Just an explicit bump on this so hopefully the Hubitat team selects this as a feature to work on.
1 Like
Any update on this when conducting a full restore including the already provisioned devices?
I would buy another hub just to test that it's working 
1 Like
Same here! Anyone from hubitat going to pick up this feature?
1 Like
Same as mentioned before, this has not been forgotten by any means, but....
1 Like
Missing this feature to....it is a HUGE job to include all the devices again.......
What happened to the "Hub Protection Service" listed on the Hubitat web site?
It is still coming. Has to wait until the new C7 hub zwave portion gets fully stable, though.
It's getting closer every day/build!
1 Like
QQ - Restored my database from an old hub to a new C-7 hub. I've excluded/included my zwave devices. Noted that zigbee devices don't need to be reinstalled, but that doesn't seem to be working for me. Any tips/advice on to see the Zigbee devices?
Zigbee devices do need to be re-paired as well. Unlike zwave, they do not need to be excluded/removed from the hub though (so all rules, dashboards, etc they are used in don't need to be modified either).
When you do the pairing the hub will match it back up to the old device.
5 Likes
unless it is a C-7 (and you have Z-wave Plus you will have to repair your Z-wave mesh. Z-Wave Plus will automatically reassign the mesh devices hopping unless overridden. Z-wave does not do this like Zigbee 3 does. You need Z-wave Plus and that is only support on the C-7.
Your probably need to exclude them from the old hub first.
1 Like
I year later and it is more than beyond "stable". Sometime updates introduce problems but that is not unique to the C-7.
Never, that this the nature of pairing.
This is not true; all Hubitat hub models support Z-Wave Plus (this is 500-series and newer, which the C-5 has built in, at least for the US frequency, and which all models before the C-7 can also use an external USB module for). What changed with the C-7 is that it started using a 700-series Z-Wave radio, which is often marketed as Z-Wave Plus v2.
It is true, as you note, that you shouldn't need to do a repair on an all-Plus network (though it theoretically shouldn't hurt, aside from the temporary increase in traffic). You just don't need a C-7 to have one. 
3 Likes
Well, it must be S2 I am thinking of, I still have a mix of Z-Wave, Z-Wave Plus and now Z-Wave Plus S2 devices since I got the others long ago and they present no security risks. The last thing I would ever automate would be a lock. I go the opposite. I have high end Medeco locks on every external door. I even bought out of my region so no local locksmith has the right keys.
Ah, yes, it is also true that the C-7 has a completely new Z-Wave implementation--besides just the new Z-Wave hardware. (We know this one comes from Silicon Labs' official 700-series Z-Wave SDK; the C-5 and earlier are likely a Hubitat effort, or perhaps one utilizing third-party software they integrated into the hub firmware.)
One of the features that the C-7 implementation supports that the earlier one does not is S2. However, is not specific to 700-series devices, as it is also supported on 500 series (just not this particular 500-series hub--or most I know of). However, it was not required (nor did it exist) when 500-series certification began. It is now required for certification, so all 700-series devices require it, and new 500-series devices (still some of these coming out!) have had to for a while as well.
This doesn't affect the designation of "Z-Wave Plus" vs. "Z-Wave Plus v2," which as far as I can tell are just the marketing/consumer-friendly terms for the 500-series and 700-series, respectively. The only way to verify S2 support is to look at the conformance document (which will specifically state S0 and S2 support for any generation of device), or verify that it's v2/700 by some other means (where, again, it can be assumed due to requirements).
3 Likes
FWIW these two goals aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. I have a mul-t-lock cylinder installed in my yale zigbee deadbolt. Of course there are other potential security issues with connecting a lock to a home automation hub like Hubitat. But high-security keyways are an option nonetheless.
1 Like
Completely OT, and not related to the comments above...
I always find it funny when people say "I would never automate a lock" and then they have smart garage door openers. I would automate a door lock 10x before I would do a garage door. When a door lock is unlocked, the door is still closed...
(not saying that is the case in this thread, it was just a passing thought on something I've seen a dozen or more times)
1 Like
As long as we're a little OT... 
Buddy of mine who is a policeman w/decades of service says that the ways thieves get access are:
- Accidentally or intentionally unlocked doors/windows in homes and cars (well over 90% of cases, by far the most common)
- Garage doors left open - surprisingly large percentage of remaining cases given how obvious an open garage door seems to be
- Finding poorly hidden keys outside the home (under mats, rocks, etc.). He found my hidden key in less than a minute, and then pointed out about 10 other hiding places on the front of my home that I would have thought were great and hard to find. I no longer hide a key.
- Breaking/forcing windows and doors open (very small percentage of cases)
His main comment was that theives are mostly opportunistic and "lazy," (or maybe smart!) and go from house to house until they find easy entrance. They very rarely "case" a home and break in "like they do on TV." He hates police TV shows, calls them garbage.
He also said that cameras are generally a weak or non-deterent, especially for those who have drug (opiod or otherwise) addictions they are feeding.
His advice is simple: Don't be the easy mark, and thieves will move on to the next "open house."
6 Likes
