Matt,

For a grade 2 alarm, the detection of failure of periodic communication is 120mins. This is quite a long time, certainly long enough to break in.

I don't feel the current interference requirements are good enough. It essentially defines interfering equipment as:

shall be capable of continuous
transmission using the same transmission protocol as that used by the receiving equipment under
test. This interfering equipment shall use a different identification code so that it shall not normally be
recognized by the receiving equipment.

I know I'm not bound by this spec. My transmissions can be formed as I want... dynamic jamming (i.e. reacting to transmissions and jamming intelligently) can stop genuine alarms getting through long enough for it to be a problem.

 

 

I take it that's a maximum as I have my grade 2 kit set to report a fail in a considerably shorter time?

I think I have now missed the point, just because the standard says 120 min, it does not mean that you have to do it then, that is the MAX time allowed, also with regards to the test, and the requirement, they are designed in all standards (or at least should be) to not be prescriptive about HOW something should be achieved, this does two things, stifles technology development and opens up the methods to defeat equipment to anybody who can buy the standard.

 

Your point about the RF chip you can buy is sort of valid, but in a standard Grade 2 risk Mr Burglar is not going to go to those lengths, regardless of how easy you think it may be. He will simply break in anyway, or move on. Risk is all about probability, and what actually happens in the real world, again I go back to my original point, it's all about the risk assessment and the commercial angle manufacturers want to put on equipment, "can i sell my stuff easier or for more money if it has x"

 

You can buy GSM jammers on ebay but jamming GSM diallers is not prolific.

The maximum is even longer at Grade 2.

 

As for the standards, Cenelec encourage participation of trade with standards in all cases and recommend the use of online tools and similar.  NSI have done some work on this and provide some tools for members.  Often feedback is performed via trade organisations for critique and commentary on the text of the standards.

 

It is hard to get agreement with more people involved but there has been some good work done recently and I hope more to come in future.

Out of all the break ins that we have (including on some high end places worth robbing) they never touch the alarm or make any attempt to disable it, they just break in.

Not sure the average dumb burglar would even have the basic understanding of how an alarm worked.

Not even sure some of the engineers do!

Not even sure some of the engineers do!

You may have a point . . .

Out of all the break ins that we have (including on some high end places worth robbing) they never touch the alarm or make any attempt to disable it, they just break in.

In my time as an alarm engineer I have seen three different "methods of break-in" as regards above.

1) Break in, ignore alarm, bugger off (most common)

2) Break in, smash anything that makes a noise, bugger off (less common)

3) Rip bellbox off, break in (normally at same time), bugger off (rare)

I always think its a kind of a karma system; people who realise they are clever enough to use RF jammers, spoof communicators, hack IP connected panels etc... are invariably clever enough to realise they can make much better money without the risk of spending a decent portion of their life scraping a living selling low value stolen goods down the pub whilst on tag.

I always think its a kind of a karma system; people who realise they are clever enough to use RF jammers, spoof communicators, hack IP connected panels etc... are invariably clever enough to realise they can make much better money without the risk of spending a decent portion of their life scraping a living selling low value stolen goods down the pub whilst on tag.

I think you've got quite a valid point. Don't fancy time in prison myself. I don't think they would be very nice to me.