Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Z-Wave Plugin with Security S2 Support (Beta)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    S2 plugin updated to the latest, release notes updated.
    website | buy now | support | youtube

    Comment


    • #62
      Hi Rich,

      Will, the s2 plugin version be updater to x86 linux too? It is at v240 now

      Comment


      • #63
        Hi. Is it possible to disable S0 in the plugin and require S2 for all HS Zwave communications?

        thx
        mike

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by MattL0 View Post
          Hi Rich,

          Will, the s2 plugin version be updater to x86 linux too? It is at v240 now
          rjh - Wondering the same...

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by LostGuy View Post

            rjh - Wondering the same...
            rjh Still hoping for an update to the x86 version of this plugin. Some understanding of the future of S2 support in Homeseer would be welcomed too...

            Comment


            • #66
              I can update the x86 version. Right now Silicon Labs (formally sigma), is forcing hubs to use the ZIP interface for controllers. This interface only runs on Linux. So software on Windows will need a new interface and it will be expensive. Also, it means a total re-write of our Z-Wave plugin, something we don't want to do (and don't need to do). The solution we have now cannot be certified (even though it works). So we are on hold as they may be changing this requirement. That is where we are at. Obviously they think that Z-Wave should only be support by small low powered hubs that run Linux and they don't want to support other OS's.
              website | buy now | support | youtube

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by rjh View Post
                I can update the x86 version. Right now Silicon Labs (formally sigma), is forcing hubs to use the ZIP interface for controllers. This interface only runs on Linux. So software on Windows will need a new interface and it will be expensive. Also, it means a total re-write of our Z-Wave plugin, something we don't want to do (and don't need to do). The solution we have now cannot be certified (even though it works). So we are on hold as they may be changing this requirement. That is where we are at. Obviously they think that Z-Wave should only be support by small low powered hubs that run Linux and they don't want to support other OS's.
                Wow. Appreciate the background. I'm no Windows fan for this sort of application, but it's still frustrating that they can be so short-sighted...seems pretty clear they view low-end hubs backed by cloud processing for event logic as the one true answer...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by rjh View Post
                  I can update the x86 version. Right now Silicon Labs (formally sigma), is forcing hubs to use the ZIP interface for controllers. This interface only runs on Linux. So software on Windows will need a new interface and it will be expensive. Also, it means a total re-write of our Z-Wave plugin, something we don't want to do (and don't need to do). The solution we have now cannot be certified (even though it works). So we are on hold as they may be changing this requirement. That is where we are at. Obviously they think that Z-Wave should only be support by small low powered hubs that run Linux and they don't want to support other OS's.
                  Don’t they know the market? I’m sure they do...
                  what is the reason for this?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    The reason is security, they created the code that does the encryption and want to limit where it ends up. But they did do a DLL that works on Windows, so maybe they just don't want to maintain the different versions. I think they feel that small low powered hubs is where the market is. So we would need to create a new Z-Net like device that Windows users would need to use. Its more work for us with no benefit over what currently exists.

                    I updated the X86 version, its in the updater now.

                    Originally posted by MattL0 View Post

                    Don’t they know the market? I’m sure they do...
                    what is the reason for this?
                    website | buy now | support | youtube

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by rjh View Post
                      I can update the x86 version. Right now Silicon Labs (formally sigma), is forcing hubs to use the ZIP interface for controllers. This interface only runs on Linux. So software on Windows will need a new interface and it will be expensive. Also, it means a total re-write of our Z-Wave plugin, something we don't want to do (and don't need to do). The solution we have now cannot be certified (even though it works). So we are on hold as they may be changing this requirement. That is where we are at. Obviously they think that Z-Wave should only be support by small low powered hubs that run Linux and they don't want to support other OS's.
                      With the recent announcements around WSL 2 (Windows Subsystem for Linux) being baked into Windows 10 late 2019, is this a viable option for natively handling the Linux interface inside the Windows OS?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Currently I am using the standard (S0) Z-Wave plugin. So far I have only had lights and sensors in my system, but I now want to include my Z-Wave capable smart locks (which do support S2). I can either include them with S0 (continue with existing plugin), or else switch to the S2 beta plugin. I have the Zooz S2 Z-Wave USB interface.

                        Keeping in mind the following:

                        - I am not concerned at all about anybody "snooping" my devices during the inclusion process (which I understand was the key issue with S0?)
                        - I am fine with my previously included lights and sensors to be in S0 mode, it would just be locks and future devices I would want to get on S2 security.

                        Questions:

                        1) Once the inclusion phase is completed, is S0 secure enough for locks, or could some two bit burgler unlock my doors using come easy common S0 exploit that would not work if I was on S2 ? (If the only real risk is during inclusion, I could just stick with S0)

                        2) If I upgrade to the S2 plugin, what happens to all of my already included devices (and all the events I they are in, etc, etc) ? Will they continue to work (in S0 mode)?

                        3) If I want to upgrade existing S0 devices to S2 (all my devices support S2), do I need to exclude and then reinclude, and redo all my associated events, custom strings, etc, etc - or is there a more seamless way to "upgrade" the security?

                        4) I understand Ztool does not support S2. If I am on the S2 plugin, can I still use Ztool to include S0 devices (where I don't care if they are S2 or S0) ?

                        5) How/Where do I add S2 devices (in S2 mode), if not with Z-Tool?

                        6) Are there are other benefits to S2 (such as speed/performance), other than the more secure including process, that would make it worthwhile to upgrade to S2?



                        Thanks!
                        /-Tim

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          My understanding of S2 is that S0 devices that aren't locks are entirely unencrypted, so the risk is any time any signal is sent to/from the device, not just during inclusion. The authenticated S2 mode is what protects device inclusion; adding an S2 node in unauthenticated mode is susceptible to inclusion-time sniffing, but assuming that's secure then the device is secure going forward.

                          But locks are always encrypted in S0, as far as I'm aware. I don't know enough about your other questions to answer them authoritatively.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by rjh View Post
                            The reason is security, they created the code that does the encryption and want to limit where it ends up. But they did do a DLL that works on Windows, so maybe they just don't want to maintain the different versions. I think they feel that small low powered hubs is where the market is. So we would need to create a new Z-Net like device that Windows users would need to use. Its more work for us with no benefit over what currently exists.

                            I updated the X86 version, its in the updater now.


                            Any updates from Sigma? Or are they being stubborn and standing firm on the ZIP protocol?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              No, looks like ZIP is required. For us to support this it means a pretty much total re-write of the Z-Wave plugin, which will take months. And the result is something that no one is asking for. We can keep what we have now in sync with the standard Z-Wave plugin so those who want to use S2 can use it. But it will probably will never be a "certified" Z-Wave product. But you never know, there is always a chance they may relax the requirement for ZIP.

                              After HS4 is released, we may revisit this.

                              Originally posted by The Barnacle View Post

                              Any updates from Sigma? Or are they being stubborn and standing firm on the ZIP protocol?
                              website | buy now | support | youtube

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X