Adding device with secure option not always working

[Guest]

Hi,

I'm replacing all my old switch and dimmer to those from homeseer WS200 and WD200. Those device are able to be included securely, which I'm doing!
But sometime, it's not able to include it secure, then it include the non-secure way.

From there, I ended up excluding the device and try to include it again. Mostly it work on the second try!

1st question: Why it would not include with the option secure on the first time? What possible cause of this?
2nd question: Is there another way to "rescan" or re-run the sequence that ask the secure code to make it secure, or we always have the exclude and re-include all the time!?

I hope with HS4, we will be able to secure include device using Z-tool+, has for now HS3 I cannot do it! (That might be best for me to put it in the forum of suggested improvement for HS4

Regards,
Joel

[RoChess]

Those that failed to include secure the first time were they possibly at a further distance from controller or in an obstructed wireless signal area? Difficulty during communication would be the obvious factor as non-secure allows for larger range. Another reason is that the node even brand new ones had association reminiscences or incorrect Z-Wave parameter settings. Had a brand new diagnostic device showing log entries once from like a test run that wasn't erased before it got sealed in box for sale.

Excluding device resets that, so I often exclude devices first before including them, even brand new.

As for what exactly happened to yours, logs would say if you have all the extra options enabled to do so which by default most users do not.

[Guest]

Then should I default reset the device before including it? Will that help?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[RoChess]

Factory resets I've never had to resort to, but excluding first to clear association for sure. If something goes wrong during the inclusion communication then instead of a rescan via Z-Wave tab I prefer exclude/re-include as well.

[Guest]

Ok then I will try to exclude first include after. I got few more to install 👍
Will let you know!

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[sparkman]

I hope with HS4, we will be able to secure include device using Z-tool+, has for now HS3 I cannot do it! (That might be best for me to put it in the forum of suggested improvement for HS4

The functionality is in the zwave plugin and so not directly related to HS4. I would ask for that in the zwave forum or email HST.

Personally I can’t see any reason to include light switches securely.

[Guest]

Personally I can’t see any reason to include light switches securely.

You suggest to include light switches unsecure?

Has for door lock? Thermostat?

I thought securing it, would make it more secure to anyone hacking my system and turn on/off my light! Well not that I think someone around would like to trigger my light etc

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[sparkman]

Someone would have to sniff your z-wave network
(so basically sit right by your house), create a controller on your system all to control your lights? Sure, I can see the importance for locks and garage door openers, although the probability of someone doing that are still between 0 and 0.00001. 😂. It is way more likely that someone hacks you on the ip side and if they get control of HS that way, secure zwave makes absolutely no difference.

[RoChess]

Someone would have to sniff your z-wave network

Isn't Z-Wave protocol by default AES based, or only when nodes are included secure?

Locks tend to be double secure with exchange of encryption keys, and even my old Schlage with S0 supports that.

Was indeed contemplating redoing some of my battery sensors as non-secure, once I ran through a set of batteries, with SDJ-Health monitoring the battery lifespan. This day and age AES can be done efficiently via silicone, but it must still have an impact.

Of course it'll be many months before batteries need replacing, but additional insight now never hurts from those with longer experience. Ran most devices on Vera3 controller for ~6 years, but that's not a Z-Wave+ controller so all devices were included non-secure, except for Schlage deadbolts.

Guess I'll have to dig through Sigma documentation otherwise for definitive answer, but this forum is full of experienced users such as yourself with practical experience as theoretical doesn't always pan out.

[sparkman]

My understanding is that using secure on battery powered devices does use more battery life due to the extra work the processor has to do. For sensors that send very infrequent updates, this may not matter, but for devices that send regular updates batteries do not last as long. I have not confirmed that myself as I have only a few secure devices as most I have were bought before the secure protocol was available and newer ones were included as non-secure. AFAIK there is some encryption on a “standard” zwave network, but from articles I read a long time ago, it was relatively easy to crack.

[Guest]

Ok then I will try to exclude first include after. I got few more to install 👍
Will let you know!

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Ok today I added more switches and dimmers. I did the trick to exclude first before including.
Mostly work like a charms but I ended having the same problem with one dimmer. Had to exclude it again and re-include it one more time before it works!
So I can't tell if excluding prior including make it work better it not.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk