![]() In terms of the physical layer (PHY), ZW uses a lower frequency compared to ZB 1, which typically has longer rangeĪlso, as ZW has a narrower bandwidth it is sometimes considered easier to jam by injecting noise. Z-Wave’s PHY and main protocol as ZW, and Z-Wave’s Security 2 specification as S2. We will use the following shorthand: ZigBee (ZB)’s HA 1.2 spec as ZBHA1.2, the ZigBee 3.0 core protocol as ZB3.0, ![]() In this discussion, we will try to focus on core design decisions and features, and leave out discussion or investigation ![]() The ZigBee and Z-Wave protocols have both undergone numerous revisions and support many different security modes and edge cases. This is the first of two blog posts where we will share a high-level summary of the differences. The protocols to an increased level of security. Two popular protocols based on the recent ZigBee 3.0 and Z-Wave S2 specifications which both aimed in-part to update We believe that it will benefit the overall community to share a brief summary of our comparisons between these Helping clients understand vulnerabilities in IoT products built on standard protocols such as these. We have performed in-depth evaluations of many products built on ZigBee and Z-Wave for clients, and we are often ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |