@tryptameanie 972071 wrote:
Tbh GL is it that different from all the wireless locks and ignitions thzat have been rleased as “secure” to rapidly be shown insecure?
no, it is iexactly the same device as the radio equipment in all of these locks but in a stronger enclosure and with a higher power end stage. You can buy the circuit boards separately as well – many are not especially expensive; I built an experimental transmitter with one from I ordered from Scotland to trigger off a pager receiver.
The transmitter units can be programmed from software with various protocols and can send either clear or encrypted data – the receiving equipment must of course be capable of decrypting.
The vehicle ones may slightly more secure against attempts to open up the cars and steal them (although this can still be done with simple equipment and enough time to go through all the codes or even stalking the owners and monitoring the transmission the key gives off) – but all radio links are vulnerable to accidental or deliberate interference; they have been since Marconi’s days, it is why we no longer use rough spark gap transmitters for communications purposes.
TBH the Ofcom man would have been equally within his rights to warn the oil rig organisation they should be setting that to a different frequency (Germany’s BNetzA suggest 433,100 or 433,500 MHz for an on site system) or using the licensed frequencies which are only £75 for 5 year license. He cannot force them to do this unless the transmitter had been set to excessively strong power or was permanently defective (it seems the reset sequence solved it). What was unusual is that it must surely have transmitted wrong/garbled signals to the location monitoring equipment as well; its equally worrying no one on the oil platform noticed that….
