It's clear that care in one aspect (protocol design) carries through to things like PCB design, case design, and better usability.

I wish Visonic would respond on the FHSS limitations, as it makes a pretty good system much weaker.

Scanny ion?

Where does that fall?

Or is that the one you describe as "bad"?

Edited May 14, 201313 yr by sjsturner

Scanny ion?

Where does that fall?

Or is that the one you describe as "bad"?

 

Just thinking that....

Both silence and confirmation would be quite damning.

 

Take a look at this:

http://sitsec.net/files/secvest_analysis.pdf

 

And see who makes it, and that it isn't massively different to the Friedland system.

I havent got all night cyber!!

So bascically ion is sh1t?

I don't rate it, especially alongside other systems. It feels like an old system with some fluff on top.

Edited May 14, 201313 yr by cybergibbons

Ok fair enough.

I know scanny boasted long range with their kit, saying free air was reliable to something like 4 kilometers iirc.

Are you saying the transmission of rf is like friedland or the encription side of it?

See this is what we need. Good info cg.

Be good to see a review on the security aspects of kit imo. I did look at timing issues etc with signalling devices but us installers cannot test to the level you do.

See this is what we need. Good info cg.

Be good to see a review on the security aspects of kit imo. I did look at timing issues etc with signalling devices but us installers cannot test to the level you do.

Qfa

Very interesting

I've fitted a few of the scanny ions , was a few years ago now . Thought the end station was huge for what it needed to be. Rkp was quite modern tho.

but the usual engineer approval note of 'havnt had any issues' is making a few think im sure now about their kit choices