This is a serious question. I have had break ins on devices that use code hopping. Does your new device KIT-2 use the dual Keeloq or the Ultimate Keeloq or something similar?
Is your technology using code expiration to ensure that code grabbing will not work?
Or how is the encryption providing better protection? For instance if (roughly speaking here) the code is encrypted in the same way with the same encryption key then it would seem that a code grabbing attack (with or without jamming) would still be successful? It doesn’t really matter if the code is encrypted if the identical code is sent from receiver to the transmitter and likewise from the transmitter to the receiver. However, if there is some other changing code (such as a time stamp that gets mixed in with the transmission in either direction then I would see how an encrypted code would prevent code grabbing from being successful. Is this at least one element of the sort of approach your device uses to ensure better?
I’ve been studying Microchip Technology’s MCS3142 spec sheet (I presume that there are other vendors) which seems to suggest a similar strategy with their “Ultimate Keeloq” approach, but I don’t claim that I fully understand the spec sheet. A flow sheet explanation would be nice. Any clarification would be helpful. I’m looking to have better confidence in my security system.
I don’t want to purchase and install a device just to have another break in, but I am also getting tired of manually locking everything. I understand that devices to crack code hopping systems are less than 30$ on the internet; so even poor criminals now don’t even have to bother breaking into doors and gates. So, I am hoping that your device will do the job.
Our KIT-2 use AES encryption, rolling code with custom made coding format, it is not dual Keeloq or Ultimate Keeloq.
In our code format, there are two segments that are constanting changing, and we encrypt them by AES before transmitted, every code transmitted are guaranteed to be different.
But our remotes are now without time stamping, this is a feature not feasible in our current hardware, we will consider use it in future.
We transmit at 3 different frequencies, so jamming would be harder than normal transmitter.
Since our system is new, it is not widely used as typical Keeloq systems, it means there is no dedicated device to crack ours, at least for now ( definitely the $30 ready to use is not able to I think).
— In short
Our system do provide better security than most systems on Amazon.
However, if you need ultimate security, consider buy a bi-directional system, or time stamp keeping system.
dWithout giving too much details: Liftmaster Security+ (Rolling Code); Liftmaster Customer Service didn’t believe they were vulnerable but admitted that their new products only had more codes but were no different otherwise
Import car - probably aftermarket security system, Several years old, unsure what the security is (probably rolling code) but I understand that most are pretty weak
So, I still fundamentally don’t understand how both the transmitter and receiver can use the same encryption key and not be vulnerable to code grabbing. If the receiver transmits a fresh code to the receiver and the receiver decrypts the code and throws away some bit from the code and then encrypts the code and sends it back to the receiver the next time an open command is requested then I could see how encryption could help. But if the same code is sent encrypted both ways using the same encryption key then encryption would seem to be pointless (the criminal could care less whether it is encrypted or not if they just grab the encrypted code and re-transmit the same encrypted code when they want to break in)?
I’ve searched for bi-directional security systems, but I can’t seem to find much of anything. Most don’t explain anything about whether they have even code hopping or encryption. For instance I had been considering the Honeywell CE2 (sells Ademco, etc., and a CE3 is also available now). But even though they call it Code Encryptor 2 (CE2), Honeywell doesn’t actually claim anywhere in the manual, specs, or advertising that it actually encrypts the codes or does much of anything. The absence of information implies to me that the CE2 isn’t very secure otherwise I would think they at least make some sort of technical claim.
You can check Keeloq spec sheet to find more details about how rolling code works, it is not like you thought, criminal just can’t grab the code and replay to break in. (provided the code is not blocked).
I have checked Honeywell CE3 online, unfortunately I can’t find any more information regarding the encoder and security features, maybe you can ask Honeywell if the receiver is secure enough.
I have also checked online, it seems I can’t find any products using ultimate keeloq (they surely exist, just I can’t find them).
I studied the Keeloq spec sheets and understand better now that the new hopping code is generated/originates from the transmitter. Basically the Keeloq Ultimate appears to have the additional ability to require the receiver to check for and expire codes with time stamps out of date by more than a few seconds to attempt to avoid the so called “roll jamming” attack. I’m not sure if any devices out there actually check the time stamps since the spec sheet doesn’t seem to imply that this would be a preferred operation strategy for security purposes.
So, possibly an advantage of your system is that it uses 3 frequencies. In some places on your website or Q&A this appears to be 433 MHz (all 3 near to 433?) but I see mention of NeoCode on your website and references to 915MHz and other frequencies. I would think having 3 frequencies far apart might make it harder to jam all three frequencies (not sure - or does that make it easier to jam?). Or if the frequencies are very close together does that mean that you have a very tight receiver frequency window on each of the 3 channels to make each frequency channel unique and to avoid “broad” jamming applied to any nearby frequency? I think another way of asking this question is whether you make it harder to jam by putting a very tight receiver frequency window on the frequency of each of the 3 bands so that they are not all jammed easily by jamming a few MHz (or even <1MHz) off one of the 3 chosen frequencies?
Jamming all 3 and then replay them is a little hard to do, it is harder than normal single frequency ones.
So it’s definitely harder, but if the criminal decided he would open your door at whatever cost, then he can do it. He will simply just crack your door open in the worst case…
I think maybe you can still keep looking for the ultimate keeloq products, it will be even harder to break.
I hope that it is the usual thing of just need to make it harder or at least not possible with a simple break in/hack device. I have searched for 2 way systems but none of them say that it is two way communication just that they may confirm an arm or disarm. I have an inquiry in regarding ultimate keeloq but no response yet. It seems that most web pages and spec sheets just don’t want to provide this depth of detail. If you have any suggestions, I would be interested?