

2011 wrote: »

UPS kicks in I would think.

But if the power is cut in the general area there would be a good chance the broadband would be down anyway.

2011 wrote: »

At least as long as the battery from the alarm panel lasts. As far as I know the regulation is that the alarm panel must last at least 24 hours (I am open to correction on this). I think most modern panels will easily do 48 hours (unless the battery is poor).

Modems may well use more power than an alarm.You would probably require larger batteries. Another reason why regulation is required here.

2011 wrote: »

I find it hard to understand why a company can be described as unrepeatable because for installing GSM units, but not for using unprotected phone lines.

It will be removed from the standards I believe & so do many others in the industry.I also believe it is a bigger issue then we are hearing. If it were not I doubt the stations would have invested all those millions in mesh radio and the likes. I also doubt the stations would be refusing to connect GSMs without a waiver if the risk wasn't real. After all they don't ask for the same for PSTN etc.
As the monitoring options increase the risk to phonelines will decrease.
Which cable do you now go for? Phone , Cable Aeriel etc..
Now if GSM is removed from the standards then anyone installing them would be unreputable, companies not installing them now are simply getting ahead of the game.As fred said all lines external to the alarmed area are vunerable. However, your average burglar isnt going to lift a man hole for eircom & then UPC etc. I have twice in all me years come across this level of attack. In those cases they were higher risk properties.

2011

Thanks for the reply Koolkid. Very detailed again.
I think we have both gone way off topic, but it is interesting so I will reply.

KoolKid wrote: »

I was commenting on all 3. As I said, when the customer is informed of the risks re jamming vs the risks re PSTN lines they generally steer away from GSM

Fair enough.

What about when the customer is informed of the risks when using PSTN in cases where the phone line can be very easily tampered with? Such as clipped to the front and side of the house at low level or in a low level ETU box.

I agree 100% with Fred's point that when the pone line has been protected on the building itself that security has been significantly increased. I am would think that your position is the same.

Its all about the level of burglar you are protecting against.
No point in the customer worrying about James Bond types either.

For the average home, I would agree.

Issues with insurance companies do affect the end user. If there was a risk of non payment because of some event I would like to know about it prior to an issue not after.

It is posible to have a GSM module installed and have full cover. It is even possible to have no alarm and have full insurance cover!

If the customer has an alarm and is 100% upfront and explains to the insurance company exactly what security they have in place they will be covered if the insurance company says there are.

I personally know people that have a GSM communication only on their alarm systems and the insurance company has stated in writing that they are fully covered in the event of a burglary if the system is maintained with a service contract by a register alarm installer. Although insurance companies never like paying out, they would have a battle on their hands trying to wriggle out of that one! I am sure they would be paying a smaller premium if a more secure form of communication was in place, but that is a separate issue.

They may very well place the burden of proof on the customer.
Suppose they say prove the GSM was jammed.

The customer would only have to prove that they complied with terms of the insurance policy i.e.
1) Alarm was installed exactly as stated
2) Alarm was armed
3) Alarm was serviced and maintained by a registered installer
4) All other conditions were met in respect of the policy document. I have yet to see a policy document that states that the customer must prove how a security system was defeated. I have heard of the insurance company inspecting the alarm log to see if it was armed at the time the customer stated it was.

But if the power is cut in the general area there would be a good chance the broadband would be down anyway.

Possibly, but that would depend on many factors. Seeing as though many people get broadband over a phone line it could be argued that the phone line would be lost too for exactly the same reasons.

Modems may well use more power than an alarm.You would probably require larger batteries. Another reason why regulation is required here.

True, they may well require a larger battery. But if the battery is sized to outlast the alarm panel battery reserve then the customer is covered, as in as long as the alarm panel is operational, so is the modem.
I agree that regulation is required.

Regulations also need to be enforced and from what I hear this is not happening as it is.

It will be removed from the standards I believe & so do many others in the industry.I also believe it is a bigger issue then we are hearing.

You may well be correct. I am sure you have a better inside line on this than me.

My own personal view is that completely unprotected phone lines should also be removed from the standards as they dramatically reduce the overall security of many alarm systems.

If it were not I doubt the stations would have invested all those millions in mesh radio and the likes.

Mesh radio is far more secure than PSTN phone lines and GSM, no argument there.

I also doubt the stations would be refusing to connect GSMs without a waiver if the risk wasn't real.

I have always agreed that there is a risk.
Just from my own experience, Fred's and what I have heard the risk of cutting an unprotected phone line is greater.

As the monitoring options increase the risk to phonelines will decrease.

Agreed

Now if GSM is removed from the standards then anyone installing them would be unreputable

I agree 100%, if GSM was removed from the standards, but it isn't.

companies not installing them now are simply getting ahead of the game.

I would think that companies not using unprotected phone lines are ahead of the game.

As fred said all lines external to the alarmed area are vunerable. However, your average burglar isnt going to lift a man hole for eircom & then UPC etc.

I could not agree more. As I pointed out to Fred I am referring to unprotected phone lines only where lifting of manholes would not be required. I have never seen this either. But I have seen phone lines cut (in ETU boxes) and I will bet you and Fred have too.

I have twice in all me years come across this level of attack. In those cases they were higher risk properties.

....and in these cases I would agree that GSM is not secure enough either.

altor

fred funk }{ wrote: »

I have never heard of an intruder using a jamming device on a domestic alarm, commercial, yes, several times. That's not to say they aren't being used but it's certainly very rare. So it's not really unacceptable to recommend a GSM device once the customer is aware of the risks but that's the same with any form of monitoring as they all have their vulnerabilities.

I agree Fred, I have never heard or seen a blocker being used on a domestic premises. Commercial, yes, more than enough times.

altor

2011 wrote: »

I see. Therefore if they are of equal or equivalent risk, surely the same logic should apply?

They both do have a risk, I have seen a whole area knocked out by the cutting of the telephone lines. There is no way to protect all the cables coming from the exchange to peoples homes or commercial premises.

KoolKid

2011 wrote: »

What about when the customer is informed of the risks when using PSTN in cases where the phone line can be very easily tampered with? Such as clipped to the front and side of the house at low level or in a low level ETU box.

We explain the various options of protecting that line vs other lines vs GSM . Most agree against GSM.

2011 wrote: »

I agree 100% with Fred's point that when the pone line has been protected on the building itself that security has been significantly increased. I am would think that your position is the same.

Yes

2011 wrote: »

It is posible to have a GSM module installed and have full cover. It is even possible to have no alarm and have full insurance cover!

If the customer has an alarm and is 100% upfront and explains to the insurance company exactly what security they have in place they will be covered if the insurance company says there are.

I personally know people that have a GSM communication only on their alarm systems and the insurance company has stated in writing that they are fully covered in the event of a burglary if the system is maintained with a service contract by a register alarm installer. Although insurance companies never like paying out, they would have a battle on their hands trying to wriggle out of that one! I am sure they would be paying a smaller premium if a more secure form of communication was in place, but that is a separate issue.



The customer would only have to prove that they complied with terms of the insurance policy i.e.
1) Alarm was installed exactly as stated
2) Alarm was armed
3) Alarm was serviced and maintained by a registered installer
4) All other conditions were met in respect of the policy document. I have yet to see a policy document that states that the customer must prove how a security system was defeated. I have heard of the insurance company inspecting the alarm log to see if it was armed at the time the customer stated it was.

We could go over & over the insurance issues. We all know insurance companies don't like to pay out. But I don't like to give them more options.
Whether a failure of a GSM unit to report due to tampering that was not detected could be open to a lot of interpertations. Without regulations & standards that will always be the case.

2011 wrote: »

Possibly, but that would depend on many factors. Seeing as though many people get broadband over a phone line it could be argued that the phone line would be lost too for exactly the same reasons.

The difference is phonelines rarely go down with a power cut in the area.
Broadband does,

2011 wrote: »

My own personal view is that completely unprotected phone lines should also be removed from the standards as they dramatically reduce the overall security of many alarm systems.

I would agree. However I don't see that ever happening.
Eircom seem to have a lot of say in the standards over here unfortunatly.

2011 wrote: »

I would think that companies not using unprotected phone lines are ahead of the game.

Yes.

2011

KoolKid wrote: »

We could go over & over the insurance issues. We all know insurance companies don't like to pay out.

I agree they don't like to pay out.

I can't even see what the basis of their argument would be.

Insurance company: "We can't ascertain the exact point of failure of your alarm's communication system, therefore we are not paying out....."

Angry customer that just had home thrashed: "Irrelevant. My PSA registered alarm installer was very specific detailing every component of the alarm system (following a thread on Boards, I thought sending a letter like this would be prudent). If you were not fully satisfied you should not have taken my money and entered into a contractual agreement with me. Pay up or you will be explaining yourself to the man with the wig" :D

Some areas are grey, legally binding written documents aren't.

I would agree. However I don't see that ever happening.
Eircom seem to have a lot of say in the standards over here unfortunatly.

Then we agree on almost everything.
Are you suggesting that as Eircom has a vested interest in phone lines, they may exaggerate how secure this method of communication really is? Perish the thought

I still feel that unprotected phone lines are more lightly to be defeated than GSM modules. I base this on my own experience, the experience of alarm installers that I know. Even in this thread Altor's experience and Fred's (for domestic installations) has been the same.

KoolKid

2011 wrote: »

I agree they don't like to pay out.

I can't even see what the basis of their argument would be.

It would probably base around there not being an alert that it was tampered with. A PSTN line fault will register & log a fault. They could argue all signalling should do the same.
Back to regulation again.

2011 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that as Eircom has a vested interest in phone lines, they may exaggerate how secure this method of communication really is? Perish the thought

I'm suggesting a lot of the standards seem to suit their systems.
Remember the one about the internal should not be near the control panel?
What ever happend that?

2011

KoolKid wrote: »

It would probably base around there not being an alert that it was tampered with. A PSTN line fault will register & log a fault. They could argue all signalling should do the same.
Back to regulation again.

I can't see the basis for not paying out. All of the above are issues that the insurance companies would be aware of prior to agreeing a legal contract. None can make an agreed policy null and void unless the insurance company in question was deceived deliberately or otherwise.

I'm suggesting a lot of the standards seem to suit their systems.
Remember the one about the internal should not be near the control panel?
What ever happend that?

I know and I agree.

NewHillel

There is agreement that neither PSTN lines or GSM are 100% secure.

Any thoughts on smart monitoring?
(I've no connection, just curious.)

KoolKid

Polling like that will soon be possible via IP as well
That device would work best in conjunction with a standard phone line to . That way if the usit reports a line fault & then stops polling that could be actioned as an attack without an actual alarm activation.

altor

NewHillel wrote: »

There is agreement that neither PSTN lines or GSM are 100% secure.

Any thoughts on smart monitoring?
(I've no connection, just curious.)

The reliable of the GSM network would be my main concern with this device. I think the radio systems that are available are the most secure at the moment. They are costly but to block a signal off them from outside a building would take military equipment.

alex.middleton

came across this thread but seems a bit old but I gave the guys at http://resure.co/ a call and they advised me that gsm lines are never 100% secure and to get some recorded confirmation even if its just of a customer service call from the insurance company to cover yourself.