JimMc Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Existing Insteon hardware has security by obscurity, so by modern definitions it is essentially an open network. If a new generation of Insteon products was introduced and it included enhanced security features in the protocol, is there any hope for backwards compatibility with our existing hardware?
Teken Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Existing Insteon hardware has security by obscurity, so by modern definitions it is essentially an open network. If a new generation of Insteon products was introduced and it included enhanced security features in the protocol, is there any hope for backwards compatibility with our existing hardware? Backwards Compatibility, yes . . . But, older hardware would not have the newer security features. This has been seen in the evolution of the Insteon protocol of i1, i2, i2cs. i3cs has been in the works for ages and there is no view in sight as to when it will be released.
mwester Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 As the phrase goes: "Hope springs eternal" I guess there's a possibility that there may be a next-generation of Insteon products. Certainly technically there's a niche for a combination RF/Powerline protocol for HA. So let's go with that: - Firstly, I'd observe that the existing Insteon devices are extremely dated in terms of the technology contained therein -- the protocol, and thus the devices, were designed assuming extraordinarily resource-constrained hardware, by today's standards. So, it seems reasonable that any new technology could have considerably more firmware, memory, computational power, and I/O capacity. The point being that the extra complexity of adding support for two entirely different protocols wouldn't be a problem from a hardware resource point-of-view. - Secondly, I'd note that something like this has been done before. Early Insteon devices lived in a world dominated by X10, and while support for X10 has diminished in Insteon devices over the years, many of them not only co-existed with X10 devices, but also actively participated in the X10 network (such as it was, limited by the X10 protocol itself). Again, technically there's a precedent. - Finally, I'd note that Insteon is a closed proprietary ecosystem. There are no third-parties, no integrators, no outside developers to support or worry about (heck, they even have UDI *reverse engineering* things to get Insteon devices to work with the ISY!). So, from a technical perspective, this makes it far easier to build a "dual-protocol" solution, since the only devices that need to be tested are those manufactured by Smarthome/Smartlabs -- and probably only the currently-shipping ones out of that set. That's a considerably easier task than if there were third-party Insteon devices out there (and note that while it might *look* like there are Insteon-compatible devices on the market, if you look closely you'll find they are built onto a standard PLM, as far as I've ever seen -- so they're not really third-party devices after all). So, considering the technical issues, my conclusion is that a next-generation protocol with backward compatibility is very, very do-able, with no significant *technical* issues or risks. But, don't start the party yet. Let's consider the business side of things. From a business point-of-view, we need to take a look at the conduct and behavior of the Smarthome/Smartlabs (aka "smarties" from here on in) folks recently -- specifically the products and marketing of the past several years. That's more likely to be indicative of the future than their conduct when the first Insteon devices were created. - I note that their business model is "cloud-based" - there's been no new PLM, just hubs. And those hubs don't even feature the ability that previous network-based central controllers had (the TCP/IP version of the PLM, specifically). This matters, because it tends to indicate where their mindset is -- in the "cloud". From the cloud perspective, there's one and only one thing that matters, and that's the hub. The hub controls the devices. My concern here is that from such a perspective, the idea of making the hub the "protocol translator" rather than making the devices natively upwards-compatible seems logical, and much much cheaper. What that means for us, since the ISY can't talk to a hub, is that it's likely there won't be a "new" PLM, and likely no way for the ISY to talk to the new-protocol devices. - That last sentence might be met with the objection "Hey mwester - I'm sure that the Smarties understand that UDI customers are a significant base, and they wouldn't leave us behind!" To which I'd respond: read the forum, specifically the PLM issues, the siren, the new motion sensor, etc, etc, etc. You'll quickly see that the recent Smarties' business model doesn't include or care about UDI's customer base, except to continue to extract 75USD every two years as we all replace our burnt-out PLMs. - Moving to a broader business perspective, one has to ask the question: "Why?" A savvy investor would ask that of the Smarties -- why does the world need Yet Another HA Protocol? Why not just add z-wave, or zigbee, support to the Insteon Hub, and solve all the problems that way? Hardly any engineers required, and given the Smarties' current cloud-based model, end users wouldn't notice nor care. I just can't see any value to be generated (in terms of dollars) by creating a next-gen version of a failed, obsolete protocol with little market share, in a market space dominated by stock standard WiFi and BLE on one end, and ZWave and zigbee on the other, with custom-wired protocols still required or the norm for commercial work. It makes no business sense. - Finally, one might make an argument about a next-generation Insteon protocol, opened up to developers, that might fit well with the current "makers" push (arduinos, esp8266's, 3d-printers, companies like Sparkfun and Adafruit, etc). True enough. ZWave suffers from being non-open (Sigma owns it). Wifi is too power-hungry. Zigbee - I've not looked into that, but it too doesn't have a huge hobbyist following. Nevertheless, I'd have to look at the business model and wonder where the cash is going to come from? How much is a hobbyist willing to pay for devices? And once we establish that, one has to ask the follow-on question: given how little money (relatively-speaking) one can make in that field, does it really make sense to have backward compatibility? Do the hackers and makers really care that much? Enough so that they would pay a few dollars more for each device? It's a weak argument, assuming that anyone is willing to gamble on making money off of makers and hackers, vs making money from folks who "just want HA to work". In conclusion: It's my opinion that Insteon, as a protocol, is dying, and that while it's technically possible there's no business rationalization that would make it practical for a "protocol refresh" to see light-of-day. The recent buy-out was a purchase of the Hub-based business, for that customer base, and certainly wasn't a purchase of a top-tier engineering team to build a new protocol! So: No, there's no hope for a next-generation Insteon protocol, compatible or not. Make the switch to z-wave, starting now.
ScottAvery Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 As the phrase goes: "Hope springs eternal" ... So: No, there's no hope for a next-generation Insteon protocol, compatible or not. Make the switch to z-wave, starting now. So sad. Like VHS and Betamax all over again.
Teken Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 As the phrase goes: "Hope springs eternal" I guess there's a possibility that there may be a next-generation of Insteon products. Certainly technically there's a niche for a combination RF/Powerline protocol for HA. So let's go with that: - Firstly, I'd observe that the existing Insteon devices are extremely dated in terms of the technology contained therein -- the protocol, and thus the devices, were designed assuming extraordinarily resource-constrained hardware, by today's standards. So, it seems reasonable that any new technology could have considerably more firmware, memory, computational power, and I/O capacity. The point being that the extra complexity of adding support for two entirely different protocols wouldn't be a problem from a hardware resource point-of-view. - Secondly, I'd note that something like this has been done before. Early Insteon devices lived in a world dominated by X10, and while support for X10 has diminished in Insteon devices over the years, many of them not only co-existed with X10 devices, but also actively participated in the X10 network (such as it was, limited by the X10 protocol itself). Again, technically there's a precedent. - Finally, I'd note that Insteon is a closed proprietary ecosystem. There are no third-parties, no integrators, no outside developers to support or worry about (heck, they even have UDI *reverse engineering* things to get Insteon devices to work with the ISY!). So, from a technical perspective, this makes it far easier to build a "dual-protocol" solution, since the only devices that need to be tested are those manufactured by Smarthome/Smartlabs -- and probably only the currently-shipping ones out of that set. That's a considerably easier task than if there were third-party Insteon devices out there (and note that while it might *look* like there are Insteon-compatible devices on the market, if you look closely you'll find they are built onto a standard PLM, as far as I've ever seen -- so they're not really third-party devices after all). So, considering the technical issues, my conclusion is that a next-generation protocol with backward compatibility is very, very do-able, with no significant *technical* issues or risks. But, don't start the party yet. Let's consider the business side of things. From a business point-of-view, we need to take a look at the conduct and behavior of the Smarthome/Smartlabs (aka "smarties" from here on in) folks recently -- specifically the products and marketing of the past several years. That's more likely to be indicative of the future than their conduct when the first Insteon devices were created. - I note that their business model is "cloud-based" - there's been no new PLM, just hubs. And those hubs don't even feature the ability that previous network-based central controllers had (the TCP/IP version of the PLM, specifically). This matters, because it tends to indicate where their mindset is -- in the "cloud". From the cloud perspective, there's one and only one thing that matters, and that's the hub. The hub controls the devices. My concern here is that from such a perspective, the idea of making the hub the "protocol translator" rather than making the devices natively upwards-compatible seems logical, and much much cheaper. What that means for us, since the ISY can't talk to a hub, is that it's likely there won't be a "new" PLM, and likely no way for the ISY to talk to the new-protocol devices. - That last sentence might be met with the objection "Hey mwester - I'm sure that the Smarties understand that UDI customers are a significant base, and they wouldn't leave us behind!" To which I'd respond: read the forum, specifically the PLM issues, the siren, the new motion sensor, etc, etc, etc. You'll quickly see that the recent Smarties' business model doesn't include or care about UDI's customer base, except to continue to extract 75USD every two years as we all replace our burnt-out PLMs. - Moving to a broader business perspective, one has to ask the question: "Why?" A savvy investor would ask that of the Smarties -- why does the world need Yet Another HA Protocol? Why not just add z-wave, or zigbee, support to the Insteon Hub, and solve all the problems that way? Hardly any engineers required, and given the Smarties' current cloud-based model, end users wouldn't notice nor care. I just can't see any value to be generated (in terms of dollars) by creating a next-gen version of a failed, obsolete protocol with little market share, in a market space dominated by stock standard WiFi and BLE on one end, and ZWave and zigbee on the other, with custom-wired protocols still required or the norm for commercial work. It makes no business sense. - Finally, one might make an argument about a next-generation Insteon protocol, opened up to developers, that might fit well with the current "makers" push (arduinos, esp8266's, 3d-printers, companies like Sparkfun and Adafruit, etc). True enough. ZWave suffers from being non-open (Sigma owns it). Wifi is too power-hungry. Zigbee - I've not looked into that, but it too doesn't have a huge hobbyist following. Nevertheless, I'd have to look at the business model and wonder where the cash is going to come from? How much is a hobbyist willing to pay for devices? And once we establish that, one has to ask the follow-on question: given how little money (relatively-speaking) one can make in that field, does it really make sense to have backward compatibility? Do the hackers and makers really care that much? Enough so that they would pay a few dollars more for each device? It's a weak argument, assuming that anyone is willing to gamble on making money off of makers and hackers, vs making money from folks who "just want HA to work". In conclusion: It's my opinion that Insteon, as a protocol, is dying, and that while it's technically possible there's no business rationalization that would make it practical for a "protocol refresh" to see light-of-day. The recent buy-out was a purchase of the Hub-based business, for that customer base, and certainly wasn't a purchase of a top-tier engineering team to build a new protocol! So: No, there's no hope for a next-generation Insteon protocol, compatible or not. Make the switch to z-wave, starting now. I'll preface in saying (which most people know who have read my past replies) that Smartlabs needs to do better in almost every possible area: - On board new 3rd party hardware vendors - Support existing 3rd party vendors with clear, concise, and detailed API documentation - Use the highest quality components in all hardware - Actually use the Alpha / Beta program to make the product(s) better and for God's sake reply to freaking questions posed!!! - Return the EDOC's to the public domain as they were in the past - Build upon the strengths of the power line / RF Insteon protocol by increasing the signal output - Engage the general public to obtain critical feedback about the ups and downs of the product(s) - Get rid of the off shore sales and support ~ They truly suck ~ As they hurt sales !! - Continue the development of i3cs and integrate the latest encryption standards - Fully utilize the cloud as its intended and not the [censored]ized version you and the rest of the world use now - Incorporate energy monitoring / energy management into all of the products - Incorporate environmental monitoring while supporting analog sensor arrays Having said all of the above I've come to know first hand you should never count Smartlabs out. Consider this single company has been able to endure the onslaught of Z-Wave, ZigBee, WiFi, BLE, for the last five years. They have consistently released or updated one new Insteon product each year since coming to market. No other home automation player can say the same . . . Bar none Insteon offers the sexiest, modern, and pleasing hardware product in this space. Aeotec is a close second while the rest simply look and feel like X-10 junk from the dollar store. With the advent of Joe Dadda leaving (Thank God) this new VC has the opportunity to push Insteon further into the market place. How?? First, by releasing every NA hardware device to EU, Asia, Eastern countries. Its only been five freaking years and the stupid idiots that ran the show failed to tap into the other 5 billion humans chomping at the bit to purchase said hardware!!! After this has been done push forward to redesign the 2413S PLM so its not a 2 year ticking bomb. Better yet how about you (Ya you ~ New Guy) start selling the PLM chip to UDI so they can push sales even further into EU, Asia, Eastern countries by the sales of ISY Series Controllers. Now . . . Some have coined this as the VHS vs Beta wars . . . There is no war ~ That ship has sailed long ago due to the lack of vision, common sense, and greed. The only people who are going to take on *Insteon* are smaller companies who see value in their wares. Larger companies with true vision have already decided to adopt a hybrid environment where supporting a multi protocol only makes sense. I dare say the first company who offers WiFi as the base protocol and includes a combination of Z-Wave / ZigBee will have the best longevity in the HA Space. This assumes their product has the same look and feel of Insteon. Many don't and every quarter there is *Yet Another* Z-Wave startup that has failed and went bankrupt. This is why if there were to be a *Next Generation* protocol Smartlabs should integrate WiFi AC into all next gen hardware. Doing so is so obvious it just makes me cry. A HA network that can support both protocols takes advantage of all the strengths such topology brings. In closing, I still believe Smartlabs / Insteon has a fighting chance to taking market share. But, only if they follow the listed ideas posed above.
JimMc Posted August 8, 2017 Author Posted August 8, 2017 Well, after more than a decade of using Insteon I've dabbled with z-wave, and it reminds me of my early days with X-frikken-10! Do I really want to put up with a HA system full of weird latencies, unknown states, and "disappeared" devices -- again? Sure, Insteon is bad in some ways, but from my perspective z-wave (as it currently stands) is worse. It sounds like the consensus here is that Insteon will dry up and blow away. OK, I could live with that, but if my choice today was between z-wave or no HA at all, I'd skip the headaches and ditch HA completely.
Teken Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Well, after more than a decade of using Insteon I've dabbled with z-wave, and it reminds me of my early days with X-frikken-10! Do I really want to put up with a HA system full of weird latencies, unknown states, and "disappeared" devices -- again? Sure, Insteon is bad in some ways, but from my perspective z-wave (as it currently stands) is worse. It sounds like the consensus here is that Insteon will dry up and blow away. OK, I could live with that, but if my choice today was between z-wave or no HA at all, I'd skip the headaches and ditch HA completely. Z-Wave / ZigBee is very much like X-10 . . . One only needs to ask all of the Z-Wave folks who have 9999999999999999 siren / repeaters all over their homes!!! 1
mwester Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Z-Wave / ZigBee is very much like X-10 . . . One only needs to ask all of the Z-Wave folks who have 9999999999999999 siren / repeaters all over their homes!!! Experiences differ -- I doubt very much that I'm the only one on this forum with exactly ONE z-wave repeater -- but 9999999999999999 freakin' Insteon Filterlincs all over my home. Frankly, reliability is the number one factor constraining growth in this market. But that wasn't the question posed by the O.P. -- he asked if a next-gen Insteon protocol could be backward compatible. And the answer to that question is that it's technically possible, but impractical from a business point-of-view.
Teken Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Experiences differ -- I doubt very much that I'm the only one on this forum with exactly ONE z-wave repeater -- but 9999999999999999 freakin' Insteon Filterlincs all over my home. Frankly, reliability is the number one factor constraining growth in this market. But that wasn't the question posed by the O.P. -- he asked if a next-gen Insteon protocol could be backward compatible. And the answer to that question is that it's technically possible, but impractical from a business point-of-view. LOL ~ That's a lot of filters you got there mwester!!! RE: Reliability can be improved upon by increasing signal strength. Nobody in the HA space is coming even close to FCC limit, none. This is why Gen 5 devices are able to offer better performance because they have increased the signal strength so has Insteon. They all still fall short of the limit set by the FCC though . . .
mwester Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 LOL ~ That's a lot of filters you got there mwester!!! RE: Reliability can be improved upon by increasing signal strength. Nobody in the HA space is coming even close to FCC limit, none. This is why Gen 5 devices are able to offer better performance because they have increased the signal strength so has Insteon. They all still fall short of the limit set by the FCC though . . . Alligators, Teken. They call devices like that "alligators" because they're all mouth and no ears. Based on the sad front-end on the Insteon devices, they could do just as well, probably far, far better by adding higher-Q filters on the receivers. But, that requires RF engineers. And engineers, no matter what country they work in, require money. And that requires a business decision: "Will investing $X thousands of dollars to improve the performance of the Insteon XYZLinc offer me $>X thousands in return?" And the answer, alas, is: not likely -- especially if that businessman factors in that improving the performance will actually REDUCE the sale of FilterLincs, Insteon repeaters, Insteon phase bridges, last-second-desperate-attempt-to-make-it-work PLM and Hub replacements, etc. I fear that right now the Smarties business model is actually benefiting in a very measurable way from all the replacement and add-on devices users buy in an attempt to make their networks operate. Speaking for myself, I wish I had invested elsewhere all that money I spent on Insteon repeaters (5 of them), filterLincs (many, far more than 5, I've lost track since they litter my walls all over my house and garage), phase bridge, and spare PLM.
Teken Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Alligators, Teken. They call devices like that "alligators" because they're all mouth and no ears. Based on the sad front-end on the Insteon devices, they could do just as well, probably far, far better by adding higher-Q filters on the receivers. But, that requires RF engineers. And engineers, no matter what country they work in, require money. And that requires a business decision: "Will investing $X thousands of dollars to improve the performance of the Insteon XYZLinc offer me $>X thousands in return?" And the answer, alas, is: not likely -- especially if that businessman factors in that improving the performance will actually REDUCE the sale of FilterLincs, Insteon repeaters, Insteon phase bridges, last-second-desperate-attempt-to-make-it-work PLM and Hub replacements, etc. I fear that right now the Smarties business model is actually benefiting in a very measurable way from all the replacement and add-on devices users buy in an attempt to make their networks operate. Speaking for myself, I wish I had invested elsewhere all that money I spent on Insteon repeaters (5 of them), filterLincs (many, far more than 5, I've lost track since they litter my walls all over my house and garage), phase bridge, and spare PLM. Its not only signal strength its the improper placement of the internal antenna. If someone grabbed a brain and moved the antenna so its behind the front (plastic) cover plate the signal propagation and distance would increase. Just that simple move costs nothing but a change in the assembly process. Smartlabs has done this to several products already but sadly haven't moved forward on all the rest. As for the use of filters no matter what HA a person uses filters will always be needed in varying degrees. This comes down to what kind of electronics and loads they have in place. I've personally never had to deploy any filter in my home and that isn't because of luck. It came down to taking the time to test, validate, and deploy hardware that didn't suck / emit noise in my home. I can safely state 99% of the population have never taken the time, effort, or expense to do the same. In the ideal world none of this should be required but we don't live in the mythical world of ideal. We live in a world where producing the cheapest product as fast as possible to make X margins. As I have stated many times in this forum and others the average person really doesn't have many options when it comes to HA. Series folks use a hardwired solution that doesn't run on the power lines or use RF. Because of this all of the current iterations of protocols: Insteon, Z-Wave, ZigBee, X-10, WiFi, BLE will forever be hobbled and limited. As noted up above integrating a dual protocol like WiFi AC and (name your flavor) will increase the reliability and flexibility to integrate with X vs Y. Right now manufactures have their head on backwards . . . They believe using cloud hosted services and new *Standards* such as Apple Home Kit, Weave, Thread, name what ever make belief system out there is the magic bullet. It isn't . . . These are all band aids and stop gaps such as IFTTT / Stringify
Dr Pepper Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Is anyone using filters with Zwave? I have not heard of that so it would be news to me. I agree that SH needs to do a better job with their RF designs. I have taken apart devices that had the antenna wire laying on the black 120 V internal wiring. Just poor assembly instructions and QC. The power limits are restricted by FCC Part 15 and IC RSS247 (going from memory here if I am mistaken sorry). Those reports are probably available on the FCC website as far as test results etc. Every mfg I ever worked for tweaked power down for samples tested and back up in production. So I would guess whatever you see as far as test results production is probably higher. Another feature they really need is flashable firmware. No explanation needed Has anyone noticed less products on the SH website? They were reselling everything from fish bowls to t-shirts if they thought it could make a buck. Maybe they are going to be more focused going forward.
stusviews Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Is anyone using filters with Zwave? I have not heard of that so it would be news to me. Filters are required for the powerline. Z-wave does not use the powerline at all.
Dr Pepper Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Filters are required for the powerline. Z-wave does not use the powerline at all. Thats what I thought. I forget who said they needed filters for Zwave. Heck I never used a single filter with UPB in 8 years. It just worked.
lilyoyo1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Personally when I look at their history I would say yes; there will be backwards compatibility. I2CS can work with I1 devices. Even as a business matter it makes more sense. It's far easier to replace a single controller than it is to replace 50 switches. If a new switch doesn't work with existing switches, customers will get angry and potentially leave since everything they have would be useless. If they would need to replace everything, they could potentially go to a competitor. If the controller (hub) goes out, even if the new controller wasn't backwards compatible, there could still be other options such as the isy. When I first got into insteon (all power line), I used only a couple of filters. Now that all of my devices are dual band, I haven't had a need for any of them as I don't have any issues. Every situation is unique so what works for 1 may not work for another. Personally, I'd rather deal with needing a filter to fix a problem rather than troubleshoot RF issues. There are a lot of things I would love to see them do with insteon as well. However how many people would want to pay the price for all these upgrades people talk about? Some stuff must be done such as encryption (though I think it's overrated for the most part). Others such as energy tracking is more of a luxury that I wouldn't necessarily want to pay more for (assuming a cost increase)
stusviews Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Energy tracking? How about a calculator or even pencil and paper. If that's too difficult, then, as I used to tell my students, "You can't always count on your friends, but you can always count on your fingers."
lilyoyo1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Many of the things I read here are good ideas for a very small part of insteon (and zwave for that matter) user base. Flashable firmware. The avg user would probably end up messing up more devices than they fix. The fact that many of the firmware updates are also based on hardware present inside means even more broken devices simply because the owner chose the wrong update for their product. Wifi chips. Sounds great but what about battery powered devices and possible cost increase. As we've already discussed (me and you Teken) how many people will want to pay more for better? As you always so eloquently state, it's a race to the bottom. Cloud based controllers. It's unfortunate but we're in the minority here. Companies are giving people what they want. The avg person doesn't want to figure out how to set up a proper system, worry about firmware updates, or Port forwarding. it's sad but the more technical we become as a society, the less it seems people want to know. Personally, I'd rather see an advanced/pro line. This would allow professionals and power users access to a more robust lineup. These devices would incorporate higher quality internals for increased longevity, more features such as tuneable RF frequency, turning on/off RF or Powerline, energy features etc. Doing things this way will allow for a greater design for those willing to pay more without sacrificing sales due to increased costs
lilyoyo1 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Energy tracking? How about a calculator or even pencil and paper. If that's too difficult, then, as I used to tell my students, "You can't always count on your friends, but you can always count on your fingers." I agree but there is a consumer base that wants to monitor usage. Personally I don't see the point but if it's important to someone, who am I to argue
stusviews Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 A difficulty with web based upgrades/updates is the number of devices involved. For the most part, only one device is involved, a graphics card, the ISY, for example. An error, although rare, is usually fixable. An installation with multitudes of devices would probably require multiple downloads increasing the probability of an error. Even at SH headquarters devices are flashed one-at-a-time. Been there, saw that.
Brian H Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Most of the Insteon modules. Have one or two 5 pin programming connector and need a programmer connected to change the firmware. Most are also power line derived power supplies. Done incorrectly you could end up landing on the place you sit down or worse electrical shock. My 2456S ApplianceLinc modules have the Logic +5 Volt supply directly connected to the 120 volt AC Line Input . One of the programming pad connections. Edited August 9, 2017 by Brian H
larryllix Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Over the last few years we have seen a few people posting they were going to hack the Insteon protocol and demonstrate how it could be done. From a few very smart people none have ever came backand shown that it can be done yet. The White Papers that people incorrectly assume are the gospel truth, apparently are not, and almost every aspect of the protocol is not completely as written, in the Smartie's white papers made available to the public. I consider the Insteon protocol already just as safe in the as even banking security system protocols. The end result isn't worth the amount of effort it would take, for the perpetrator's end gain. Even with the so-called rolling code garage door openers, tooted as such a big security feature. It turns out they have to allow a hundred or so different codes because they may not have been listening when some other device (another car remote) caused the predefined (and well known sequenced) list of codes to "roll". I am of the same opinion as many others. Most security is only a "feel-good" hype for the users. When the encryption password has to be sent during the same comm session, it's all just hype.
JimMc Posted August 9, 2017 Author Posted August 9, 2017 I am of the same opinion as many others. Most security is only a "feel-good" hype for the users. When the encryption password has to be sent during the same comm session, it's all just hype. In today's world perception is reality, and a lack of security will doom a product because competitors can and will make an issue of it. Companies like Apple, GE, Siemens, etc., are going to shape the HA landscape going forward and the tiny pissant companies like SmartLabs will get their chance to apply for a job. Not having security baked into the protocol is like showing up for work at a construction site with no shoes.
Teken Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Sounds like Fred Flinstone ~ Yaba Daba Doo!! Edited August 9, 2017 by Teken
Recommended Posts