You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram.
I would agree CDCSS is more secure for that very reason. I recommended a customer switch to CDCSS from CTCSS, and his 'mystery kerchunk' problems went away. It was much easier than prosecuting the offender (not to mention much more PR friendly to hams in general). There is also the benefit mentioned many times that the shut-off code on CDCSS is standard while CTCSS has at least two formats. Good idea about the cross-coding, too. I've done that many times. There also used to be CDCSS codes that Motorola could not do. It was nice using those to keep Motorola radios out of the customer's fleet. That was, until we switched from GE to Motorola... :-\ Joe M. [email protected] wrote: > At 3/4/2009 09:49, you wrote: > >> I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output >> of the repeater different than the input so it s harder to find the DPL >> code. Motorola is great about this for programming as it s a lot harder to >> hack the repeater if you have two different DPL codes for in and out. Most >> handhelds that you can modify don t do thins and commercial radios can do >> it with very little programming. >> >> Peter Summerhawk >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon >> >> Jason, >> >> The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any, >> wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or >> PL) than you decode. If your repeater passes through the incoming code to >> the output, you have already given the hackers the clues that they need. > > The above might lead some to believe that DPL is relatively > secure. Remember that there are only ~104 valid DPL codes. There are 32 > or 37 standard PL tones - let's say about about a third of the number of > valid DPL codes. We agree that PL freq. of a repeater is fairly easy to > determine, even if it doesn't pass PL. There are ~3 times as many DPL > codes, so figuring out a DPL code is 3 times harder than "relatively easy". > > For the few times I really had a nasty idiot problem on my system, I used > DTMF access. > > Bob NO6B > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
