I have the same issue, Yale locks with S0 no longer communicate. Only report battery at 100% which is not right. R2.3.2.141 Seemed to work last on R2.3.2.128.
Have you done a full hub power down, pull power, and restart? That is the only way to reboot the zwave radio itself.
1 Like
Appoligize for the delay. Had to go out of town.
@aaiyar : Thanks. I'll do this first.
@coreyclerico : No, you do not have the same issue. See OP.
@jtp10181 : I have no idea how this is relevant to the issues in my OP, but as I was about to do this anyway....
@bcopeland : I posted the screen shots as you requested. Anything?
@aaiyar : Waiting on Bryan. Yes, the weirdness on the device page(s) does make me think that too now that you've brought it up.
Edward
Edward
Following @jtp10181 , I power cycled (unplugged and let sit for 10 minutes) and then tried to pair to my C7. Failed. Again. So, I put it back on my C5 (until the next test of the C7). Anyway, this is what always comes up with the C5.
Edward
The error message just posted is a strong clue...
Part of the requirement SiLabs has via their 700 series certification has an impact on S0 security devices. They insist that S0 devices be "bootstrapped" to S2... the idea is, I guess, that S2 is a better security than S0.
I have two Yale locks that joined my newest C-7 (2 years ago) that are also S0 only.
The thing I see is that the Dataline for S2: shows 128, which is the code for 'not S2' -- S2 joined devices have larger numbers such as 131 and 132 as shown in this:
Perhaps this can clarify a bit more:
1 Like
I had a rare occurrence very similar to this with one of my Yale YRD-256 Z-Wave S0 locks, but I just ran a repair and everything was fine afterwards.
Sometimes the current radio can be corrupted. Shutting down from the settings menu, unplugging power (at the wall not the hub) for 5 mins and powering backup clears the radio.
@csteele : So, let me see if I understand this ... My locks will no longer pair correctly because they're S0? And the failure is because the z-wave code on the C7 is broken?
If I follow the logic here ... then NONE of my S0 stuff will pair - again - with my C7 if I have to remove it and re-join?
Edward
S0 Only devices that can join with no security can join just fine, but only as none. (S-none) S0. You can't join S0 Only devices as S0. S-None
Devices that are S0 Only AND are barrier devices, which means they MUST join securely, are impossible easy to join, period. If they join as S-none then their barrier code prevents them from working.
No.. Hubitat can safely be left out of this. 
It's pure SiLabs insistence that to remain certified, that S0 devices must 'bootstrap' to S2. The code that's out on the Zwave radio chip is a SiLabs image.
EDIT to correct per @jtp10181 and @bertabcd1234
1 Like
I might be misunderstanding; S0-only devices should be able to join as S0 if they either have a specific secure inclusion process or if that's the only method they support (cough, cough, many Monoprice sensors, the 500-series Zooz 4-in-1, original-firmware Inovelli bulbs, and other devices people love to hate...and, of course, older locks). The issue I'm aware of is that the hub can't not ask them to use security in this case, even if the device works with non-secure inclusion (and S0 carries a lot of overhead compared to either other option, which can contribute to problematic network chattiness).
1 Like
I only HAVE barrier devices. So, "... NONE of my S0 stuff will pair ..." is accurate. Wonderful.
I would like to know what changed in the last month that all my S0 stuff worked the first of June, but not now. SOMETHING was broken between my re-adding the devices after the "migration" and a week or so ago. Either SI, Hubitat or both.
Edward
1 Like
I'm trying to rewind through experiences of a year ago in memory... Am I misremembering?
My understanding is that S0 devices will pair as s0 regardless unless you use a secondary controller to pair with no security. Am I wrong somehow in that?
1 Like
That is the case, but only if the device can only put itself in secure inclusion mode (and doesn't support S2). Many devices that support S0 have separate secure vs. non-secure inclusion modes, including the Zooz ZEN15 plug (one type of button press/hold for non-secure, a different one for secure) as well as some HomeSeer sensors I've used. Some don't, like the infamous 500-series Zooz 4-in-1. Those are the ones that will always use S0; the device will request it (because there is no method on the device you can use to not request it when pairing), the hub will accept it (because it will always use security if the device offers and doesn't support S2, where you get a choice), and then ... S0 results. 
This was different on the C-5 because you could make the hub not request security except for cetain types of devices (but if you did change this option away from this default, you'd get the same results). The 700-series SDK the C-7 is using apparently does not provide this capability.
1 Like
I had 2 schlage be469's that would pair at s0 on my C7 (before schlage swapped them out for newer versions that paired at s2)
1 Like
I'm getting a distinct wiff of 'you should just upgrade' and 'barely functional'. 
What I've gotten from the last three posts is this:
All S0 barrier devices - door locks, garage door openers, whatever - will no longer pair with the Hubitat C7. Until/unless SI decides to "fix" this. I get the distinct impression they won't - this is an intentional 'break'.
In the meantime Hubitat will continue selling the C7 knowing this? Without letting anyone know up front there's a problem? Seriously? Can't even be bothered to at the least update the Compatible Devices list?
I thought it was peculiar seeing a almost $50 sale mark-down when I bought my C7. Now I understand. Its not a 'sale' - its an attempt to pawn off known defective inventory anyway possible.
Had I known I'd have problems like this, I would have never bought a C7. But I guess that's the point, isn't it? If they told everyone, no one would buy it.
That’s not true. There are users who have S0 devices paired to their C7 hubs - like @rlithgow1.
3 Likes
