Slashdot Mirror


D.I.Y. Home Security

theodp writes "The NYTimes reports that pre-wired home security installations by alarm companies are on the way out. Thanks to wireless window and door sensors and motion detectors, installing and maintaining one's own security system is becoming a do-it-yourself project, with kits available from companies like InGrid and LaserShield. Time to start cranking out some new iPhone and Android apps, kids?"

13 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Best reference I've found on D.I.Y. home security: by kbrasee · · Score: 5, Funny
  2. Lasershield Hack by __aajwxe560 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While most home burglars are not necessarily the most sophisticated, I have read a few reports of the ease of use of hacking the LaserShield. This basically involves breaking the communication between the base unit and sensors, such as by just having a two way radio turned to the same frequency and sending some noise over it to break reception. The base unit does not seem to regularly poll the remote sensors from what I can tell, and so is unaware of a break in communication. Engadget has a video demonstrating the hack here.

    While little security is better than none, I still think its important to understand the risks of poorly designed wireless security system devices versus well designed ones or even more conventional wired security system devices.

  3. Re:Wireless = less secure by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Having used to work installing alarms systems, jamming wouldn't work. A lost communication with a device triggers a fault same as if you were to cut a wire.

    1. Find a target house,
    2. Use jamming enough times that the owner turns off the alarm.
    3. Break in.
    4. ???
    5. Profit!

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  4. Dog + Gun works good too... by SpuriousLogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My dog barks, I shoot. Pretty simple setup. No electricity, phone lines, cell signals, wireless, or anything else to not work. Plus, if I miss, my dog is none too friendly to strangers (Chow/Shepard mix). The minute someone even gets close to the house, he makes a VERY scary noise.

  5. Re:I'll stick with what I have..A bible. by fucket · · Score: 5, Funny

    In that case, I hope they knock when they come to arrest me.

  6. Re:Wireless = less secure by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wireless = a burglar could disable them remotely?
    Either by jamming or by spoofing.
    Or trigger them often enough remotely so that they eventually get disabled ;).
    ?br>
    I used to design radio-based alarm systems in the 1980s. These were the first things we'd make sure couldn't easily happen. In those days we only had one narrow-band channel to work with (allowed by law) so anti-jamming was basically a case of a loss of signal from the sensors and/or a blocking signal present at the receiver would trigger an alarm, which meant that (3) was a definite possibility. The 'loss of signal' detection implies that the sensors transmit continuously - they don't, but they do send a brief 'check-in' at periodic intervals. The check-in period was a pseudo-random sequence to prevent different sensors checking-in on top of each other (since they couldn't 'listen out') and as a result the receiver could very quickly determine whether a sensor had missed its checkin. Later spread-spectrum techniques got around most kinds of dumb jamming attempts - it would still be possible to spoof the system in theory but only using relatively sophisticated bogus transmissions. And spoofing is reasonably easy to prevent in the decode software. I assume most modern systems today will use much better techniques than we had at our disposal twenty years ago.

    I'd say this though, as a former alarm engineer - if you really have something to protect, the best security is physical, not an alarm. If you can't secure your own building go to someone who can, e.g. safe deposit boxes. Alarms are pants, whether they use wireless or not.

  7. Re:Wireless = less secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We did something similar as a prank in high school. A lab had an microphone sensor, so we hid a watch in the casing. The school turned on the alarm at night about 8:30. The watch beeped and the cops showed at 9:00... then 10:00 then 11:00 then did not bother at 12:00. That's when we popped the window open and entered to play our prank in the "high security" lab.

  8. Re:Stilll alive? by buswolley · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tired of thieves stealing his tools, my grandpa electrified the padlock with one of those electric fence units used with cattle and horses. Difference, 3' from the unit instead of 300' of fencing wire.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  9. Old and Tested by pi_rules · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'll stick with the dog + firearm approach.

    The dog, at 2 years old, is better than any electronic sensor out there. I live in the country, not ultra-remote but far enough away from me neighbors that I couldn't hit their house with a thrown baseball, but he still alerts on things like the meter reader being next door.

    I have no idea how he does it, but he'll go ape and 5 minutes later there's a meter reader in my yard.

    Criminals aren't generally very smart, but as a rule they tend to pick the easier targets. Stickers on the windows identifying home security systems are just a notice that they need to grab and go. An 80lb. dog staring at them through the window is a signal that maybe the neighbor's place is a better target.

    I suppose I could invest in some cameras, but I'm not really too concerned with catching a burglar, just deterring them. If I'm not home and they go into Full Retard mode and decide they want to wrestle with my dog then have at it.

    If I am home the dog lets me know when we have possible "visitors" far quicker than any electronics would. I can't put motion sensors in my neighbor's driveway, but the dog picks up on that stuff. I work from home about 80% of the time and it happens almost daily. He sees something like the school bus stop out in front of the house, barks, runs over to me and starts nuzzling me. I look at what he's seeing, pet him, and sometimes hand him a treat.

    If it's an unknown person in my driveway I slip a gun onto my belt (if I'm not already wearing one) and I'm usually at the door before they even have a chance to ring the bell. Sure, it isn't typical, but I shoot as a hobby and I'm comfortable keeping loaded firearms handy.

    Security has to be multi-layered. We all know that as computer geeks. The best technology in the world can be defeated through social engineering. "Fancy" wireless security systems can be defeated with RF interference. Heck, you might just forget the turn the darned thing on one night.

    A dog? You can't really turn that thing off. You'd have to work to train that territorial protection mechanism out of them. That's my alarm system.

    Once the alarm goes off, what do you do? Well, you need to identify the threat and deal with it. Manually calling 911 on a cell phone is a good thing to do, as you can describe the nature of the situation far better than any home-brewed security system can.

    Beyond that we've got dealing with the actual threat itself, and nothing's better than an old reliable firearm. Personally I keep a Remington 870 Wingmaster w/ an 18.5" Mossberg manufactured cylinder bore barrel topped with rifle sights and 4 rounds of Federal reduced recoil 00 Buck handy at night. During the day I've usually got a S&W 1911SC, Glock 23C, or CZ-RAMI in .40S&W on my belt or a Kel-Tec P3AT nearby if I'm not actually wearing a "real" gun but want something I can clip to my pants in the event of an unexpected visitor at my door.

    When it comes to keeping me and mine safe and secure I believe simpler is better and like to stick with older technology. While you're farting around with RF systems and sensors I'll be over here feeding my dog peanut butter flavored treats wen he does his job.

    Oh, and for the record my dog is a pet first and foremost. He's here for companionship. Sure, he costs more than an alarm system, but he's worth it. The fact that he's such great asset in security is a side benefit. If there ever comes a day where he's too old to care about that stuff we'll just get another and let this one continue to be a pet.

    1. Re:Old and Tested by mk2mark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dogs are great, I agree. We have a boxer that looks tough, and is extremely curious - meaning that a) she's aware of everything around the house, and b) even though she might only lick you to death, a boxer itching to come and see you can be an especially daunting prospect, particularly if you're aware that your goal involves getting past said dog.

      However, I really don't get the gun thing. I'm not anti-guns (we have 3 in the house), but the idea that one will somehow protect you is nonsense. For the 2 parties (you and your burglar) involved there are 4 possibilities, neither party armed, you armed, him armed, both parties armed.

      Where you are armed and he is not, sure you have the advantage. But generally unarmed burglars aren't confrontational, and you have your dog anyway (which also covers you for the neither party armed scenario).

      So basically it's fair to say when you have your gun, it's protection against an armed assailant.

      By their nature armed assailants will be confrontational (why would they risk bringing the gun otherwise?) So you're basically facing a shootout. Your fancy tuned gun with special ammo sounds lovely, but unfortunately your burglar isn't going to be taking time to examine your superior firearm, so despite it your still relying on getting the first shot off, and hoping your nice equipment does its job.

      Finally you have the situation where he's armed and you're not. You stick your hands up and hope he doesn't shoot. But when you think about this, why would he shoot? He wants your VCR not the risk of a second degree murder conviction (although speculatively he might be persuaded if he's caught you off guard and spots your wingmaster hanging out of your belt).

      Basically, (by this reasoning at least) the only thing your gun does is increase the chance of a shootout. And even if you're successful, your vcr is safe, you've showed that guy that broke in, but you've also killed someone, and I'm not sure whether the consequences of that are worth your VCR.

  10. Re:Wireless = less secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Notice the effective use of the "post anonymously" check box!

  11. WTF ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    If it's an unknown person in my driveway I slip a gun onto my belt

    Christ, where the fuck do you live. Bagdhad or The Congo?
    FWIW, I live in a rural area and have a shotgun for vermin and bagging the odd rabbit. You my friend, have issues.

    Besides, an electronic security system won't shit on the carpet :-)

  12. Re:Wireless = less secure by PhilJC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "You want real security? get a BIG german shepard."

    Couldn't agree more. I grew up with two german shepherds as my dad was a police dog handler and one night we found a particularly stupid burglar huddled in our basement with the two dogs padding around the door. He'd obviously managed to get himself in, saw the dogs and ran for the nearest door (our windowless cellar). Given that they weren't small dogs and it was an old house the creak of the floor boards above the guy as they walked around upstairs simply drove the guy crazy and it took about half hour just to coax the guy out so my dad could arrest him.

    Oh and the reason I say he was a stupid burglar? My dad's police dog van was parked on the drive the whole night.