[rollin thunder]

For $2.00 on Amazon, your system (I assume most wireless systems) can be bi-passed.

 

[bobbojama]

My early warning Security System.....



My Security response...

 

[NotSo]

My early warning Security System.....

View attachment 444585

My Security response...

Why is the dog smiling?

 

[Doctordeere]

Why is the dog smiling?

Probably luring a perp into a false sense of security...

 

[bobbojama]

He was just told he was being left at home for the afternoon, and that he was in charge of the cat!

 

[OKNewshawk]

Why is the dog smiling?

Like Carly Simon said once...

 

[BangBang]

Like Carly Simon said once...

That lady could really sing. This was a blast from the past but boy she was one of my favorites!

Don

 

[Joe Reeser]

The Lock Picking Lawyer is an excellent channel on YouTube. The guy knows locks.

 

[BC605]

My question is how close to the base station does the $2 transmitter have to be in order for it to "disable" the system? In the video it was right next to it, but since the frequency isn't exactly the same and the transmitter for the door sensors IS exactly the same, I'm guessing the $2 transmitter is going to have to be pretty close to generate enough interference to block the sensor transmissions. Now the handheld radio, tuned to the exact frequency, would be a different story.

 

[Peacemakr40]

My question is how close to the base station does the $2 transmitter have to be in order for it to "disable" the system? In the video it was right next to it, but since the frequency isn't exactly the same and the transmitter for the door sensors IS exactly the same, I'm guessing the $2 transmitter is going to have to be pretty close to generate enough interference to block the sensor transmissions. Now the handheld radio, tuned to the exact frequency, would be a different story.

The point isn't how close to the base station but whether or not it's got enough signal strength to jam the sensor's transmission.

 

[Bobbr3]

This is quite interesting, but to me, not at all surprising. With a gazillion RF (radio frequency) signals flying through the air these days, this sort of interference can conceivably occur to almost any RF device at any time from innumerable sources. Nothing electronic is foolproof, so we're left to rely upon the extremely low probability that this would happen. In other words, this can be done, but what is the likelihood it actually would? Example: a computer password can consist of one-hundred characters of all sorts, which would be nearly impossible to match...nearly impossible. Fact is, it could be deciphered eventually, but the odds are astronomical against it. Granted, this video illustrates a phenomenon much simpler than breaking a complex computer password, but in the end, I believe it's unlikely to be done by anyone short of an RF engineer. After all, few criminals have knowledge of radio frequency theory! Yes...cyber crime criminals are certainly tech-savvy, but they have bigger fish to fry than interfering with door sensors (like stealing millions of dollars from a bank)!

I am a licensed amateur radio operator (Extra Class...the highest license level), and I am very familiar with the frequencies cited in this video. I know this sort of thing can be done as shown. In fact, I once experimented with one of my hand-held ham radio transceivers (aka "HT") and my car's engine computer. I opened the hood of my engine compartment and keyed the HT about six inches above the engine. The result: the engine instantly stopped dead! Yep...the RF signal at the frequency on which I was transmitting interfered with the engine control computer!

Ultimately, we have to rely on the fact that the probability of circumventions such as this is extremely low. Yeah, it can happen, no doubt, but just like my car engine experiment, how likely is it to happen? If a burglar disables a door sensor, intrusion could only occur after the door's locks have been destroyed and the door opened...and shame on you if you didn't lock the door! Also, the door sensor is usually mounted on the side of the door opposite where an intruder is located (if it isn't...stupid move!), so the door would have to be opened before the disarming took place, or the unseen location of the sensor would have to be known so that the transmitting device could be placed in close proximity to it. In this video, note how closely the transmitting device was held near the receivers. I can state with certainty that that kind of proximity is necessary to make this sort of interference viable. Again, the likelihood of this happening is slim.

I'm not challenging anything shown! I'm just saying that it's extremely unlikely to occur...at least I'm hoping so! It's kinda like this: Laugh at a .32 caliber pistol for self-defense use, but isn't better than no gun at all? Same goes for an alarm system: better to have one, even with its possible foibles, than not having a system at all.

 

[airwrench]

This is quite interesting, but to me, not at all surprising. With a gazillion RF (radio frequency) signals flying through the air these days, this sort of interference can conceivably occur to almost any RF device at any time from innumerable sources. Nothing electronic is foolproof, so we're left to rely upon the extremely low probability that this would happen. In other words, this can be done, but what is the likelihood it actually would? Example: a computer password can consist of one-hundred characters of all sorts, which would be nearly impossible to match...nearly impossible. Fact is, it could be deciphered eventually, but the odds are astronomical against it. Granted, this video illustrates a phenomenon much simpler than breaking a complex computer password, but in the end, I believe it's unlikely to be done by anyone short of an RF engineer. After all, few criminals have knowledge of radio frequency theory! Yes...cyber crime criminals are certainly tech-savvy, but they have bigger fish to fry than interfering with door sensors (like stealing millions of dollars from a bank)!

I am a licensed amateur radio operator (Extra Class...the highest license level), and I am very familiar with the frequencies cited in this video. I know this sort of thing can be done as shown. In fact, I once experimented with one of my hand-held ham radio transceivers (aka "HT") and my car's engine computer. I opened the hood of my engine compartment and keyed the HT about six inches above the engine. The result: the engine instantly stopped dead! Yep...the RF signal at the frequency on which I was transmitting interfered with the engine control computer!

Ultimately, we have to rely on the fact that the probability of circumventions such as this is extremely low. Yeah, it can happen, no doubt, but just like my car engine experiment, how likely is it to happen? If a burglar disables a door sensor, intrusion could only occur after the door's locks have been destroyed and the door opened...and shame on you if you didn't lock the door! Also, the door sensor is usually mounted on the side of the door opposite where an intruder is located (if it isn't...stupid move!), so the door would have to be opened before the disarming took place, or the unseen location of the sensor would have to be known so that the transmitting device could be placed in close proximity to it. In this video, note how closely the transmitting device was held near the receivers. I can state with certainty that that kind of proximity is necessary to make this sort of interference viable. Again, the likelihood of this happening is slim.

I'm not challenging anything shown! I'm just saying that it's extremely unlikely to occur...at least I'm hoping so! It's kinda like this: Laugh at a .32 caliber pistol for self-defense use, but isn't better than no gun at all? Same goes for an alarm system: better to have one, even with its possible foibles, than not having a system at all.

First nothing wrong with a .32 caliber for defense just as long as it is not defense
against an invading army or a large wild animal. In that case I recommend something
belt fed.

One of the biggest concerns with electronics is the dreaded EMP. That is why Air Force
One does not have FADEC controlled engines on it. Good ole cable controlled fuel control
system.

If hackers can get into highly monitored and protected networks they can hack your
security system. Pedophiles are hacking cameras in kid's bedrooms as we have seen
in the news recently.

Anything wireless has a greater potential to be hijacked but in reality how many common
thugs are going to be able to hack or interfere with your system. As we always hear use a
complex password and if possible keep one in the chamber.

 

[Peacemakr40]

The probability of hacking favors the hackers. There might be some 50,000 security professionals in the world. There's some 6 million hackers. I mean how many school-aged kids are trying to circumvent their schools' network security? Use whatever analogy that you want about smart mousetraps and smarter mice, armor and weapons, whatever. The fact is that all currently used security methods will eventually be broken. That doesn't mean remove your front door and leave the keys in the ignition.