Eliminating Control Panels? Viscount Reviewed

Author: Brian Rhodes, Published on Dec 05, 2013

Every access control system requires control panels. But now one manufacturer claims that their 'Freedom' system eliminates the panel, trumpeting that:

****'* * ****** ******* ***** ***, ** ****, ***** ** the **** ****** ******* **** *******.

** **** ****, ** *************** ******* '*******', ******** **** ****'* **** *** *** ** ****.

The ****** **********

*** **** ** ********'* ****** ** * ****** *** ******* ***** * "******". ******* ******** *** ****** "***** *** **** ****** **** an ** ******" ******* *** **** ** * **********, ***"******" ** ****** * **********. *** **** ********** **** *****, *******, *** **** ******** are ***** **** *** ******, *** *** ***** ****** ** connected **** ** ******** ******* - *** **** ********** ** a  ******** **********.

*** **** ********** ** **** *** ****** ***** ** ******* decisions, *** **** ** ** ********* ***** *** ****** ********. ****** ****** comes **** ** **** *** *** ********* ** ******* ******* board ********** *** ******** ************. *** ********* ***** *** ****** of *** ***** ********** ****** * '**** **' ********** **** use ******** **********, ****** ******, *** *********** ******. *******, ** order ** ******* '*******' ~*"**" *** *******, *** ******** ********** are ** ********** **** *** ******** ******** *** **** *********. Viscount ****** '************', *** ************ *** ******** ************* **** ~$**-$**.

*** ****** *** ****** ********* *** ********* **** *********** ******* because **** ********* '******* ******' *** '********** ***** ********' ** software. *** *** ******* ******** ****** ****** *** ** ***** are:

**** ************: ***** *** **** *** ************ *** **** ****, **** indeed ********* *** * ****** ***** ********. *** ****** ********** are ********* ******** ** *** **** *** **** ****** ********* to * **** ********. ******* *** ********* ** ******, ******, and **** ****** ********, *** *** ****** ********* ****** ** other ******* **** ********* *** *********.  ** ************ ** **** control ****** *** ****, **** * ******* ** ************** *******.

****** *********:****** **** ********** ********, ******* **** ****** ********* ** * server ** ** ***********. ***** ******* *** ** ********* ** remote ******* ** '********', *** ******* ******** ****** ***** ******** ******* ** ****. These '********' ********* *** ******** ** ***** '****-*******' ** ******** clients ********* ** ******* ************ *** *** ** ********** *********. Failover ** ******** ************* ** *** ******, *** ******* ******** servers *** ** ********** **** **** ******.

**** ****** ** **** *******:* ******** ******** ** ***'* ********* ** * **** ***** of **************** **** ********** ******* **** ** ****** **** ** '********* *********'. *** ******* ****** * **** ***** ** ********** ******* including **** *******, ***, ***, ******, *** ********* *****, ** to ***** ***** **** ****. **** ** * ********** **** is *******, ** ****** ** ****** ******* *** ****** ** a ****** *** ******* *****. ** ******** ** * *** controller **** **** ***** **** *** ***********, ***'* ******* ******** has ** *********** ** ******* *******.

*******

********'* ********* *** ************* ****** ******** ** ************, *** ********* are ***** ** ********** **** *********. *** * ******** ****, ***'* solution ********:

*** ****** ***** ******** ~$***.   ***'* *****/****** ********* *** carried ** ******** ************ *** *** ** ********* ******* ******* training.

*** **********, ******** ******* ********* **** ********, ***** * ****** door'***** *****' ************* ******** ***** ~$***.

*** *** ******, ********* ***** **** **** *****, *******, ***********, and ******** ********** *** *** ******** *** *** ****** ** widely ****** '*** ****' *****.

*********

***** **** ** ***********, ***'* ******** **** *** **** ******* notable **********:

****** *********: ** ******* *****, *** ******* ****** ******* **** *** an ****** ********** ** * ******** ******.

*** **** ************:***** ***, ******* ********, ** ****' *********** *** '****', ***'* platform ** ***********. **** *** ******** ** *********, ** *** only ** **** **** *** ********** ********. **** ***** ********* into *** ** * ******** ***** ** * **** **** users ******** *****.

******* ***********:******* ****** ******* **** ***** ************ ** *** ** *** most ****** ************ ** ******** ********, *** ***** ** *********** with *** ***** ***.

Ideal ***********

***'* ****** ********* **** ******** ******** ** ********** *** '**** security' ***********. *** *******, *** ******** ** *******-* *********, ***** with ***-****** ***/*** ***********, *** ******** '**** **/**** ***' ************ as *******. *** ******** ** ****** ** ******* *** *********, and ****************** ******** ************, ******* ** ***********.

*******, *********** *** ******** ** ***********, ************ *** *******, *** an ************ ******* ***, **** **** ****** ** **** ****** system **** *** ** **** **** ***** ****** ** ***** access ******* ******** *********.

 

Comments (10)

Good to see you back writing articles Brian!

I don't think I would be comfortable having door controllers dependent on network connections, and I'm a network guy. It's one thing if a network connection to a camera gets interrupted- so you lose some video.... If these "bridges" loose network connection, you have access issues that prevent you from getting in or maybe getting out, or permitting unrestricted access, I guess whichever way the devices default too or are configured. This possibility increases exponentially if are using wireless access points.

I wish there was more mention or a development in terminology when reviewing access or other devices like this to distinguish systems that use a "sync'd data architecture", where the controllers or bridges are actually syncing and caching data, either with a master controller or PC based server, thus allowing them to operate independently when communication issues occur, versus systems that do not, where the controller or bridge cannot function on its own.

See John, free lunches don't affect my objectivity. =)

Luis, I like the way Mercury defines things. Their single door PoE controller (which has intelligence and will make decisions if th network is down) is the EP1501. The MR51e, on the other hand, they call a door interface, because it contains all the connections to the door, but will not do any decision making on its own. It has to connect back to one of the EP controllers via the network.

I think that's a good distinction. The Viscount Liberty bridge looks to me to be a door interface, in that case.

I approached VSI many times at their booths. I was impressed with the technology however they explained the system as using IT infrastucture and Active Directory to do the management. What I quickly found was that there must be an active directory domain controller on the site that has the devices since as you say, the credentials have to be passed to a system with a database to provide a response. So if you are network dependant, intersite for example, I would not be putting this in. It is a greate idea and can work on a local area network with a domain controller available. And that is where I left the product. The cost of deploying domain controllres everywhere and supporting them far exceeds the cost of a control panel at the site. Maybe what people may want to design is AD Domain Controllers that can fit in the palm of your hand and can hold 100s of thousands or millions of records. It would make the whole system plug and play for everyone.

Viscount has had a system like this for awhile. I've always called it Mesh, though they now have a different product called Mesh.

The Mesh system I worked with was server dependent, but without a "Bridge". The reader was semi-intelligent in that it handled all the connections, including lock relay, RTE, door position switch. But it needed the server for cards. If the server went down you were screwed. A single cat5e ran back to a hub/switch which could also server as a junction point for all the additional hardware if you didn't want to go right at the reader. The switch/hub had an in from previous reader/server, in from the reader, and then out to the next one. As well as a screw terminal set for the door hardware.

We've only ever had one customer on the system (and recently upgraded to a Keyscan system) and it did work surprisingly well for 6-8 years.

I like the idea of the bridge, as it would leave me able to use any reader, where as the older Mesh style we were stuck with Viscounts readers and cards.

My R&D developed a simillr system few years back, where we use fingerprint devices to read fingerprint images from users, and send back to server for verification. Result of verification return from server to the fingerprint devices to response to the users. The idea is similar, where server stores all credentials, verification algorithm, access rules and database. This is ideal because you will only need a server and multiple slave fingerprint readers.

When comes to real operation, we noticed the software can only handle single thread of data transfer. It only receive and proceed verification for the "first reach" fingerprint images. While it ignores the rest of the fingerprint images sent from other fingerprint devices. The result, only 1 fingerprint device can verify 1 user at the same time, while the rest fail.

By the end, we pull back the development and change to develop bigger fingerprint storage in our products. We know no matter how big the storage of the device can achieve, it cannot compare with server-client based system.

When comes to a server-client based verification system, how many threads can the server handle? Will it accept all "input" in queue? Or it ignore the rest? I am not familiar with the VSI, but I like the idea of server-client verification. However the delay time between every read/verification is my concern.

"When comes to real operation, we noticed the software can only handle single thread of data transfer. It only receive and proceed verification for the "first reach" fingerprint images. While it ignores the rest of the fingerprint images sent from other fingerprint devices. "

Kok, I would think that should have been a simple software fix- one system process that receives data and qeues them up for processing and another process that processes the images. If you send the fingerprint straight to the imaging process without any queing then I can see how you'd miss processing requests from other devices.

"This is ideal because you will only need a server and multiple slave fingerprint readers. "

What about that would be the ideal? Is it a possibly cheaper cost of the edge devices, since they don't have to perform any or a limited amount of intelligenece and storage? That would be the only benefit I could think of.

Hi Luis

Yes I agreed my R&D missed the part (queing fingerprints for verification) thus finally we discountinue the product. Therefore I am asking, how VSI handles queing of every card ID sent from the Bridge Card, and response to every Bridge Card (door open/close) and other (sensor, alarm output etc)?

VSI's software technology seems admittedly cool. However, I've noticed over the years that cool software technology doesn't always succeed in access control because:

  1. Putting access on a door, even a wireless lockset, is more labor-intenstive and costly than hanging cameras on walls.
  2. Because of point #1, Integrators/Installers like to have a piece of the hardware revenue stream. Thus moving costs from hardware to software provides less incentive to integration partners, as their business models might not be geared to reselling software. In a similar vein, I suspect Axis will see this with their A1001 controller.

VSI will certainly find some success with this in the higher-end market wtih established IT environments. Time will tell if this can become mainstream.

Any thoughts on using the Nano Cube Server or have any experience with it? I find it interesting and am wondering when these are generally installed. I would be worried to have my access database on something that someone could potentially plug into a wall socket not in a secured room.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

'Secure Channel' OSDP Access Control Examined on Jun 21, 2018
Despite claiming to be better than Wiegand, OSDP's initial releases did not address the lack of encryption between reader and controller, leaving...
IFSEC 2018 Final Show Report on Jun 20, 2018
IPVM attended the IFSEC show for the first time this year. The Chinese have taken over the UK, centered on Hikvision, flanked by Dahua, Huawei and...
Axis Releases First New Access Controller In 5 Years (A1601) on Jun 15, 2018
It has been 5 years since Axis 2013 entry in the physical access control market, with the A1001 (IPVM test). Now, Axis has released its second...
Access Control - Time & Attendance, Mustering and Mantraps Guide on Jun 13, 2018
Electronic access offers features that traditional mechanical locks cannot. While these features may not be as fundamental as keeping doors secure,...
ReconaSense - The AI / Access Control / Analytics / IoT / Video Company Profile on Jun 12, 2018
One company's ISC West booth stood out for displaying a light-up tower of buzzwords. The company, ReconaSense, pledged to be 'making sense of it...
The Benefits of An Access Control Test Door on Jun 08, 2018
Security system dealers can benefit from having their own access control test door both for demonstrations and training. Inside, we explain the...
Princeton Identity Access 200 Iris Scanners Examined on Jun 05, 2018
Iris recently registered a big jump as a preferred biometric in our Favorite Biometrics survey, but access-ready options can be difficult to...
Keypads For Access Control Tutorial on May 31, 2018
Keypad readers present huge risks to even the best access systems. If deployed improperly, keypads let people through locked doors almost as if...
Ambitious Mobile Access Startup: Openpath on May 24, 2018
This team sold their last startup for hundreds of millions of dollars, now they have started Openpath to become a rare access control small...
Cybersecurity for IP Video Surveillance Guide on May 18, 2018
Keeping surveillance networks secure can be a daunting task, but there are several methods that can greatly reduce risk, especially when used in...

Most Recent Industry Reports

'Secure Channel' OSDP Access Control Examined on Jun 21, 2018
Despite claiming to be better than Wiegand, OSDP's initial releases did not address the lack of encryption between reader and controller, leaving...
Most Wanted Improvements In Manufacturer Technical Support (Statistics) on Jun 21, 2018
5 key areas of improvement and 1 clear wanted support feature were voiced by 140+ integrator responses to: What improvement in manufacturer...
Last Chance - Save $50 - July 2018 IP Networking Course on Jun 20, 2018
Today, Thursday the 21st is the last chance to save $50 on registration. Register now and save. This is the only networking course designed...
GDPR / ICO Complaint Filed Against IFSEC Show Facial Recognition on Jun 20, 2018
IPVM has filed a complaint against IFSEC’s parent company UBM based on our concern that the conference violates core GDPR principles on...
IFSEC Final Show Report on Jun 20, 2018
IPVM is live from London reporting on the IFSEC show. The Chinese have taken over the UK, centered on Hikvision, flanked by Dahua, Huawei and a...
Mobotix Releases 'Move' Into 21st Century on Jun 20, 2018
For years, Mobotix stood resolutely against, well, every other manufacturer, selling it as a virtue: MOBOTIX equipment is designed with no...
Cybersecurity Startup VDOO Disclosing 10 Manufacturer Vulnerabilities Starting With Axis And Foscam on Jun 20, 2018
Cybersecurity startup VDOO has uncovered significant vulnerabilities in Axis cameras along with many others not yet disclosed. In this report, we...
Axis Guardian - Cloud VMS And Alarm Monitoring - Released on Jun 19, 2018
Axis has struggled to deliver a cloud-based managed service video platform. Video service providers have utilized AVHS for over a decade, and have...
IPVM Vulnerability Scanner Released on Jun 18, 2018
IPVM is proud to announce video surveillance's first and only cybersecurity vulnerability scanner. This tool allows quickly and simply...
Hikvision Corrects False Cybersecurity Announcement on Jun 18, 2018
Hikvision has corrected a false cybersecurity announcement that claimed a British government-sponsored program endorsed the cybersecurity of...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact