Smart Alarm

bk

@BK, as stated EN50131 sets the bar very low. Yale alarms can not comply with this regardless who installs it because these systems don’t meet all of the requirements. Alarms that meet this standard state it very clearly on their documentation. This is just one reason why no professionals installers use them.

Exactly, you've answered your own question. Installers can only install EN50131 certified systems. Yale wants to push installers to their more expensive systems, so easy, just don't get their DIY systems certified and they then force installers to use their more expensive "professional" systems.

All easy nice market segmentation for Yale.

Another example of this is Honeywell's Evohome Alarm systems. They aren't EN50131 either, yet the exact same system, but branded as Phonewatch is EN50131 certified.

All just market segmentation.

2011

bk wrote: »

Exactly, you've answered your own question.

But I didn't have a question

My central point is the alarm that you are a fan of can not be installed to EN50131 by anyone (including installers). This is in sharp contrast to professional systems such as HKC, Siemens, Cytech (as used by wexfordman2) which can be certified as the manufacturer has met some basic requirements.

I accept fully that an EN50131 certificate can only be issued by a registered installer, but the fact that this particular Yale system can not be certified under any circumstances speaks volumes to me.
Does this make it useless? In my opinion, no.
Is it superior to HKC in terms of home automation? In my opinion, absolutely.

Installers can only install EN50131 certified systems.

As far as I know:
Installers can only certify some systems to EN50131.
They can install any system that has a CE mark.

All just market segmentation

I agree 100%.
I would just like to be in the professional kit segment, not the DIY kit segment even though when the install is DIY

bk

My point is the EN50131 spec is horribly out of date and full of terrible security holes.

It was first published in 2006, 13 years ago!

To give you an idea how old, the iPhone hadn't even been launched yet, not for another year and a half! The electronics and IT markets have changed radically since then, as have potential attacks which this spec simply don't account for.

It is quiet possible for an EN50131 certified system to be far less secure then a modern non certified DIY system.

As an example, per the EN50131 spec a system could have the following specs and still be EN50131 certified:
433MHz wireless devices, one way RF, no encryption, no protection against replay attacks and no jamming detection.

I'd assume you'd agree that a system like that is terribly insecure, yet EN50131 certified systems like that exist and the spec allows for it!

Meanwhile, my Yale, non certified DIY system supports:
868MHz wireless devices, two ray RF, rolling code, encryption and jamming detection.

My non certified system would be FAR more secure then a EN50131 certified system with specs like above.

This is why it is dangerous to blindly follow and recommend such an out of date and insecure standard.

I suspect companies building modern smart alarm systems aren't bothering to get them EN50131 certified, simply because it costs a lost of money to do so (in terms of certification and cert lab testing) and that extra cost simply isn't needed if you are only planning to target the consumer DIY market with it.

Behind the scenes, I think the alarm system companies know that the independent alarm installer market is dying. The future unfortunately is either phonewatch type installs or consumer DIY systems.

Wireless systems, along with smart phone type tech, have become so easy to install, their really isn't much need for installers unfortunately. In the past alarms required lots of wiring, electrical work, panel programming etc. But with modern tech it is just plug the box in and stick up some sensors. Most people can handle that themselves and that is where the market is going.

Of course, in the end, go with whatever you prefer. I'm not suggesting otherwise, just be very careful about slavishly following outdated standards.

2011

bk wrote: »

My point is the EN50131 spec is horribly out of date and full of terrible security holes.

As already stated the bar is set very low any semi serious alarm system deigned for the EU is certified to this standard.

Saying how easy a standard is to meet is not a valid argument for not meeting it when insurance companies, the Gardaí, professional installers, the NSAI and manufacturers (including Yale), all refer to EN50131 and / or comply with it. Until there is a replacement it is all we have.

My non certified system would be FAR more secure then a EN50131 certified system with specs like above.

Just a tad misleading.
Your system may be more secure than some EN50131 certified systems, but it would be nothing like as secure the vast majority.

I suspect companies building modern smart alarm systems aren't bothering to get them EN50131 certified, simply because it costs a lost of money to do so (in terms of certification and cert lab testing)

For the EU? Have you any link to support this?
I assume that you know that Yale offer EN50131 certified systems?
It is only the lower end systems that are not certified to this.

and that extra cost simply isn't needed if you are only planning to target the consumer DIY market with it.

A drop in the ocean, the DIY market is enormous as you allude to later in your post.

Wireless systems, along with smart phone type tech, have become so easy to install, their really isn't much need for installers unfortunately.

Not really relevant, as such should not influence what system is selected.

just be very careful about slavishly following outdated standards.

I am not "slavishly following outdated standards", if I would got my own alarm certified to this standard. Instead I installed it myself and choose quality components.

For a minimal price difference there is a choice between a DIY Yale system and a professional system designed for the commercial market (expandable to 270 wired/wireless zones and 230 outputs), I think it is a no brainer.

Which do you think an insurance company would accept for a commercial premises? ....and why?

jmBuildExt

Good discussion...
Out of interest, where can one get a copy of EN50131 specification? Googled around, its only throwing out guidelines and whatnot.

bk

jmBuildExt wrote: »

Good discussion...
Out of interest, where can one get a copy of EN50131 specification? Googled around, its only throwing out guidelines and whatnot.

It is available online, but seems to require a payment of more then €200 to download and view it!

I've found copies with a little googling, but I won't link them here as I'm not certain they aren't copyrighted.

jmBuildExt

Just found them on NSAI - yeah 200 by the time you get the referenced specs aswell...
Didnt realise they charged for them!!
Surely it makes more sense to have them available... I'm used to specs e.g. BT spec being readily available at bluetooth.org
Seems a bit of a racket.
Just interested to see how my DIY alarm stands up.

bk

2011 wrote: »

As already stated the bar is set very low any semi serious alarm system deigned for the EU is certified to this standard.

Saying how easy a standard is to meet is not a valid argument for not meeting it when insurance companies, the Gardaí, professional installers, the NSAI and manufacturers (including Yale), all refer to EN50131 and / or comply with it. Until there is a replacement it is all we have.

I believe many of the insurance companies have dropped the EN requirement, mine certainly has. Seems to me that they are facing up to the reality of a changing market.

2011 wrote: »

Just a tad misleading.
Your system may be more secure than some EN50131 certified systems, but it would be nothing like as secure the vast majority.

Not misleading at all, very much accurate. So you admit that EN50131 is not a guarantee of quality of a system and that a non certified system can be better. Great.

I'm not saying my system is perfect, it is far from it. But then neither is your much vaunted HKC system.

Laughably I've a HKC system too (older, 812), goes unused now replaced by the Yale.

2011 wrote: »

For the EU? Have you any link to support this?
I assume that you know that Yale offer EN50131 certified systems?
It is only the lower end systems that are not certified to this.

I do, they have to get each individual system certified. That is a cost per system and it really isn't cheap. Certification is always expensive.

Again, if you aren't targeting the professional install market with a particular product, then why would you bother with the cost of certification?

It simply makes no sense.

BTW They did actually certify the older models of the system I have. It uses the exact same sensors and devices, panel even much the same, just uses GSM rather then IP. They just seem to have stopped bothering with certifying newer systems.

2011 wrote: »

A drop in the ocean, the DIY market is enormous as you allude to later in your post.

Still money they don't need to spend for the DIY market, so why bother?

Also certification can delay the release of a product and can limit some of the modern functionality.

For instance, per the EN spec, I don't think you can use Touch ID or Face ID for the app that controls the alarm system! Instead the spec seems to require a 4 digit PIN or password for the "remote computer".

It makes sense, because I'm sure the authors of the spec in 2006 never envisioned TouchID/FaceID. But it is pretty mad that in the year 2019, your app has to yes a crappy 4 digit pin (with just 9999 combinations!) every time you use that app, versus TocuhID/FaceID which are vastly more secure then 4 digit PIN's and would be like science fiction back in 2006.

But now you are in a sticky place. If you want to get the EN spec, you can't do TouchID/FaceID, but the market wants that, so what do you do?

For consumer oriented systems, it is simple, you don't bother with the EN spec.

I suspect this is the mean reason Yale haven't got it EN specced. Their app doesn't require the 4 digit pin to arm/disarm, instead it uses the much more reliable and faster faceID/touchID.

Also they have also just launched the Apple Watch app two weeks ago. Very cool, allows you to arm/disarm the alarm from your watch. Again doesn't require the 4 digit pin to do this, instead relying on Apples much better security. Also Alexa voice control support.

But again this wouldn't be allowed per the EN spec!

2011 wrote: »

Not really relevant, as such should not influence what system is selected.

It is relevant if you are targeting the massive consumer market and they expect modern features like touchID, Apple Watch, IFTTT and voice control, which the EN spec don't allow for.

In the end consumers won't care less about your obscure EN spec, they only care about the features they want. And if Yale don't deliver those features, then another company like Nest will.

2011 wrote: »

For a minimal price difference there is a choice between a DIY Yale system and a professional system designed for the commercial market (expandable to 270 wired/wireless zones and 230 outputs), I think it is a no brainer.

Well that system costs twice as expensive as mine, wholesale, DIY.

And you know perfectly well that it requires electrical work that is beyond most (but not) all consumers. You have electrical experience, so it is a good DIY option for you, but not for most people. It is also difficult to program for inexperienced people.

Most people would likely require a pro install and that would drive the cost up to around €1000 and roughly 5 times the cost of mine.

I really don't believe a HKC system offers twice as much value as mine, never mind 5 times the value!

Their is DIY and their is the consumer market. They are actually a bit different. What you are doing is taking a professional system, that requires a lot of expertise and figuring it out for yourself. Cool, well done. But the likes of Yale, Honeywell, Nest, etc. systems are true consumer systems. They take little experience and expertise. Pull out of box, plug in and turn on. Different markets.

Also strictly speaking, HKC don't allow their distributors to sell their systems to non trade. Now, yes, it is possible to find distributors who might agree to sell you one if you ask nicely. But it certainly isn't as easy to get your hands on anymore.

I mean, I already have a HKC system. It is nice, has pros and cons over the Yale, but having also gotten a Yale system, I'm pretty happy with it. I've found the quality and reliability to be much the same as the HKC, but with much better smart features.

Of course HKC has now been bought by Yales parent company. So it will be interesting to see how they merge the two. If they take the best bits of both the Yale and HKC system, you would have my perfect system.

For anyone else reading this. I don't think the Yale system is perfect, far from it. I don't think their is yet any "perfect" system in the market and I'm not sure their ever will be. All systems have pros and cons. Weigh them up and choose the one that best suits you at the moment.

I'm sure HKC system is the best system at the moment for 2011 given his requirements. And the Yale is doing me very well so far, at least until something better comes along

bk

jmBuildExt wrote: »

Just found them on NSAI - yeah 200 by the time you get the referenced specs aswell...
Didnt realise they charged for them!!
Surely it makes more sense to have them available... I'm used to specs e.g. BT spec being readily available at bluetooth.org
Seems a bit of a racket.
Just interested to see how my DIY alarm stands up.

Yep, I feel the same, but it isn't that unusual for many industry standards

I looked myself and nothing jumped out at me that wouldn't allow my Yale system to fall under Grade 2 (Grade 3 and 4 are for higher security situations like a Jewellers *).

It has all the usual items, SAAB, tamper switches on SAAB, contacts, etc. Battery backup of hub/panel, memory storage of a 1,000 events (laughably easy for modern systems), etc.

What jumped out at me is that perhaps some of the more modern features might not be allowed per the spec. Things like control app using touch ID/face ID, Apple Watch, IFTTT, voice control, etc. might not be allowed, simply because they never thought of those back then.

* Interestingly Grade 3 and 4 level comms are likely easily done by cheap, modern tech. 3 minutes polling of grade 4 is not exactly challenging. But they do have other requirements that would be difficult to do cheaply, like detection of masking, etc.

2011

bk wrote: »

I believe many of the insurance companies have dropped the EN requirement, mine certainly has.

I don't think that it was ever a requirement for domestic premises, just a way of securing a discount that wasn't really worth it.

Not misleading at all, very much accurate.

So you have installed a system that:
1) Has no analysed zones.

2) Can only use an external bell box that is battery powered. This means that the external siren is relatively quiet (compared to 115dB)

3) As no inertia shock sensors can be installed an intruder could smash a window without setting the alarm off. You could argue that this would be detected by motion detectors but these of course would be switched off when the alarm is set to part guard when occupants are at home.

4) The number of zones is very limited.

5) The alarm can not take wired sensors. Although wireless sensors are great and have lots of advantages it is always best to use wired devices when there is an option. This results in increased reliability, more economical and compact devices. Also batteries do not need to be replaced in hardwired devices. It is the same with network cabling, wifi is all well and good but a hardwired connection is best.

6) According to you can only have one comms path. In this thread I explained to you how a 3rd party solution could work but you did not respond.

So you admit that EN50131 is not a guarantee of quality of a system

I always did, why are you suggesting otherwise? Please keep the debate civil, don't suggest that I said things that I didn't. Let's keep it friendly.
If you look back to my posts on this thread I stated more than once that this standard "sets the bar very low".
There are only so many ways that I can articulate that it is a sh!t standard

and that a non certified system can be better. Great.

If you can find any post anywhere that I have made that conflicts with this please link to it. If not please do not suggest that I have suggested otherwise.

I'm not saying my system is perfect, it is far from it. But then neither is your much vaunted HKC system.

Please do not suggest that I have portrayed HKC as being perfect. "much vaunted HKC system" ???
In post no. 31 this very thread I have stated that "HKC are not where they should be in terms of automation. I am not one of those people that think that HKC is the be all and end all"

Laughably I've a HKC system too (older, 812), goes unused now replaced by the Yale.

So you replaced a poorly installed (by your own admission) obsolete alarm with a newer one, I'm not sure what your point is.

I do, they have to get each individual system certified.

So you are stating that you have a link to support this statement, but have not posted this link:

I suspect companies building modern smart alarm systems aren't bothering to get them EN50131 certified, simply because it costs a lost of money to do so (in terms of certification and cert lab testing)

Please post the link to support this ^^^^

That is a cost per system and it really isn't cheap. Certification is always expensive.

As stated already it is a drop in the ocean. The cost is relative to the volumes of kit being sold. Yale have deep pockets and an enormous customer base. Don't cod yourself, the only logical reason Yale don't have this system certified is because the quality isn't there.

I remember the old Astec alarms, despite the fact that they were a very small company set up on Pierce street their components were all certified. A tiny company a fraction the size of Yale, how can you explain that? As it happens they specifically target the DIY market too. I suspect that you will opt not to respond to this question.

Again, if you aren't targeting the professional install market with a particular product, then why would you bother with the cost of certification?

I have already provided you with the answer, but when I do you don't respond. I will give you a few reasons now:

1) All of the competitors do.

2) Saying how easy a standard is to meet is not a valid argument for not meeting it when insurance companies, the Gardaprofessional installers, the NSAI and manufacturers (including Yale), all refer to EN50131 and / or comply with it. Until there is a replacement it is all we have.

3) EN50131 systems are graded. See grading below. Components certified to grade 4 are serious pieces of kit. All of the HKC kit I have used is certified to grade 2. This Yale system can't even make grade 1.

• Grade 1: intruders are expected to have little or no expertise.
• Grade 2: intruders are expected to have more knowledge and some specialist equipment.
• Grade 3: intruders will have both comprehensive knowledge and portable electronic equipment.
• Grade 4: intruders have expertise, access to good equipment and planned intrusion.

4) Obviously Yale do care about EN50131 because they make a higher end system that complies with it which is actually rated by installers (otherwise it would not be used by installers).

BTW They did actually certify the older models of the system I have. It uses the exact same sensors and devices

If they were the same devices then the certification would be valid. Obviously different devices.

panel even much the same

Pretty much = different kit

Still money they don't need to spend for the DIY market, so why bother?

Because people like quality especially when the cost differential is so small.

Also certification can delay the release of a product and can limit some of the modern functionality.

Very weak argument as you are ignoring the fact that the products are CE certified, so EN50131 certification could be done in parallel.

For instance, per the EN spec, I don't think you can use Touch ID or Face ID for the app that controls the alarm system! Instead the spec seems to require a 4 digit PIN or password for the "remote computer".

Ever heard of a duress code? :eek:
I don't think it is advisable to disarm an alarm with Face ID, however it is possible by setting up a technical zone. Besides I refer to my point above.

But now you are in a sticky place. If you want to get the EN spec, you can't do TouchID/FaceID, but the market wants that, so what do you do?

I think that you are missing the point. I do neither have nor want EN50131 certification of my alarm system. I do however want to use EN50131 components that are at least grade 2. Alarm components that do not meet this very low standard are best avoided in my view and in the view of professionals.

In comparison the Yale system components not only look like cheap and nasty toys.

I suspect this is the mean reason Yale haven't got it EN specced. Their app doesn't require the 4 digit pin to arm/disarm, instead it uses the much more reliable and faster faceID/touchID.

^^^This illustrates that you don't understand how the certification works.
This would not prevent certification once there is an option to disable this feature. HKC have features that when enabled in the menu make it impossible to certify the system to EN50131.

Also they have also just launched the Apple Watch app two weeks ago. Very cool, allows you to arm/disarm the alarm from your watch. Again doesn't require the 4 digit pin to do this, instead relying on Apples much better security. Also Alexa voice control support.

^^^^Again this illustrates that you do not understand how the certification process works. I could easily set up my HKC system to arm disarm just like this if I choose to do so. All I need to do is set up a technical zone.

It is relevant if you are targeting the massive consumer market and they expect modern features like touchID, Apple Watch, IFTTT and voice control, which the EN spec don't allow for.

Again all of this can be done using EN50131 certified components.

In the end consumers won't care less about your obscure EN spec, they only care about the features they want.

People vote with their feet. There are very few Yale alarms out there compared to HKC.

Most people would likely require a pro install and that would drive the cost up to around €1000 and roughly 5 times the cost of mine.

Exactly what components did you get for €200 ??

Their is DIY and their is the consumer market.

There is a DIY market with low quality components and there is a DIY market with high quality components.

Also strictly speaking, HKC don't allow their distributors to sell their systems to non trade.

Sorry but this is complete cr@p. I actually rang them the other day, they pointed me to their list of distributors which I posted on this very thread. I told them I was not PSA registered, they had no issue whatsoever. They are a business after all. Don't believe me? Ring them yourself (01) 4567007

Of course HKC has now been bought by Yales parent company. So it will be interesting to see how they merge the two. If they take the best bits of both the Yale and HKC system, you would have my perfect system.

Agreed.

For anyone else reading this. I don't think the Yale system is perfect, far from it.

....and I don't think the HKC is perfect either. I think there is too much focus on HKC to be honest. I was just using it as an example of a popular high quality, reliable alarm system. The Siemens offering ticks these boxes too.

2011

I think that pictures say it all. In comparison the Yale components scream low quality when compared with HKC or other quality systems.


HKC keypad


Yale keypad.


HKC wireless motion detector


Yale wireless motion detector.


HKC wireless motion detector with camera.


Yale wireless motion detector with camera


HKC wired motion detector, Yale have none.


HKC wireless fob.


Yale fob.


Pyronix Delta Bell compatible with HCK. Looks the part in my opinion, but there are countless other options available that are compatible with HKC.
This is important as this is the visual deterrent that you hope will deter intruders.
This screams "This is a serious security system. If you fcuk around you will get caught!"


Yale bell box, oh dear!
This screams "I have installed a Blue Peter DIY alarm that is unlikely to work".

bk

Yikes!! WOW! :eek:

Look, I'm quiet happy to say my system is far from perfect, but unlike you, I actually own it and I have to say I'm increasingly impressed by it. You know I didn't need to pull a dozen pictures off the net, I actually own both, so thanks, I know what they are both like. And I have to say, I'm much more impressed by the Yale then I ever was with my HKC.

You are correct, the quality of the Yale components feel cheaper, in particular the keypad is poor and I miss the old HKC one. But having actually owned it now, it has proven to be perfectly reliable for me. Alarm, sensors and notifications have worked perfectly when I've tested them and the few times the missus has set it off accidentally.

Sure, a nicer keypad would be nice, but I almost never use it. I use my apple watch to arm it and the missus uses her phone. So shrug..

Of course when I got the Yale, I also thought about upgrading my HKC 812 to a newer HKC panel. Problem is it would have cost me in the region of €600 to upgrade it. For a panel that is already like 9 years old and from a company who's future is uncertain. Will HKC still be around and supporting these old panels 5 years from now? Given their recent purchase by Yales parent, I wouldn't be so certain.

Of course I probably will upgrade the Yale in 5 years too. But the difference is it will only have cost me €200 and nothing in ongoing fees. So not as a big of an investment.

The market is moving too fast I feel and is going to be too disrupted to spend too much on what is already an old system that lacks a lot of modern tech.

I've found the Yale to be much better quality then what I would have expected for the price and the gap not as wide to the HKC as you think.

My homes security is now far better then it was just two year ago. Two years ago I had a HKC system that had no comms, no external SAAB and the panel was installed in the hallway directly above the keypad :rolleyes:

Now with my Yale, I've got comms, I've got two SAAB's and the hub/panel is hidden away in a lot more secure place. Also I've added multiple IP cameras to my setup. So on balance vast improvements in security.

Perfect? absolutely not, but real significant improvements for a low cost.

As for all your other points. I don't have time now to work my way through all that, but I'll try and get back to you in a few days.

2011

bk wrote: »

Look, I'm quiet happy to say my system is far from perfect, but unlike you, I actually own it and I have to say I'm increasingly impressed by it. You know I didn't need to pull a dozen pictures off the net, I actually own both, so thanks, I know what they are both like. And I have to say, I'm much more impressed by the Yale then I ever was with my HKC.

I accept that.

You are correct, the quality of the Yale components feel cheaper, in particular the keypad is poor and I miss the old HKC one. But having actually owned it now, it has proven to be perfectly reliable for me. Alarm, sensors and notifications have worked perfectly when I've tested them and the few times the missus has set it off accidentally.

I accept that.

Sure, a nicer keypad would be nice, but I almost never use it. I use my apple watch to arm it and the missus uses her phone. So shrug..

Agreed. It’s just when you seemed to be suggesting that the Yale was superior overall (that’s how I read it) I had to respond.

Of course when I got the Yale, I also thought about upgrading my HKC 812 to a newer HKC panel. Problem is it would have cost me in the region of €600 to upgrade it.

Actually my commercial grade hybrid panel & keypad cost me €121 + VAT. You could have connected all existing sensors to this. Each comms card (WiFi and GSM) was €92 + VAT. There is now a single comms card that has WiFi and GSM which works out cheaper. The panel is very simple to connect up. You then have a choice, attempt to program yourself with the help of someone that knows what they are doing or let someone to program it for you.

So your overall upgrade would cost more but not a lot more and you would have a more secure system albeit with inferior IOT. The choice is superior security for an additional cost or better home automation and an easier install.

On the security front the HKC can do too many other things to mention. For example I have my shed alarmed separately. It requires a different 6 digit code and is armed even when the hose is not as I have lots of kit in it.

For a panel that is already like 9 years old and from a company who's future is uncertain. Will HKC still be around and supporting these old panels 5 years from now? Given their recent purchase by Yales parent, I wouldn't be so certain.

Time will tell. However considering that they get €5 per customer per month (and so many customers) I think they would be reluctant to cut off that revenue stream. Even if they do in the interest of retaking customers I would expect all wired and wireless devices to be compatible with the new panel. As already state HKC panels are quite cheap.

I've found the Yale to be much better quality then what I would have expected for the price and the gap not as wide to the HKC as you think.

Maybe but the look and feel of the components in addition to thier comparatively short experience in the alarm industry doesn’t help. I don’t see it closing it he gap to HKC but something else like that make products that ooze sex appeal like Nest or Apple could.

My homes security is now far better then it was just two year ago. Two years ago I had a HKC system that had no comms, no external SAAB and the panel was installed in the hallway directly above the keypad :rolleyes:

Pretty poor alright but that does not mean that Yale is the most secure replacement. Maybe it is the most secure with a €200 budget but that is quite a different argument.

The HKC / Siemens etc. are in a different league in terms of build quality, reputation, reliability, redundancy with comms and security. You do not appear to support that view. On the other hand I acknowledge that this comes at a price and the IOT aspect with these systems is behind the times.

Now with my Yale, I've got comms, I've got two SAAB's and the hub/panel is hidden away in a lot more secure place. Also I've added multiple IP cameras to my setup. So on balance vast improvements in security.

Agreed but that is different from suggesting that it is more secure than properly installed HKC system which can be integrated with Hicvision cameras.

As for all your other points. I don't have time now to work my way through all that, but I'll try and get back to you in a few days.

Appreciated. I would be interested in seeing the link you have that supports this statement that you made:

I suspect companies building modern smart alarm systems aren't bothering to get them EN50131 certified, simply because it costs a lost of money to do so (in terms of certification and cert lab testing)