New Elk 2-way RF tech

[elcano]

I really wished this new RF system to be an interoperable ZigBee implementation - just the type of standards-based strategy that made the Elk M1g to be as successful as it is. However, from what I can read it looks like an announcement for another proprietary wireless system. I would have believed that any proprietary wireless system in this area is doomed to failure, or in the best of the scenarios, limited to a niche market.

What do you think? Are you eager to place a few grands into another vendor lock-in?

 

[gatchel]

Proprietary = More Secure


You have to decide whether or not it's worth it for your system.

 

[Del91574]

From what I read, even though I scanned through it and haven't seen much on the official page, it appears that it might be compatible with their existing offerings for receivers, but the additional functionality needs their devices. I may be wrong altogether.

I'd want to see the devices themselves before I make a judgement, however it sounds like the hardware that DMP has had and a couple of others.

 

[Digger]

From what I read, even though I scanned through it and haven't seen much on the official page, it appears that it might be compatible with their existing offerings for receivers, but the additional functionality needs their devices. I may be wrong altogether.

I'd want to see the devices themselves before I make a judgement, however it sounds like the hardware that DMP has had and a couple of others.

I cant see how it can be. Existing receivers are just that a receiver. What they are describing is a transceiver. Also the existing receiver is 395.5 Mhz if I remember correctly. The new devices state 902 Mhz. Totally different bands.

What they are describing appears will be much more secure, lower power when possible/longer battery life, and have some added features some people may want. Depending on the price points it may be a boon for ELK.

I am interested if one wireless smoke detector goes into alarm that all wireless smoke detectors sound and in synch which is technically possible in a system that they are implying. Also currently wireless smoke detectors have an exemption from the 200 second time requirement for supervision. That exemption is expiring in a few years. I believe that this system will address that as well.

Good for ELK if it is what I think it is.

 

[elcano]

Proprietary = More Secure


You have to decide whether or not it's worth it for your system.

I agree that I have to decide whether it is worth or not.

However, the other statement is arguable. You are making a general statement that proprietary systems are 'More Secure' than open, auditable systems. That is what I know as Security by Obscurity. Notice, I'm not saying that Elk's specific implementation is based on security by obscurity, or that it is not secure. Hey, their great reputation has been well earned. But since I don't have inside knowledge about it's implementation I'm not qualified to make an argument about it. Even more, I cannot qualify something as better just because I don't know it. I think that it is obvious so far that I trust more a security systems that have been challenged by hundreds or thousands of security experts.

On the other hand, if your argument intended to say that Elk have created a proprietary protocol that is far better than anything available because of addressing particular vulnerabilities discovered recently, etc. Then you have a point. Proprietary implementation are more nimble and can close those security gap faster (even when many don't exercise this option) at the expense, sometimes of backward compatibility. In that case I would expect all devices in the network to be firmware upgradable in order to be able to patch vulnerabilities as they are discovered.

I just got a flashback of when we used those super expensive, proprietary Symbol Spectrum24 Wireless Cards in the laptops before the invention of WiFi/WPA2. Thanks God for WiFi interoperability.

 

[electron]

I'm working on getting more details soon, plus BraveSirRobbin was at ISC today, and will have more info as well. It's a pretty promising system. ELK isn't a big fan of ZigBee in general, but I can see why something like this would work better than ZigBee.

 

[fcwilt]

Proprietary = More Secure

Proprietary = No License Fees

 

[pbeaulieu]

Proprietary = More Secure


You have to decide whether or not it's worth it for your system.

Sorry but I have to disagree with Proprietary = More Secure. With wireless I see 2 security issues: 1) intereference/jamming, 2) intercepting the packets. Just like WIFI you want to have encrypted data transmission. Of course this is not for the run of the mil burgulary.


Bottom line I think encryption is the key whether proprietary or open protocol.

 

[elcano]

Proprietary = No License Fees

Sounds ironic but this one is true. If the 'standard' is controlled by an oligopoly (as could be happening with ZigBee, but I dont know), then the licenses fees can become very expensive. I wonder, however, if it is as expensive as commisioning a full in-house, proprietary development team and project. Doing a secure, mature implementation of this type has to be very expensive. At the end, we pay high prices of the internal development or the high prices of the license fee. The difference with an interoperable solution is that in the long range, with the economies of scale, prices usually go down. I dont have to say what happens to proprietary. We have seen them come and go.

I guess MBA programs need some Game Theory classes so that company directors understand how they are neutralizing each other by refusing to join forces to create a profitable market. Vendor lock-in works for a while, but this brings you only pennies compared to the creation of a mature, recognized project category like WiFi and Bluetooth did.

 

[fcwilt]

Sounds ironic but this one is true. If the 'standard' is controlled by an oligopoly (as could be happening with ZigBee, but I dont know), then the licenses fees can become very expensive. I wonder, however, if it is as expensive as commisioning a full in-house, proprietary development team and project. Doing a secure, mature implementation of this type has to be very expensive. At the end, we pay high prices of the internal development or the high prices of the license fee. The difference with an interoperable solution is that in the long range, with the economies of scale, prices usually go down. I dont have to say what happens to proprietary. We have seen them come and go.

I guess MBA programs need some Game Theory classes so that company directors understand how they are neutralizing each other by refusing to join forces to create a profitable market. Vendor lock-in works for a while, but this brings you only pennies compared to the creation of a mature, recognized project category like WiFi and Bluetooth did.

Sometime it seems that common sense is rather rare. I would tend to agree that in most cases the cost of in-house development would be much more then license fees in the long run - but sometimes things are done that don't make money sense.

Where I live there is a fee that you pay to obtain a sticker that goes on your car that indicates that you have paid your property taxes. The real purpose of the whole thing is the collection of the fee. Some in the local government have pointed out that just rolling the fee into the property taxes and scrapping the sticker would generate more income by saving the cost of printing the stickers, sending them out, collecting and processing the fee - since the "fee" would still be collected. However when it comes up for a vote year after year the powers that be go for the sticker plan. Does that make money sense? No.

 

[Digger]

Sometime it seems that common sense is rather rare. I would tend to agree that in most cases the cost of in-house development would be much more then license fees in the long run - but sometimes things are done that don't make money sense.

Where I live there is a fee that you pay to obtain a sticker that goes on your car that indicates that you have paid your property taxes. The real purpose of the whole thing is the collection of the fee. Some in the local government have pointed out that just rolling the fee into the property taxes and scrapping the sticker would generate more income by saving the cost of printing the stickers, sending them out, collecting and processing the fee - since the "fee" would still be collected. However when it comes up for a vote year after year the powers that be go for the sticker plan. Does that make money sense? No.

Sounds like they are shaming people into paying their taxes. Might be a cost savings in the long run as they dont have to go to collections etc.

 

[fcwilt]

Sounds like they are shaming people into paying their taxes. Might be a cost savings in the long run as they dont have to go to collections etc.

Could be - the treasure tells me that she has talked to other localities that have scrapped the stickers and it worked for them. Ah well, I've always found the workings of government difficult to understand.

 

[Neurorad]

I'd love to see some wireless water sensors, engineered by Elk. Battery powered would be tough for that one, though.

Very few people think of flooding, during new construction.

 

[Digger]

I'd love to see some wireless water sensors, engineered by Elk. Battery powered would be tough for that one, though.

Very few people think of flooding, during new construction.

GE and others have battery powered wireless water sensors.

 

[gatchel]

Sorry but I have to disagree with Proprietary = More Secure. With wireless I see 2 security issues: 1) intereference/jamming, 2) intercepting the packets. Just like WIFI you want to have encrypted data transmission. Of course this is not for the run of the mil burgulary.


Bottom line I think encryption is the key whether proprietary or open protocol.

I only said that is was more secure...More secure than what....(get it?)

If anyone thinks that anything wireless is "secure" they are dead wrong. History has proven this and I'm sure it will continue.

There is not a wireless security device in my house. My wireless access point has a timer controlled by an ISY-99 to turn off every so many hours. When I want to "unplug" my laptop I have to manually turn the WAP on. Even this won't stop someone if they are really aggressive. It just limits the possibilities. Then there's the opossibility of someone hacking the Insteon wireless control signals and retransmitting them to turn the WAP on...the possibilities are endless.

In reality you have to determine what is the best level of security for you.

Here's a good one, look what happened to RSA:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/09/1024-bit-rsa-encryption-cracked-by-carefully-starving-cpu-of-ele/

http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/18/rsa-hacked-data-exposed-that-could-reduce-the-effectiveness-o/#

Personally, I can't see buying any of these wireless devices that ELk is releasing. That is not to say that there isn't a market for them. Every alarm system that some other "friends" who are in the industry install has some sort of wireless component. Elk should do well with their new devices, as long as there is no DST bug B)







I