Saw an app today from a major security co that, even though the system is armed by the end user, will still gain access to the the engineer mode. It will record in the local log that this has happened, if it is to an ARC it may well be configured to send an 'engineer on site' signal, but I feel uncomfortable that this is even possible. 

 

Is this normal and acceptable?

 

I fully understand that we, as professional companies, can gain access to remotely service a system even though it is armed, subscriber may well sign a document to accept this, but most of the time if UDL is required to actually go into engineer mode and change settings etc, they will have to acknowledge in some way that we are dialling in.

 

Potentially, somebody with the eng code could get into a system, disable all ccts, get someone to break in, then re- enable ccts. 

 

Most apps have clauses so they can see messages, phone calls, Facebook profiles, track info etc, so maybe traceable, but….

 

I remember a massive fuss being made over a certain Canadian panel having a 'management code' that would disarm the system even though the customer had set it.

 

This is taking it to a new level. Would the customer be happy if they new this was possible?

 

Surely, from a phone app, if the system is armed it shouldn't give access to the engineer?

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

Manufacturer / app ?

Under en you cant do this, what panel?

I don't want to get in trouble with the manufacturer, and this is public so didn't want to say. Asking about ethics really? 

T*****m     

Ethics. Bang out of order and against da rulez. Simples. User codes shouldn't have access to engineering menus. Simple as.

T*****m 

 

???

T*****m 

 

???

*cough*  T*x*c*m

You'd be **** all use on countdown!

The worst of it is I'm sat here wiring up a T*****m demo case on my lap!

 

That's a signal its bedtime...!

Yep, time for some kip. And I've still got some washing up to do. B*******s.