Very concerned about discontinuation of Telnet and breaking existing integration

I'm just a Lutron guy and don't mess with Savant, C4, Crestron, etc. but often those dealers are also in the houses I have set up lighting in and link to my system. In the past, I would just update the database as soon as a new version came out because it often had positive changes - faster uploads, less errors, etc. but Starting With version 12, taking away default logins, not being up to date about what Lutron in their unilateral wisdom has decided to take away is downright scary and could be a very expensive mistake. I learned this the hard way and had to work many free hours to figure out what had gone wrong but at the end, had to get with the AV guy to change the Telnet Username and Password.With version 16 of the Designer software, Lutron will completely take away Telnet and will use an API type system. For those of you who do integration, is that something that's already being used by Savant, C4, Crestron or are they breaking Telnet without the other methods of integration already being in place? Currently, I have to take over an existing job that has Lutron and Savant, and need to know that if I ever go beyond version 15, whether it's even possible to integrate or the customer would need a new Savant system if I did. It's not a good place to be at because it means the customer won't be able to take advantage of new dimmers that will come out in the future.

Lutron has always been paranoid about security. For the longest time they didn't even use Ethernet. It was quite a thrill waiting for uploads at blazing RS232 speeds. In their defense, Telent is notoriously insecure. However, it's not like you can hack directly into Telnet. You would need to be on the network already. Could you hack Clear Connect and go backwards through the system? Maybe. The risk vs reward seems pretty low. I don't have an issue with improvements but in this case it seems like they are cutting off Telent with very little warning. They should give us a warning that Telnet is enabled and we should move to XXX.

Similar discussion have popped up in other threads. I'm not a fan of them pushing out updates either. I know they have had success with Caseta. HomeWorks and even RadioRA are different animals. I have a corporate system with 4 processors and 400+ loads. It's a 4 hour drive from me. It has a lot of custom programming. I'm controlling the pool, a couple of fountains, some HVAC, and probably some stuff I haven't found yet. If an update breaks it, it will be a nightmare for me. Plus, corporate security will go insane if Lutron bypasses their security.

Is that alternative API that they want to use in place of telnet even available now? Like if I updated to version 16 of the software and it broke the telnet integration, can the Savant/C4/Crestron guy come and fix things on his end yet?

They haven't officially turned Telnet off. I believe that is coming but not this month. They have removed the default logins (ex: lutron, lutron). This was widely known back door into the system. They have also changed password requirements to be the toughest in the solar system.

Most AV companies should be able to make this minor adjustment remotely.

In the mean time I would develop a standard username and password scheme. You could do something like the company name (slackerAV) and ownername/phone (smith5551212). Probably not the best choices but as examples go they are awesome! Anyway... you can add the login as you go so it will be ready when you upgrade.

I thought I heard them say that version 16 (which ushers in the QSX processor) also breaks telnet, but I like your idea about having a standard scheme.

Ok, it turns out that version 16 completely REMOVES the QS processor and replaces them with QSX...and it removes the telnet logins and replaces them with an integration login (which I guess is their new API)....So while they turn around and say QS is not obsolete, then turn around the other way and remove it from the designer software. I really don't know what Lutron is thinking here...Any employees care to chime in?

Okk...last time I reply to myself but what I've found out is that version 15 is indeed the last version that will support QS, and QS as long as it's still around (which honestly makes me nervous because it sounds like it won't be long), will support telnet and in fact that's the only thing it can support because the new API with Lutron is kind of tied into the QSX hardware and the cloud capabilities. It does not however mean they can't update QS if something new comes out....they can still update version 15.x if they wanted to but pretty much it's the end of the road. I also found out that Crestron added QSX support (non-telnet) now too and Savant seems to be lagging in that department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyCoog

Is that alternative API that they want to use in place of telnet even available now? Like if I updated to version 16 of the software and it broke the telnet integration, can the Savant/C4/Crestron guy come and fix things on his end yet?

---

Echoing this question. I saw reference to this being the Lutron 'LEAP' API, but a quick search doesn't really find any details on this. Does the API exist today. It must, right? How can I start using it?

At this time the LEAP API is not available. We are working with Integration partners to help develop a driver those third parties. At this time Control4 , Josh AI, URC, ELAN and Crestron have drivers made. We are working with others for the newer drivers to be developed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh R.

At this time the LEAP API is not available. We are working with Integration partners to help develop a driver those third parties. At this time Control4 , Josh AI, URC, ELAN and Crestron have drivers made. We are working with others for the newer drivers to be developed.

---

Is it going to be more generally available at some point (and if so, any idea on when)? Or is it intended to just be available to partners?

... and will this "LEAP" API require "the cloud"? I will not install and integration system that cannot function if the Internet (or "cloud") is down...

When will the LEAP API be published? Breaking all integrations without a replacement is insane. No one will accept a home automation system without integrations. Many questions are asked here without any response from Lutron.

Thank you for your post.

We wanted to highlight a few things about Integration with Lutron Devices. Specifically focusing on Telnet and LEAP.

1. Telnet for existing systems like RadioRA 2 and HomeWorks QS is not going away. Those integrations will continue work as they have.

2. The LEAP API is something that can be used with Caséta and RA2 Select and is necessary for HW QSX

3. LEAP is not just cloud integration, it can be local or cloud; common industry alliances in this market are all going local (C4, Crestron, etc)

4. Lutron is working with a wide variety of 3rd party companies for support of QSX LEAP integration. Most of the big name companies already have integration or have QSX integration coming in the very near future.

5. If there is a company or product that people would like to see us integrate with, they can email workswith@lutron.com and it will get evaluated by the business

We also wanted to add a few other additional reasons why LEAP is being used over Telnet. The first thing to emphasize is security with the TLS connection. Another benefit is that LEAP makes integration easier since most of the integrations auto extract the Lutron system config for you (no longer have to mess around with integration reports). One of the rare exceptions to this is Crestron SIMP, but companies like josh.ai and C4 pull in the config for the integrator to make it easy. This could be done in the past with Telnet and XML but LEAP config can be pulled dynamically vs an XML file that only gets compiled at transfer.

What I want to mine from this is exactly what it is that people are trying to control that they cannot and what is causing the grief on the forum. It is not clear to me in reading the thread if it is heartburn caused by Savant or if they really did make their own integration? In talking with many dealers over the years, I would be surprised by how many really made their own large scale drivers that are outside of the major manufacturers that already make drivers for the industry.

I think here is a very small percentage of people out there like Nate S above that is more of a hobbyist and a non-professional. They want to use DIY or custom made products to control Lutron, just as they were able in the past with Telnet since almost every homebrew solution supported Telnet. They don't care about, or are prepared to handle the insecurity of Telnet (however small that threat is). And to that I agree. If anything, ship the product with Telnet disabled and force the user to enable it on their own at their own risk.

My opinion is as a Crestron/Lutron/Savant programmer just having the ability to control is really what we need, and now that at least we have Crestron modules that is good enough for now. The fact that Savant has nothing still is kind of suspicious as I'm sure one of the two parties isn't playing well with each other, or maybe Lutron is holding a grudge due to Savant purchasing GE Lighting. But for me 1 out of every 50 installs is Savant instead of Creston so its not a big deal yet for me.

having trouble setting the old lutron/integration telnet log in, is it possible at all or has it been completely dismantled? i believe the homeworks version is 15.5. it seems to not allow a simple password. any help would be of great appreciation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Audiovation

having trouble setting the old lutron/integration telnet log in, is it possible at all or has it been completely dismantled? i believe the homeworks version is 15.5. it seems to not allow a simple password. any help would be of great appreciation

---

I believe you cant have a super simple password anymore but yes you can still use Telnet with QS. Just need to add another login on the Integration screen

unfortunately elan control needs to use the old lutron/integration username and password,

Dont know much about Elan- you cant change the credentials in the module (or whatever programming is used to interface with Lutron)? Without that you are SOL when it comes to controlling QS, unless you updated from an older version in the 10.0 range which I believe would let you keep the existing lutron/integration credentials. But if you started with newer software you cant use that.

the driver has the telnet login info built into it :( its a bummer and i know they are working on a fix for it.it would be nice if lutron gave the option (as it does with ra2) to keep the default telnet login info.guess its a waiting game...

Telnet is the ultimate escape system to integrate with the long tail of random devices that exist. It's a bit like the contact closure interface of the Internet world. Every project I touch has a long list of contact closure integrations for controlling everything from hot tubs to fire pits to pergola louvers. Similarly, there's a long list of random home devices from security cameras to video distribution and switching to appliances that are now network connected and with Telnet we can create simple integrations. Whatever integration mechanism exists it needs to be open and simple, and it's important that it is designed to allow people in the field to build their own. If the only option is a list of pre-built integrations, it will force us to look for an alternative to Lutron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lmaugustin

Telnet is the ultimate escape system to integrate with the long tail of random devices that exist. It's a bit like the contact closure interface of the Internet world. Every project I touch has a long list of contact closure integrations for controlling everything from hot tubs to fire pits to pergola louvers. Similarly, there's a long list of random home devices from security cameras to video distribution and switching to appliances that are now network connected and with Telnet we can create simple integrations. Whatever integration mechanism exists it needs to be open and simple, and it's important that it is designed to allow people in the field to build their own. If the only option is a list of pre-built integrations, it will force us to look for an alternative to Lutron.

---

I mean you could develop a co-processor using a raspberry pi translating commands for older un-secure telnet devices to communicate with Lutron... but we have no references to the new api so even diy systems like home assistant can't even control it yet. Having direct access to the communications protocol for manual testing and diagnosis was also useful in a pinch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh R.

What I want to mine from this is exactly what it is that people are trying to control that they cannot and what is causing the grief on the forum. It is not clear to me in reading the thread if it is heartburn caused by Savant or if they really did make their own integration? In talking with many dealers over the years, I would be surprised by how many really made their own large scale drivers that are outside of the major manufacturers that already make drivers for the industry.

---

If Lutron stops working with open source platforms like Home Assistant it will be fatal for me. I'm not interested in a closed platform that can't interoperate with open source solutions and "non-business" or "non-integrator" products and devices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lmaugustin

Telnet is the ultimate escape system to integrate with the long tail of random devices that exist. It's a bit like the contact closure interface of the Internet world.

---

This is a great analogy. I'd happily settle for an open and documented LEAP API, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nugget

I'm not interested in a closed platform that can't interoperate with open source solutions and "non-business" or "non-integrator" products and devices.

---

Lutron is not for you. Lutron doesn't want you to be able to work on your own system because installers would lose work. Lutron relies on the installers to push their products.

They do the same with 3rd parties, only allowing integration by the largest companies to give them exclusive access with the hope that those companies will push Lutron products.

It's unfortunate Lutron sticks to this ancient business plan. Instead of having an empire of excellent products that are all applicable for every possible customer and that everything integrates with, Lutron fractures their markets, product lines, and integrations. They separate product into low/medium/high without upgrade paths between them. They don't publish their APIs, limiting 3rd party integrations.

None of this is about the end user's best interests. Lutron chooses to be closed and proprietary in an attempt to control the market. Ironically, choosing to be exclusive rather than widespread mean inevitably someone else will do it better.

Lutron does have a custom integration, commercial, and DIY markets. And they all had documented telnet API...

The thing is, as an installer, having a documented API is a massive help on a job 6 hours away with poor cell reception and the slowest internet you'll ever see. We have a surprising number of Lutron jobs that survive on well on the edge of civilization but when things go wrong and you can't call very easily, the almost fully documented API for HWI and HWQS has saved me so many times.

Then there is custom requests, these require the maximum understanding of limitations of the API. So we now tell our customers that Control4 works, we don't know how, Savant wants your first born to work, and the rest is mystery meat so don't ask us how it's made. It's frustrating.

Yep, and now there is nothing. Well, there are some OSS libraries, reverse engineered from Lutron's Android app. There goes your quality, Lutron, when you force people to go off the rails. The libraries appear to work for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if Lutron found a way to kill unofficial access. There's no way I'm putting HW QSX into a job and hoping a hacked up, unofficial API never fails. Not everyone wants C4 or Savant. Lutron putting all their eggs in the C4 or Savant basket is super dumb, especially now that Savant is pushing their own products.

For as long as I remember, Crestron, Savant, and Control 4 have been trying to come into Lutron's turf and do their own lighting. I get that this isn't Lutron isn't going to get into their turf and do AV the way a company like Vantage does (which I think is a mistake to be honest because their lighting suffers because of it), but if Lutron wants to do lighting, they should be the BEST and most OPEN lighting platform. Crestron wants to do their own lighting and still connect to Lutron? Great! Nothing wrong with that, but make everything open so every local AV company can do their own custom integration and every small company can link up too. Don't give exclusive deals to your frenemies.

I think the problem is really security. They dont want anybody or a bot being able to easily telnet in and control the system. While I somewhat agree, I dont really see the risk of what could happen. I mean whats the worst thing- someone turning lights on and off? I mean maybe yea oh they could wipe or brick the processor with some malicious attacks but is this really happening?

Many people were addressing the can't access Lutron issue here. While I do agree with them, but I got a more burning question on the opposite direction:
Somfy shade control which was working prior v15 and QSX was working fine from Lutron, now cannot be used.
In my understanding, the only way doing Lutron and RS232 is to use a 3rd party control system, which detects a Lutron Keypad buttonpress, and based on that, send an RS232 command to a device.
Is there any way to do it directly?

If it's security, Lutron could enable, HTTPS (TLS) transport and REST APIs with an API key. While I like the simplicity of telnet, a REST API can easily be controlled via scripted curl commands. The API key controls secure access.

Regardless, I have many telnet integrations and can't upgrade without a way to build custom integrations.