duffy_4's profile

Tue, May 25, 2021 1:44 PM

Compromising the System with a cheap handheld.

I read the reports about how to compromise the SS system. I ordered it anyway.

Now that it is installed, I decided to do some testing. First, I am a licensed ham radio operator. Second, I took one of the cheap Chinese walkie talkies I have and programmed it to the SS frequency. The programming took 10 seconds.

Third, to do the test I set the alarm. Next I held down the transmit button and walked around opening doors and windows without stopping the radio from transmitting. I even walked within 15 feet of the motion detector. Nothing. The system did verbally acknowledge the RF interference, but it never did create an alarm. I did receive text messages noting that the base was getting RF interference.

I read the original report about how the person who wrote the report would have to have advanced knowledge of the system and placement of the devices. Frankly that is not true. No matter where you locate the base unit, the handheld while transmitting will completely jam the receiver on the base unit. The sensors can send information to the base station, problem is the receiver is jammed and unable to receive anything from the sensors.

In other words, I could start the radio transmitting. Then break a window or go through a door. Steal something and be out of the house shutting the door or window and be out of there in a few minutes without tripping the alarm. The only thing that will happen is the system will report RF interference.

When that happens will SS monitoring centers see that RF Interference and dispatch police to check the property? Will they check the cameras to see if someone has broken into the house? With the design of the system, I am not sure what else SS can do to make the system more secure. A jammed receiver is a jammed receiver.

Frankly this is an issue with every system using wireless sensors. I can pretty much get a cheap radio transmitter for any company's sensors and do the same thing so this is not just a SS issue...it impacts the entire industry.

180 Messages

1年前

I would think that having the system default to an alarm for interference would create a number of false alarms.  It's also good that SS recognized the interference and sent the notification.  It would then be the users [my] responsibility to check cameras.  Of course, by the time I checked the cameras, called the police and they arrived, the thief would probably be long gone.  

All this being said, you still bring up an important issue.  I wish there were a way to make it more difficult to block signals.

27 Messages

It is an important issue. Frankly any radio can be easily modified to jam anyone's wireless alarm system such as Brinks, ADT, etc. If it is wireless it is vulnerable.

My point with this is that IF you have cameras, and the alarm is set to "home" or "away" and the system is being jammed, the monitoring center should look at the cameras for a potential video verification of a possible break-in.

If they do not at least do something when the system reports it is being jammed, what is the point of having 3rd-party monitoring?