Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KDR]

So, that's why your handle changed!!!  Obviously, Otis got pieved when he wasn't allowed to post here.

Wonders if he has another dog named "Duck"

[tom j]

Say what'a you guys think about bringing this to the attention of Dave Rye think it would do any good?? I got his e-mail address. Maybe if he got a couple dozen e-mails he might respond to our concerns a couple hundred would probably really get his attention! 

Tcj

Dave Rye
Dave Rye is Sr. Vice President and Technical Manager of X10 (USA) Inc., and has been with X10 for 32 years. He is responsible for technical liaison between Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and X10's engineering staffs in Scotland, Hong Kong, and the USA

[p2459]

Say what'a you guys think about bringing this to the attention of Dave Rye think it would do any good?? I got his e-mail address.

Feel free to post his email address.

If the company is made aware of the problem, and does nothing to correct it, and in 3 months there is
a break in & shooting, and the thief admits to using this method to gain entry, would there not be an
issue of liability? (The company is selling an alarm system under the false pretense that you and your
valuables are safe in your home when in fact they were advised the system can be easily bypassed)

I can imagine the attorneys that would be grinning from ear to ear wanting to take a case like this.

Perhaps someone should inform Mr. Rye of this.

[tom j]

Say what'a you guys think about bringing this to the attention of Dave Rye think it would do any good?? I got his e-mail address.

Feel free to post his email address.

If the company is made aware of the problem, and does nothing to correct it, and in 3 months there is
a break in & shooting, and the thief admits to using this method to gain entry, would there not be an
issue of liability? (The company is selling an alarm system under the false pretense that you and your
valuables are safe in your home when in fact they were advised the system can be easily bypassed)


I can imagine the attorneys that would be grinning from ear to ear wanting to take a case like this.

Perhaps someone should inform Mr. Rye of this.

Hi thanks for your input here's Mr. Rye's e-mail address daverye@x10.com hope he doesn't change it with the flood of e-mails I'm hoping he'll get. Say the first one to get a response could you please post it so we can all see it. Remember that 20/20 piece last Friday how consumers can fight back well this is definitely a start, and hopefully something will come of it. And you're right I'm sure litigation would surely follow if this obvious design flaw isn't corrected. If we all stick together maybe we can really do something about this because I'm sure if it hasn't already happen that someone will eventually use this technique to gain entry to someone home the results of which I hate to think of.


Tcj

Dave Rye is Sr. Vice President and Technical Manager of X10 (USA) Inc., and has been with X10 for 32 years. He is responsible for technical liaison between Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and X10's engineering staffs in Scotland, Hong Kong, and the USA. He procures industry approvals (UL, FCC, etc.) for all X10 products, as well as those developed and manufactured by X10 for its OEM customers. He produces X10's literature, owner's manuals, and packaging. He is an industry expert and has written many articles on Home Automation and Security. He has acted as Technical Editor for several books on Home Automation. He has acted as a judge in HANA* Annual Mark of Excellence Awards. He has served on HANA's Board of Directors, has served on several HANA committees, and has held the office of HANA Secretary/Treasurer. He holds 6 Home Automation related patents, and others are pending.

In 1981, and again in 1991, the Johns Hopkins University awarded Rye recognition for developing an X10 based environmental control system. This system let individuals with severe disabilities control lights and appliances via X10 modules by using a puff 'n sip, or tongue switch, etc.

* HANA is now part of The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA).

[tom j]

Say guys you know the more I think about it more I'm thinking now that the problem might be the receiver in the console (PS561)  I'm now thinking that it's not capable of receiving two RF signals simultaneously. Any electrical engineers out there whats a receiver called that's capable of receiving and processing two RF signals at the same time, I used to know but can't think of it.

Tcj

[Puck]

Tom,

The problem is that the jammer (e.g. palm pad remote) is the same frequency as the security sensors. So the base only sees one signal, but the data on the carrier is now unrecognizable.


Update with signal pics 19-Oct-2006 15:22

Here are a few pics from a spectrum analyzer I took this morning.

Note: The pic with Both is how they appear in the air. They are both within the receiver's frontend bandwidth, so they cannot be interpreted seperately.

On a PLUS NOTE... I did see that the palm pad does not transmit continuously. I didn't measure the duty cycle however, but that means it's not constantly jamming the security sensors, so if they do get triggered during the palm pad's off time.... ALARM!!!
This may not mean a lot with regards to the door/window sensors (which would only be activated once), but multiple triggers from a motion detector could get recognized. "Do you feel lucky, PUNK?"   

Nonetheless... still a downfall with the system.

[KDR]

An update from a post early on in this thread....  I got the security palm pad remotes and the RF output is better. With the keyfob remote I could not arm or disarm my alarm from my drive. With the palm pad it works about 10 feet beyond my drive. This works out good since I have my garage doors setup with X10 and the power for the doors also on X10, I can control everything from 1 remote pad in the car.

[Charles Sullivan]

Nice work Puck!

[tom j]

Tom,

The problem is that the jammer (e.g. palm pad remote) is the same frequency as the security sensors. So the base only sees one signal, but the data on the carrier is now unrecognizable.


Update with signal pics 19-Oct-2006 15:22

Here are a few pics from a spectrum analyzer I took this morning.

Note: The pic with Both is how they appear in the air. They are both within the receiver's frontend bandwidth, so they cannot be interpreted seperately.

On a PLUS NOTE... I did see that the palm pad does not transmit continuously. I didn't measure the duty cycle however, but that means it's not constantly jamming the security sensors, so if they do get triggered during the palm pad's off time.... ALARM!!!
This may not mean a lot with regards to the door/window sensors (which would only be activated once), but multiple triggers from a motion detector could get recognized. "Do you feel lucky, PUNK?"   

Nonetheless... still a downfall with the system.

Great work Puck they obviously don't have engineers of your caliber working for x10 or they won't have let this get by them! Say would a reasonable remedy for something like this? I know none of the other wireless systems I checked that  have this affliction, is there a simple fix for it how do you think the other manufactures get around this. Thanks!!

Tcj

[Puck]

Tom,

Hardware wise, I don't think there is any way to prevent someone from jamming a low end transmitter / receiver (whether its X10 or another system).
Detecting this jammer through software (as Tuicemen has the X10dispatcher people doing) is the only practical solution for people already using the system. Hopefully X10 will add something similar in their next update of AHP or OnAlert. But this method (I believe) will only work if the jammer comes for an X10 source. If the software solution could detect a CW jammer it would be better.

But we all know how well our receivers pick up the signals from our remotes from every spot in our homes, every time.  This would make breaking in with a small battery operated transmitter in your pocket a risky adventure at best.

[tom j]

Tom,

Hardware wise, I don't think there is any way to prevent someone from jamming a low end transmitter / receiver (whether its X10 or another system).
Detecting this jammer through software (as Tuicemen has the X10dispatcher people doing) is the only practical solution for people already using the system. Hopefully X10 will add something similar in their next update of AHP or OnAlert. But this method (I believe) will only work if the jammer comes for an X10 source. If the software solution could detect a CW jammer it would be better.

But we all know how well our receivers pick up the signals from our remotes from every spot in our homes, every time.  This would make breaking in with a small battery operated transmitter in your pocket a risky adventure at best.

I just seems to me that if the receiver was more sophisticated that it could process more then one signal. I asked GE the maker of Simon if you could jam there system with one of their remotes the same way and they said you couldn't. And I know you said the little trasmitters broadcast on the same frequency but what about the hand held units that have supposedly 64 thousand combinations how does that work? Are these combinations all on the same frequency to? Thanks
Tcj 

[Puck]

...but what about the hand held units that have supposedly 64 thousand combinations how does that work? Are these combinations all on the same frequency to?

Yes, they are still transmitted on the same ~310MHz carrier, the code (once demodulated) lets the base know whether or not to act upon the command.

I asked GE the maker of Simon if you could jam there system with one of their remotes the same way and they said you couldn't.

You may not be able to jam their system using one of their remotes... but ANY receiver can be jammed.
The type of receiver will dictate if you can do it from a handheld device or if you have to pull a van up in front of the house.

I haven't actually look into it (yet), but does anyone know what type of modulation X10 uses?

[Charles Sullivan]

I haven't actually look into it (yet), but does anyone know what type of modulation X10 uses?

Just timed short bursts of RF, whatever you call that.

[Puck]

X10 Uses Morse Code???   

"To allow the operation of wireless keypads, remote switches, and the like, a radio protocol is also defined. Operating at a frequency of 310 MHz in the U.S. and a different frequency in the rest of the world, the wireless devices send data packets that are very similar to ordinary X10 powerline control packets. A radio receiver then provides a bridge which translates these radio packets to ordinary X10 powerline control packets."

Thanks Charles, I found this definition at "wikipedia". No modulation, just RF bursts.

udated: 24-Oct-2006 12:31

[Charles Sullivan]

Puck:
You can see what these look like in the Test Reports which are part of the FCC filings, e.g., for the CM17A Firecracker:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=93404&fcc_id='B4SCM17A'