Genetec Synergis Cloud Link - Complex, Costly and Confusing

However, integrating access into the platform is not simple, often requiring an expensive intermediate 'master controller' that confusingly does not actually control any doors itself.

I would say this is not actually true. You can connect HID's VertX V100/V200/V300 modules directly to the Cloudlink's RS-485 ports and the Cloudlink will act as the master controller without the need to add the VertX V1000 master controller. I have many clients who have done this due to the very low cost of deployment with little to no loss of functionality. 

"Complex, Costly, and Confusing"

doesnt this fall in line with all Genetec products or naw?

This is the exact reason I never push Genetec access control when I don't have to. I never liked the concept or the embedded XP/7 versions (bad design). It is about time someone posted a comparison. Ccure9000, Onguard for large enterprise scalability and Synergis by demand or bid only. Hirsch, Amag for DOD accounts and anything else under the sun for the rest of the small systems.

I wish there was a way for Genetec to see this post and understand the frustration the Cloud Link causes, but I don't think it will happen. I have brought this up many many times but get shut down every time. Back in the day it made sense because our options were the V100s and SMC. Then we were hooking MR panels to the SMC. Then Genetec said they are no longer supporting Mercury hardware. Then they came back and said they will but with the EP panel like you mentioned - to "respect the Mercury architecture".

The SCL is just running Windows 7 embedded with a very small program call Softwire running on it. It is a translator. It would make more sense to be turned into a role or run it as a service on the Access Control Manager but I don't see that happening. The software will clearly run on any Windows instance but they have gone to great lengths to prevent it from running anywhere else. This "3 tier architecture" is ridiculous. If want to design an entire site of LP/MR panels and all of the servers are VMs where the customer has clustering abilities and now I have to buy this piece of hardware and bolt it to the wall for the LP panels to talk. If the hardware dies or that building goes away we are now stuck without a connect. Yes, Genetec will sell you the Softwire program to run in your own VM environment, for $8k whereas the the SCL is $1k or the SV-100 is $1,200. It makes using Mercury hardware not cost effective for small sites, so we typically go with the SCL and V100s. However, as soon as you do that and the customer wants to leave Genetec the SCL is useless and Genetec is no longer "open platform". Stop making and selling hardware and stick to the software.

I'm glad im not the only one thats confused as all hell about the purpose this device serves and when/why its actually needed

All i want to know is whats the path to functional threat levels if i have a bunch of sites with v100/etc connected to v1000 in genetec? My understanding is that threat levels wont work without these?

should i still be buying v100/v200/v1000?

should i just be buying these things?

Should i be replacing the v100/v1000 crap?

I am a long time Genetec dealer.  Undisclosed #4's write up above is right on the money.  Great summary and comparison.  My biggest issue is cost, the functionality achieved when used in a standard type enterprise access control solution - it is way to expensive.  Note that the functionality of the cloudlink can be achieved in certain Genetec servers i.e. the physical cloudlink is not required.

This is Despina Stamatelos, Product Marketing Manager for Access Control, at Genetec.

Brian, thank you for your article and opinion on the Synergis Cloud Link appliance. I also appreciate all the comments on here which we are carefully reading and taking into consideration for future improvements.

Overall, the access control market is a traditional one and we are challenging the status quo by innovating and introducing solutions that give our customers more options to design their system in a cost-effective and resilient manner. Given this, I would like to address three major points that come across in your article and the interesting discussion it has generated:

The Cloud Link is too expensive as a “Master Controller”

Synergis Cloud Link isn’t a master controller. Synergis Cloud Link is a micro-server that reduces the total cost of ownership. For multi-site deployments, which represent the majority of our customer base, Synergis Cloud Link replaces the need for a Commercial Off-the-Shelf server at remote sites, therefore, reducing the total cost of ownership associated with purchasing and maintaining a server throughout its lifetime.  However, customers always have the option to install the software on their server.

Synergis Cloud Link is complex and confusing

Proprietary systems are simple and easy to understand. Offering customers a truly open architecture enables them to protect their investment for years to come. As a provider of a truly open architecture, we offer our customers choices on how to design and deploy our system using hardware from Mercury, HID, AXIS, Salto, Assa Abloy, just to name a few.  

Cloud Link for rare Access Control as a Service

There’s a big interest in ACaaS, particularly on the enterprise side. With Synergis Cloud Link we are future-proofing our customer’s system and investment by ensuring that they are ready to go to the cloud when they wish to do so.

So I don't see many comments on "why" the CL is used, can you talk about some of the added benefits of the PACS solution with using the CL such as P2P Global Anti-Passback w/o host comms, support for Wireless Locks w/o additional gateways, STid Support etc.  It's pretty powerful device that allows Genetec to develop more features for the Mercury hardware for users to take advantage of.

I think this article is interesting but lack some perspective ans the unit is made for a worldwide audience, so that it can accomodate many "local" market request. 

The Cloudlink can be a door controler in a very extreme case that is used currently in France for very high end security. 

For some history: in this country , there is a national bureau called ANSSI (roughly translated as National Agency for IT Security) that devised a rought certification in acces control. (called CSPN) 

in this method, the reader needs to be totally "dumb" and is connected throught a RS485 directly to the master controler and only the controler, not the reader can decode the cypher, then read the card, and afterward take the decision. 

the cypher is contain in 3 SAM card that can fit in the unit and those are design to be wiped out if you remove them from the unit without authorisation. 

in this configuration throught its RS485 ports, and extension ports it can connect directly to 16 doors. 

(but you still need some V100 or V200 to open the doors, V100 so you don't pay the licence fee, or V200 if you don't care about price) 

this is a little step up from the OSDPv2 protocol and only 4 supplier currently pass this national  certification step. 

The older cloudlink cannot do it by the way, only those with the red strip on it. 

some other functionnalities are not support without the cloudlink on a Security system such as turnstile mode and global anti passback for instance. 

So even if it need some improvment, I still like this module as it simplifies my work on many project, since a lot of ACS system in Europe are still very proprietary for security Reason. 

yes, it's to mitigate the possibility of somebody removing the reader to retro engineer the secret and /or cypher in the device.

It appears to be an unimaginative industrial intel PC brick.  I assumed it was the Linux kludge they duct-taped on the side of their existing windows-based architecture.  They seem tone-deaf when you point out the pain this causes during use, troubleshooting, upgrading (and probably pricing, that old fashioned brick can't be cheap.)  I'm all for panel diversity but really people can't you just toss in another DLL and have your PACS talk to 12 different vendors?   The current architecture suggests a lack of (focus, sane licensing terms, product requirements, engineering maturity.)

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp, yes we all agree that it could be done with out the "Brick" as its often reffered to but it is no differnt then having to stand up a Lenel Comm Server to handle traffic. In fact the Comm Server metodolgy can be more costly in terms of supporting, MS/VM Licensing, rack space, patcing etc. For those opperating in a large enterprise PACS deployment this is not really an issue, when I say Enterprise I mean 250K+ cardholders, 10K+ openings.