Access Control Does Not Want ONVIF

By: Brian Rhodes, Published on Jul 27, 2016

ONVIF has become a major force in video surveillance. Despite its well deserved criticisms, ONVIF is widely embraced by video surveillance manufacturers and generally useful in production deployments.

However, ONVIF has been a resounding dud in Access Control, which has continued to be insular and proprietary. Moreover, that is not changing anytime soon, and the message is clear: Access does not need nor want ONVIF.

We look at the situation deeper in this note.

***** *** ****** * major ***** ** ***** surveillance. ******* *** **** deserved **********, ***** ** widely ******** ** ***** surveillance ************* *** ********* useful ** ********** ***********.

*******, ***** *** **** a ********** *** ** Access *******, ***** *** continued ** ** ******* and ***********. ********, **** ** not ******** ******* ****, and *** ******* ** clear: ****** **** *** need *** **** *****.

** **** ** *** situation ****** ** **** note.

[***************]

Single ***** ****** ********* ******

****** ***** ************ ***** product *** ********* ** camera ******* (**: ****, Sony) **** ***** ********** system ********* (**: *********, Exacq) ***** **, ********** access ******* *** ********* with * *** **********: everything ********* ***** *** brand.

******, ****** ******* ********* sells ******** (** *** form ** **** ***********) matched ** **** ********** software **** *** **** vendor.  **** **** ****** systems ********** ***** *******************, **** ********* ** so ******* ***** ***** disclosures ** ********, ******* simplifying ******* ** ***** proprietary **** ******* ** product ***** **** ***** any ******************.

Major ****** ********* *** "****"

********, *** ****** ******* in ****** **** ** motivation ** ****** ****.

**** *** **** ******* (******** *************** *******) *** ******** proprietary ** *** ******** they *******, ***** ***** majors ***************** *** ********* ** 3rd ***** ******** ******** and ******* ********* *******, warranty, *** ****** ***** products **** ***** ***** own ******.

Interoperability *********** *** *******

*** *** ***** ** that ******* ******** '********', these ********* ****** ************ marketed ********* **** **** of ********* ** ******* and * ********* ******* end **** ****** ********** it.

******, ****** ***** ************ where *************, **********, *** end-users ***** ******** *** interoperability, *** **** ******* simply **** *** ***** in ****** *******.

ONVIF * ** ******

** ***** ** **************** efforts, *** **** ** not **** ** ********. Using *** **** ******* as **** *** **** video, **** *** * handful ** ****** ********* Profile * ** *** key *** ********* '**************** between ******* *** ******* of ******** ****** ******* systems (****) *** *******-***** video *******'; ** ********* bridging *** ****** ******* hardware *********** *** ********** software.

*******, ******* *** ********* of *** ******, ***** nearly *** *** * **** years, '******** **********' ** the ******** ***** ****** just *** *******, ********* Axis **** ***** ****** door ********** *****.  ******, even ***** **** ****** partners *********** **** *** A1001, **** *** ***** C, ******* ***** ****** driver *******.

*** **** ********* ** not ****** ********, ** we ***** ** *** ****** ****************: ***** ******* ****, **** ********* ****** and ** ****** ********** to *** ********** ******* are ** *** *******.

ONVIF * ** ******

****, ***** ** *** ****** up ** ****** ***.

******, ***** *** *** formally ********, ***** *** another ****** ******* ** the *****.******* *, **** ** ******** release ***** **** ****, claims ** '********* ** interface *** ****** ******* clients *** ******* *** configuration ******* *** ***** conformant ****** ******* *******'. However, *** ****** ******* to **** *** ******* is ******* *********** *** more ********* ****** ******* C ** *********** *** essentially ******* ** *** market.

** ***** ********** ******* hardware *** ******** *** not ************, **** *****/********* exists ** ****** ************* of ********** *******? ***********, no *** ** ******** members ** *** ****** market *** ******** ***** A ** *********** ******** yet.  * *********, ********* futile ****** ******.

Access ***** ******** ***** ** ***** ********

** *** ******** ** 'Why ***'* ***** ********* for ******?'

*** ****** ** ********* the ************* ********** ***** for ***** **** ****** to ** ***** ** access *******. ******, ***** Sony, ****, *** ***** commanded ****** ********* **** agreeing ** *** **** of * ******** ***** API, ** **** '***********' for ****** ****** ****** ONVIF's ****** *****.

*** ******* *** ******** of '****** ****************' *** not ****** ** ********** as *** ***** ******, the **** ***** ** such ** ****** ** dubious ** ****. **** should ************* **** ********, agree **, *** ********** implement ***** ******** *** access, **** ** ****** gained?

** ***** ************ ****** to **** ******** *** business, *** *** ****** risk ****** ******** ******** as * ****** ** adoption.

Interoperability's ****** *******: ****

** *** **** ***** years, *** ******* '****************' success ***** *** ** OSDP. **** ************ ** '******* *.*', ***** ** **** features **** **********, ************* communication, *** *****-********** ********.

****** *****, ****'* ******** only ********* * ***** part ** *** ***** access ****** - ******** readers *** ***** ********* door ***********.  *** ***** focus, *******, ******** ** antiquated *** *********** ***** aspect ** ****** ****** systems. ******* ******* *** OSDP ***** ********, *** new ************ *** ******* member ***** ** * regular *** ********** *****.

Big ******: ******* ******* & ********

***** *** ******* ****** of ** ***** *** access *** ** ******* to ********** ******** *** integrators ** *** *****, the **** ****** *** new ****** ******* *** smaller ********* ****** ** grow ****** *** ******.

****** **** **** ** hardware *** ******** ******* to ************* ********* ********* or ********, *** ******* and **** ****** ********* of ********** ****** ******* upward ******** ** *** products ********** *****. *** hardware **** ******* ******* is ********* ******* **, and ********-****** *** ********* ****** product **** ***** ***** champions*** *** ******** ******* at ****.

Comments (12)

Amen

All that you posted is true. Here one additional item to think about. After we have sold all the hardware and all of the software. We get so sell the other thing, the "blades", i.e., the cards and the codes which is the long term ROI that the providers are working reach.

Besides why on earth would video centric group like ONVIF have in common with the access control market?

I'm with you on this one...

"Many considerOSDP as 'Weigand 2.0', since it adds features like encryption, bidirectional communication, and smart-credential bitrates."

I completely agree on the point that Interoperability has less interest for Access Control. OSDP is where access control meets interoperability. Not only the security, less/easier wiring, but also reduced total cost of the solution. Using Wiegand, you need to have one controller for every 2~4 readers. With OSDP you can have 8~30 slave access readers on each RS485 BUS. That is partially reducing the total cost of the solution ("partially" because in most of cases you still need extension boards with door relay/sensor).

more than 2 readers on an OSDP (or RS-485) wire is apparently rare. A small number of vendors seem to go up to 8 readers.

more than 2 readers on an OSDP (or RS-485) wire is apparently rare. A small number of vendors seem to go up to 8 readers.

That's completely true but I would give "more than 2x OSDP readers" a 25% share of installations. The advantage of OSDP is not only increasing security but also saving cost. I had a third one that is "convenience" because many installers do not wire the feedback from controller to the reader (often called Green/Red LED + Buzzer). So with OSDP you have to think of a 3 sides improvement: "Security/Cost/Convenience"

Our side we see more and more customer using 8x Suprema readers on a daisy chain, with a Master reader controlling the whole (storing the fingerprint templates and being installed in the secured part of the building = "no fingerprint data at the door")

http://kb.supremainc.com/knowledge/doku.php?id=en:tc_technology_rs-485_wiring_guidelines&s[]=daisy&s[]=chain

Because for some installations, TCP/IP or Wiegand cannot work:

- Either the TCP/IP number of lines is limited by the customer

- or the readers are distant from each others or from the controller (TCP-IP = 100m, RS485 = 1.2 km, Wiegand ~150m) <= average distance (this varies with cable type and other factors)

Indeed, unlike video surveillance where manufacturers, installers, and end-users alike clamored for interoperability, the same dynamic simply does not exist in access control.

What's your opinion on why it 'simply does not exist'?

Can it be tied to the megapixel/innovation race to some degree? Meaning that the pace of video technology was far accelerated from access control. People demanded interoperability because they invariably ended up with some new cool camera that only worked thru the web page it came with.

Also, you could tolerate the inevitable glitchyness of interoperability better, e.g. motion detection might not work. But a door can't be glitchy at all.

OSDP is not just for readers. You can use it for alarm points too. It's focus is "supervised" devices that would be used under the direction of an "panel".

That makes sense. How many alarm systems/sensors are currently using OSDP?

The core reason ONVIF faces such headwinds in access control is that the video analogy is wrong:  In the video comparison, access panels aren't the cameras, they are the VMS!  Readers are the cameras, and OSDP is doing fine there.

Most of the manufacturer's "value add" in access control is put in the panel, just as in video it's put in the VMS.  Yes, you often have ONVIF from the VMS down to the camera, but you never use ONVIF from the VMS up.  You use the VMS provider's SDK for that, because ONVIF won't have each manufacturer's VMS value-add properties.  Hence 3 years on, ONVIF C is largely just the open protocol to talk to the Axis A1001, and little else.

The other reality of the access industry is that it is more expensive to install a door than hang a camera on a wall, and nobody wants to pay for that directly.  So those costs are paid for by hardware markups.  This in turn requires stricter channel management.  Thus any attempt to commoditize access panels tends to be resisted by integrators because it is much harder to mark up, giving little no incentive to sell it.

We considered implementing ONVIF for an access control panel, and in reviewing the specification, it places very strong constraints on the implementation, to the point where it seems nearly impossible to retrofit a controller with support for this API. The only way to implement it would be to write controller firmware from scratch, with the primary goal of implementing this specification. And even this would be quite daunting, due to the complexity of the specification (and the complexity of a commercial control panel). I think the only chance of success this would have had as a standard would have been if they had provided an open-source reference implementation along with it.

The only way to implement it would be to write controller firmware from scratch, with the primary goal of implementing this specification.

like this?

Let’s look at “Why ONVIF?” and why not for access control.

ONVIF helped large and small camera manufacturers and recording devices (NVR/VMS) bring new camera products into existing recording products faster, cheaper, easier [in theory].

It didn’t address controller devices (unless you consider a multi-channel encoder/decoder) as much as edge devices.

While not perfect, the ACS industry generally accepted a 5 wire, weigand protocol. Yes, there were custom implementations, even HID readers could be configured with a programming card to output certain ways.

OMHO it’s just not necessary and will be about as beneficial as SIA was for alarm reporting formats.

That’s a whole different rant.

I agree with your points about weigand and SIA alarm formats, as they were very limited in scope. Weigand is less of a protocol and more of a physical TTL connection standard. SIA alarm formats are a better analogy, but elegantly limited in scope: They tell the Central Station/PSAP what account/partition/zone went into alarm, but not specifics on how they were wired.

Standards at the controller level face extreme headwinds. Not only have time schedules, access groupings, etc, been implemented in dozens of different ways across manufacturers, but these peculiarities manifest themselves in ways that affect how cardholder populations actually use doors. Recently I just discovered a panel that can have hundreds of intervals in a single local auto-unlock schedule (used in co-working spaces), and that obscure feature is super-important for their market. For that manufacturer to support ONVIF A and C, this feature would have to become part of the standard, or would have to be an exception to it, defeating the purpose.

Ultimately, ONVIF works well in video because it is a much bigger market with a lot more players, and the standards by which video systems exchange data are transparent to the subjects being monitored. In contrast, PACS systems actively control the flow of people, and the way those systems work is more acutely felt to those using them.

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,367 reports, 855 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now

Related Reports

Sunell Panda Cam Body Temperature Measurement Camera Tested on May 14, 2020
Sunell is far less well known than its gargantuan domestic competitors Dahua and Hikvision but the company's 'Panda Cam' is going head to head...
Disruptor Wyze Releases Undisruptive Smartlock on Dec 06, 2019
While Wyze has disrupted the consumer IP camera market with ~$20 cameras, its entrance into smart locks is entirely undisruptive. We have...
Ubiquiti Favorability Results 2019 on Feb 18, 2019
Ubiquiti has quietly grown into a $1+ billion annual revenue company, with offerings across wireless, wireline network and video surveillance (see...
No Genetec Major Releases In Over A Year on Feb 06, 2019
Annual VMS licenses are a controversial practice in the video surveillance industry, with many questioning their need or value. However, enterprise...
The Battle For The VSaaS Market Begins 2019 - Alarm.com, Arcules, Eagle Eye, OpenEye, Qumulex, Verkada, More on Jan 02, 2019
2019 will be the year that VSaaS finally becomes a real factor for professional video surveillance. While Video Surveillance as a Service (VSaaS)...
Favorite Power Supply Manufacturer 2018 on Sep 28, 2018
While power supplies are becoming less important as PoE matures, they remain vital to access control systems, where increased power for locks,...
Axis Z-Wave IP Camera Tested Poorly on Mar 20, 2018
Z-Wave is drawing notable interest for video surveillance use. In IPVM's initial coverage, 84% expressed interest in it, with nearly half being...
ONVIF Usage Statistics 2018 on Mar 05, 2018
ONVIF has long 'won' the standards battle for video surveillance. But has the now 10-year-old ONVIF 'won' vs direct integrations? Undoubtedly,...
Cabling Best Practices Guide on Jan 03, 2018
Surveillance cabling can be a major problem. Poorly installed and maintained networks are often costly, lengthy, frustrating ordeals to...
ONVIF Favorability Results 2017 on Jan 11, 2017
ONVIF has been one of the most debated aspects of the video surveillance industry. On the one hand, its aim to increase interoperability has been...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Hikvision Illicitly Uses Back To The Future In Marketing on Jul 03, 2020
NBCUniversal told IPVM that Hikvision UK's ongoing coronavirus marketing campaign using NBCUniversal's assets was not allowed. Hikvision mass...
Verkada: "IPVM Should Never Be Your Source of News" on Jul 02, 2020
Verkada was unhappy with IPVM's recent coverage declaring that reading IPVM is 'not a good look' and that 'IPVM should never be your source of...
Vintra Presents FulcrumAI Face Recognition on Jul 02, 2020
Vintra presented its FulcrumAI face recognition and mask detection offering at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A...
Uniview Wrist Temperature Reader Tested on Jul 02, 2020
Uniview is promoting measuring wrist temperatures whereas most others are just offering forehead or inner canthus measurements. But how well does...
Dahua USA Admits Thermal Solutions "Qualify As Medical Devices" on Jul 02, 2020
Dahua USA has issued a press release admitting a controversial point in the industry but an obvious one to the US FDA, that the thermal temperature...
Access Control Online Show - July 2020 - With 40+ Manufacturers - Register Now on Jul 01, 2020
IPVM is excited to announce our July 2020 Access Control Show. With 40+ companies presenting across 4 days, this is a unique opportunity to hear...
Hanwha Face Mask Detection Tested on Jul 01, 2020
Face mask detection or, more specifically lack-of-face-mask detection, is an expanding offering in the midst of coronavirus. Hanwha in partnership...
UK Government Says Fever Cameras "Unsuitable" on Jul 01, 2020
The UK government's medical device regulator, MHRA, told IPVM that fever-seeking thermal cameras are "unsuitable for this purpose" and recommends...
Camera Course Summer 2020 on Jun 30, 2020
This is the only independent surveillance camera course, based on in-depth product and technology testing. Lots of manufacturer training...
Worst Over But Integrators Still Dealing With Coronavirus Problems (June Statistics) on Jun 30, 2020
While numbers of integrators very impacted by Coronavirus continue to drop, most are still moderately dealing with the pandemic's problems, June...