Yale Assure Lever Lock-YRL226 - S0 or S2?

[lflorack1]

I have a Yale Assure Lever Lock-YRL226. When I came to HE from ST, I set it up with S0 security because I think I had heard that S2 security was bad. Now I think I realize that that information was for everything except locks. My lock is running fine and always is quick and accurate. But it seems to be a bit 'chatty'.

So, should I go through repairing it with S2 security?
TIA

[marktheknife]

With the caveat that I have very few z-wave devices personally (and so have never had to look into this in too much detail), I believe it’s usually S0 that is considered to be potentially problematic and should be enabled only if absolutely required by the device.

S2, I think, is generally “ok” and for a device like a lock, should be used if possible.

[hydro311]

I'd give S2 a whirl - it should be less chatty than S0.

I had my garage door's Zen17 at S2 for a while, but I ended up taking off S2 since it made device-level firmware updates (using the built-in updater) impossible. But the Z17 worked just fine with S2.

That was all on a C-7 -- perhaps the new chip in the C-8 is better at handling a S2-device's f/w update, but I haven't tried.

[lflorack1]

@marktheknife and @hydro311
Thanks for the feedback. I'll probably move it to S2 as soon as I get a chance.
Planned steps:

• Use Swap Apps to move all the places the lock is attached to a virtual lock
• Exclude the Yale lock
• Re-add the Yale lock to Hubitat but with S2 security
• Use Swap Apps to put the Yale lock back in all the apps it was using before.

[lcw731]

I have a yale lock paired with S0 (the module I have isn't compatible with S2, I wish I could find one that is, i would swap them out in a heartbeat). That being said I do have several Ring and Zooz devices (the Zooz devices are perimeter devices) which wanted S2. I have let them pair that way, and I don't find the S2 to be much worse than any of my other Z-wave devices with no security. Yes, there is a LITTLE more chatting happening, but not a whole lot worse, and not to the degree that it slows my mesh down.

[rlithgow1]

@lflorack1 That lock uses a 500 series chip and only supports s0 (unless you have a later version that supports optional s2 but I've never seen one) . That said s2 is better as s0 is really chatty. Hubitat requires encryption for barrier devices but other devices (contact sensors, etc should be paired with no security). So when paired with Hubitat it will automatically use s0 security as there isn't anything else available.

[lflorack1]

@rlithgow1

That lock uses a 500 series chip and only supports s0 (unless you have a later version that supports optional s2 but I've never seen one) . That said s2 is better as s0 is really chatty. Hubitat requires encryption for barrier devices but other devices (contact sensors, etc should be paired with no security). So when paired with Hubitat it will automatically use s0 security as there isn't anything else available.

I believe you are correct about my lock only supporting S0. I could have sworn I saw an offer to use S2 when I was originally pairing the Yale lock. However, earlier today, I excluded it and then repaired it and it was included with S0. No option for S2 ever came up. Well, at least I know that it's paired at S0 because that's the only way it can be paired.

[lflorack1]

@lcw731

I have a yale lock paired with S0 (the module I have isn't compatible with S2, I wish I could find one that is, i would swap them out in a heartbeat).

It appears there isn't one that supports S2. At least mine isn't. Earlier today, I excluded/repaired mine with S0 security - with no option for S2.

[rlithgow1]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. As long as the lock performs you're good.