datadiffusion

As I say I'm going to guess. So, I'm going to start off by guessing 'Surrey Digital Lock Systems (1978) Ltd.' Quizmaster, am I right or wrong.

I think I can guess who it was - the same people who made the one I took out of an old BaE systems place a few years back I suspect. I posted about it at the time, and was amazed to find the company apparently still trading with a very 1990s looking website. Their products also seemed to be rebadged by Chubb at one time, and the website had the same ones I remember from banks back then including the 5 digit ones that were like 5 typewriter keys in a row, no numbers, in a folded metal case to hide your finger movements.

It doesn't look fake either, especially as they are not asking for any money nor creating any undue sense of urgency / threats of jail etc...

Due to a dvla cockup i once had two parking ticket ntk's go straight to vauxhall motors, luton!

The odd wording makes me think it was a temporary motorway 50mph speed limit, either roadworks or 'managed motorway' variable limit.

Yeah but I mean it says the call came direct from 999 on a mobile after a power loss, so presume the alarm itself went off far too late?

I guess that as it was a manual activation, the fire alarm was of secondary interest - however, there clearly wasn't anything in the CU cupboard...

Nope not a jot of difference, although arguably a lot more internal plastics to burn on a 90s 3 phase and if in a tiny cupboard...

Yup

Loose N. That's how an otherwise very good electrician friend of mine cause £1m+ worth of damage to a new-build nightclub that hadn't even opened. He forgot to tighten the N nut on the main busbar and then as the occupier moved in and ramped up the load...

Ah right, is this why there are loads of missing images, such as on this topic...

AFAIK ComWifi should do push, but not sure if you need to make sure the panel has the absolute latest firmware for that.

We are unable to discuss defaulting on the public side of the forum, sorry.

We appear to be going round in circles on this topic. The exploits discussed here are widely available to be viewed on much more popular sites. Customers with a need for high security will already have their own IT experts (in theory) securing the network. If not, frankly that is their poor decision, not their 'physical' security suppliers, as most here will sell with a disclaimer re: open or remote access. Any business here who this sold this exact equipment* (very few, if any I would say) will of course have raised this issue with customers. It is highly unlikely this forum is a used or useful site for criminal activity. *Although I appreciate it's pretty much a universal problem, to varying degrees

And more of a known and attractive target

Not sure what you mean there. It's for discussing specific issues to do with the industry, faults, problems, business ideas. All very personal and with a very good reason not to be in public.

It may very well be sensitive information, but we don't have any such duty of care at this time, and if we did, it is or was already front page news on regular mainstream, non security specific sites. Again this is my own personal opinion and other members may disagree too.

We don't allow engineer defaulting info as a matter of principle, anyone with half a brain could find them elsewhere in seconds more's the pity, but there you go. So I don't think we need to be over protective on this subject, that's my personal opinion anyway.

1992

Yes as part of Caradon plc, they bought Chloride except the battery / vehicles bit afaik. Then Honeywell bought all the non building materials off Caradon, i think...

I saw an ADE ultimate RKP for the first time last year It was so big I assume it had just been left on the wall rather than make a mess removing, next to the working Gal keypad...

The guy wondered why he was getting 'tingling' in his hands when he touched the drainer when the dishwasher was on!

BUT it must still be compliant. So if the existing installation is unsafe, you can't add to it. A classic example is a house with rubber cabling still (very unlikely to see these days) but there were a few still around when Part P first came in and although we probably would have offered a rewire or walked anyway, with Part P you had to say 'no' even if it was just a spur etc... Another good example would be the one I found the other day with everything quite tidy but NO main earth!

There is no need to 'retrospectively' work to the 17th if, say, you are in a house done to the 15th, 16th etc... A case in point is fusewire type consumer units. The Electrical Safety Council (formerly part of NICEIC) are at pains to point out in a dedicated leaflet that this does NOT mean an installation fails a PITS / EICR just for having one.

As far as I understand from a 'justifiable' point of view, the HSE regard live working as acceptable only in the absence of any realistic alternative. So if you are live working on a fuseboard that is fitted with multiple means of safe isolation, but you don't want to use them 'to avoid pissing off the client' and work live, this would not sit well. For suppliers who have no alternative but to cut into live cables, then of course there isn't a practical alternative.