micasaverde integration vs. DDNS only

I don’t have a Vera yet, but I’m considering getting one. I’d like some clarification on some of the difference in feature sets between integrating the Vera3 with the micasaverde site vs. having a standalone unit that’s accessed via IP address.

  1. Can you run the Vera3 without signing into micasaverde?
    Can I just use DDNS and access the Vera3 directly? On apps like MMS Vera that allow you to turn on switches and view the status of temperature sensors, do they have the option of working directly with the Vera and not be linked to micasaverde?

  2. Is there a difference in features/usage with micasaverde.com integration? Aside from having to implement DDNS on your home, what does micasaverde.com integration give you that you can’t do with a standalone setup?


You wouldn’t want to have your Vera accessible from the WAN unless you either use a VPN or via micasaverdes portal.

Port forwarding and other such things including using DDNS have little or no security with Vera.

I see, thanks for the response. But, with the Vera Mobile app and similar apps, is there even an option to interface directly with your Vera, or do they all use an API from the micasaverde portal?

The Vera’s are pretty expensive. I guess I was hoping that there would be a way to continue to use your home automation even without the web portal. And I was hoping the Vera itself has some kind of interface API that apps can be built around.

All the apps (or all the ones I know of) can control your vera remotely as long as you are on UI5. UI6 is new and most of the apps have not adapted to the new security.

Basically, you’ll be ok to just use the apps. You could of course just go with a VPN connection as well if you don’t trust the MCV servers and how they handle it. As strangely said, doing DDNS with port forwarding would probably be a lot less secure than either VPN or the MCV portal (or an app that uses those connections)

Most of the apps are structured to use both the MCV API (while you are on the public internet) and direct (when you are within your LAN).

I haven’t heard that comment when compared to other HA devices. Expensive compared to what, I guess?

Does the Vera implement some kind username/password when accessing it directly from an Android app? Is the communications not SSL? So, the VPN would be encrypting phone’s communication with your house Vera3 device? If you simply open up a port for comms directly to the Vera, someone would still need a username/password right?

Well, as far as hardware is concerned, I think the Veralite at $150 and the Vera3 at $250 is pretty expensive for the hardware that you get - a slow 500MHz processor w/ very little RAM and a z-wave transceiver. The API and front end seems great, which somewhat supports the high price. But I’d like to have a solid product without having to rely on the central MCV server.

If you think that’s expensive for a controller, you’re in for an eye opener. Home automation is not cheap. Vera is considered a very cheap option for it’s capabilities.

Local access to the api is done without ssl and authentication. Remote access can be done over VPN or an ssh tunnel if you do not want to rely on mcv’s remote services. Mcv’s remote access is done over ssl and authentication. UI6 introduced an oauth type authentication which is very secure.

It’s is advised against to not issue any sort of Port forwarding. That is why VPN or an ssh tunnel is advisable if you want to go your own route.

  • Garrett

I’ve tried an https proxy set on another server that asks for a password then proxies all requests via http to vera and it works ok. Not very secure but it works.