From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Feb 18 15:00:15 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1IK0Fp04176; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:00:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:00:15 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402182000.i1IK0Fp04176@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #78 TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:00:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 78 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Long Distance Wrong Numbers From Everywhere (David Kirkpatrick) Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" (Phil Earnhardt) Social Engineering, was: Re: Honesty from Earthlink (Danny Burstein) Re: Cardinal/Candela Phone Systems (Robert Johnson) Re: What Happened to the Telecom IRC Chat Room? (McWebber) Re: The Virus Underground (Mark Crispin) Code for MSBlast Variant Posted on Line (Monty Solomon) Rural Areas and the Internet (Monty Solomon) Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News (M Solomon) Re: Phantom DSL Reprised (Hank Karl) Re: Experts Warn of Microsoft 'Monoculture' (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: The Virus Underground (Geoffrey Welsh) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Kirkpatrick Subject: Long Distance Wrong Numbers From Everywhere Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:11:32 -0800 Dear Patrick, For about three weeks now we've been receiving (wrong number) long distance calls from Florida, New York, Vermont, California, Ohio and Massachusetts. When questioned, the few callers that remained on the line reported they received a message either on their voice mail or on their answering machine asking them to phone: 1-866-829-8229. This is apparently one of A T & T's numbers in the states, and it's rerouting to our Vancouver number. Have you and/or your staff heard of anything like this before? Our local provider is sorting this out; have been on the case for 4-5 days now, but the A T & T number info we've only had for about 18 hours now. With appreciation, David Kirkpatrick davidcan@axion.net 604-913-2000 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried 866-829-8229 myself just now and got (what I assume) was your answering machine. What I think has happened is that the place in charge of assigning and routing toll free 800 numbers -- they are referred to in the telecom business as 'RespOrgs' (or the Responsible Organizations) has somehow incorrectly assigned your number as the recipient of these calls you are getting. Your local service provider can do nothing for you except possibly act in your behalf in locating the resporg and asking them to stop the mis-routing. If that toll-free number is what I think it is, it should be ringing to the collection department at AT&T; they want to get the caller to pay their AT&T phone bills. My clue here is the caller who leaves the message for the recipient does not discuss the nature of the call or the reason for it. Laws here in the USA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) forbid the 'publication' or discussion of an alleged debt with any third party. They cannot tell 'just anyone' who answers -- or an answering machine -- what the company wants them to do, namely pay their bills. Rather than get into a discussion of all that, which will only confuse the issue, just ask your local telco (or preferably, an 800 toll-free specialist) to find out who is the resporg on that number 866-829-8229 and route it someplace other than your number. I'll bet anything that there is one digit off (probably in the area code) which a data entry operator mistakenly entered. Aternate solution #1: Want a toll free (and literally *free* for you) number from the USA to ring at your premises for your convenience. Start giving out that number to your freinds, family, etc. Try to ignore the hardships of the wrong number callers looking for AT&T. Alternate guerilla solution #2: When you are there to receive the calls, tell the caller that 'AT&T has decided to forgive them of their indebtedness entirely provided they sign up with some other carrier in the future. (?)(!). I think if the master solution does not work rather quickly (and it is the most honorable) then alternates 1 or 2 should work rather soon. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:52:35 -0700 Organization: Kaos OnLine Coalition Today's Denver Post had an article about Qwest and Comcast. The main part of the article was about Comcast's restrictions on Qwest advertising -- and Qwest's complaining about those restrictions to no avail. The end of the story changed topics: Qwest announced they would begin to offer DSL service on a line that doesn't have regular phone service: "Also Monday, Notebaert said Qwest will be launching later this month a separate DSL service, which he dubbed --'naked DSL.' Before, customers had to subscribe to Qwest's telephone service to get DSL. The move is partly an acknowledgment that more customers are abandoning their landline and using only a cellular phone. The separate DSL service will go for $33 a month at a speed of 1.5 megabits per second - about the same speed as a cable modem." I've been unable to find any details on this service: if the $33 includes an ISP, if you are really getting "unlimited" services on the 1.5Mbps pipe, etc. In any case, I applaud Qwest for finally providing these services. There's simply no reason for many households to have landline service; by offering "naked DSL", Qwest can provide an alternative to cable modems in those homes. BTW: as of now, the name nakeddsl.com is still available. --phil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That was the big hassle I had with SBC: whether to retain them for phone service in order to keep the DSL, or ditch them and lose the DSL. They were counting heavily on the former. In my case, they lost. Had they been willing to go half-way with me I would have still switched to Prairie Stream for good quality, inexpensive phone service, but retained DSL. Since SBC kept insisting *all or nothing* I said okay, nothing. Now I have Cable One for internet with a decent size pipe and Prairie Stream for phone. SBC is nowhere to be found in this household. I would bet you the success of the Qwest experiment will be watched closely by all the (old) Bell System telcos, and soon they will all be offering the same deal. That's how the telcos do things: one comes up with a bright idea, they all get in line and start marching the same way. We've seen that time and again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Social Engineering, was Re: Honesty from Earthlink Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:04:54 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In spaceygum@hotpop.com (Spacey Spade) writes: > I was getting spam from Earthlink even though I had "opted out". By > the way, AFAIK, I recommend Earthlink. Below a transcription of chat > tech support: [ snip ] > name_protected:Let me know the password of your primary account for > verification. > myemail@addy.com:************ Did the original poster really, really, send the account password to a stranger? _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cardinal/Candela Phone Systems From: Robert Johnson Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:50:46 -0800 You might wanna try Panasonic, a Panasonic KT-XD1232 with two cabinets could handle it ... but only ... if when you refer to 25-50 lines being the extensions. I dont know any small hotel/motel that would have that many lines comming into it. Robert Johnson Carl Navarro wrote about Re: Cardinal/Candela Phone Systems on Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:44:26 -0500: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:39:00 -0700, Daryl R Gibson > wrote: >> A friend of mine has purchased a small motel that is equipped with a >> Cardinal (some parts are Candella) phone system. The system appears >> to be 20 years old, and a recent power bump goofed up some of the >> programming; among other things, it means one of the units is now >> unable to call out, others try for local calls and get other rooms, >> etc. >> My question is threefold: >> 1. Is there anyone who specializes in this system? >> 2. Does anyone on this list have any experience with them? >> 3. Could someone recommend a suitable replacement (25-50 lines) >> system for future use? > 1. I used to carry it, but I sold all my stuff to ESI. > 2. Yes, I actually might still have a manual but it's pretty > intuitive. > 3. Easiest is a Mitel SX-200. In a cabinet at that line size you'd > be in the $2500 range. > Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: McWebber Subject: Re: What Happened to the Telecom IRC Chat Room? Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:48:50 -0500 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So I discovered by looking closely at > the web site I helped Lisa Minter set up for telecom. But its sort of > a mixed bag. Yes, you just say so, and press a few keys and there it > is, but it appears to be limited to simply Yahoo Messenger subscribers, > (and the Yahoo 'Chat Room' system rather than IRC as such. But it looks > easier in general to use than IRC does. So anyone who wants realtime > interactive telecom-related chat is invited to use it at Yahoo Groups. > I do not know the URL off hand (I think you have to go in the front > door of Groups, then to telecom-news.) PAT] Wow, that was hard: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/telecom-news/ The Chat section is members only. I'm not sure if that can be changed. McWebber "Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof that he's operating appropriately." Information Week, November 10, 2003 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Try appending the word /chat to the end of the URL above, as in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/telecom-news/chat and see how that works. But you are right, I do not think it will work unless you are a 'member' of Yahoo Groups and that group in particular. And that parameter cannot be changed, at least at my level or Lisa Minter's level. Its a good temporary work around, but I still want to see a good java-based (I assume) chat program tied into the http://telecom-digest.org web site directly to avoid membership requirements, etc. Maybe someone who really knows/is experienced in IRC -- Internet Relay Chat -- and Java could repair what is there now and make it work again (hint! hint! to the Madison, WI reader who 'colorized' the /latest-issue.html file for me!) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: The Virus Underground Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:58:32 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 lawrence.jones@ugsplm.com wrote: > The simple fact of the matter is that Windows and it's related > applications were explicitly designed to do things for you, > automatically, so you don't have to know what you're doing. > Unix-like systems and most of their applications, on the other hand, > were designed to do exactly what you tell them and not one thing > more, forcing you to know what you're doing in order to use them at > all. The flaw in this reasoning is the assumption that a design of "do things for you, automatically, so you don't have to know what you're doing" is a design flaw in Windows as opposed to a design requirement of any mass market operating system. It is a beautiful dream that everybody who uses a computer will know what they're doing and can use a system which does exactly what it is told to do and not one thing more. That dream is also highly unrealistic. For this reason, I think that attacks on Windows by certain segments of the UNIX community are foolish and self-defeating. It is arrogant to assume that UNIX programmers are somehow smarter than Windows programmers and would never made the same mistakes. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:48:11 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Code for MSBlast Variant Posted Online Munir Kotadia ZDNet UK February 17, 2004, 12:20 GMT Users who haven't deployed the critical security patch released by Microsoft last week are in imminent danger, after exploit code was posted online. A piece of code that exploits the critical vulnerability for which Microsoft issued a patch only last week has been posted online, raising fears of an imminent MSBlast-style attack On 10 February, Microsoft released a patch that fixes a networking flaw affecting all Windows XP, NT, 2000 and Windows Server 2003 systems. The company warned users to patch their systems because the vulnerability could be exploited by virus and worm writers. Four days after the patch was released, a piece of code was published on a French Web site that allows anyone to exploit the vulnerability, which means unpatched users can expect to be hit with another MSBlast-type worm. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39146606,00.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:52:52 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Rural Areas and the Internet http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=112 Pew Internet Project Table of Contents: Summary of Findings Part 1: Rural Internet Access: Deployment and Availability Part 2: Rural Internet Demographics: Who's Online? Part 3: The Activities Rural Internet Users Pursue Part 4: Rural Attitudes Toward the Internet Methodology Appendices http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=112 http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Rural_Report.pdf Excerpt from the press release: http://www.pewinternet.org/releases/release.asp?id=73 2/17/04--Rural Americans' Internet use has grown, but they continue to lag behind others WASHINGTON (February 17, 2004) - There has been steady penetration of the Internet into rural areas in recent years and more than half of rural adults -- 52% -- now go online. However, a corresponding rise in the percentage of urban and suburban residents going online has left a persistent gap between rural areas and the rest of the country. Some 67% of urban residents and 66% of suburbanites are online. A new study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project finds that the gap is probably tied to the fact that rural residents as a group earn less and are older than their urban and suburban counterparts. Rural areas' are also distinct in how rural users get online. Some 19% of online rural residents have broadband connections at home, compared to 36% of urban residents and 32% of suburbanites. The availability of broadband connections may be partially responsible for this difference. Nearly a quarter of rural Internet users say they can't get a high-speed connection in their area, whereas 5% of urban users say this, and 10% of suburban users say a high-speed connection is unavailable. http://www.pewinternet.org/releases/release.asp?id=73 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:00:54 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=110 Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe: Perceptions of Partisan Bias Seen as Growing -- Especially by Democrats Joint Report with Pew Research Center Pew Internet Project Table of Contents: Major Findings Political Information Sources and The Campaign http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=110 http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Political_Info_Jan04.pdf Excerpt from the press release: http://www.pewinternet.org/releases/release.asp?id=72 1/12/04--The Internet is playing a growing role in politics WASHINGTON, D.C. January 12 - More than a third of the nation's Internet users have gone online to get news and information, exchange emails about the race, or participate online in the current political campaign. Even among wired Americans, the Internet still lags far behind television and newspapers as voters' main source of political news. But the importance of the Internet continues to grow as it now rivals radio as a primary source of political information. Moreover, there is evidence that the early efforts by campaigns to engage voters through email have drawn an audience. http://www.pewinternet.org/releases/release.asp?id=72 ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Phantom DSL Reprised Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:31:10 -0500 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:04:52 GMT, Nick Landsberg wrote: > The issue may be splitter vs splitterless DSL. IIRC, adding a > splitter allows you a little more distance on the line. It may be > that your LEC doesn't have cards that can do splitterless DSL, or the > distance is to far for splitterless ADSL. Business and residential have similar offerings (business has a few more options). The ones I looked at are priced about the same for the same level of service. In my area (SNET/SBC) there's a big difference between the $160 and the $30 package: The difference between the packages: The $159.95/month package has an intro price of about $75/month for three months. It is 1.5M-6.0M down and 384K up, and seems to require a splitter to be installed. You also get 5 static IP addresses, a "$378" router that SBC sells for $199 (Cayman 3546 w/ADSL modem). There are a couple of 29.95 intro packages (its $29.95 if you have SBC all-distance). The cheapest one is $29.95 with a one-year commitment. This is limited to 384K down, 128K up. You get a couple of choices for equipment. (One is a wireless router with PCMCIA card) The single IP address is dynamic.) > Ears perk! ***RESIDENTIAL***(?) DSL! There's a difference between > residential DSL and business DSL, and it's the price they can charge > for it! > "Yes, sir. We can provide business DSL at $159.95 per month." > Out of my league, if I was running a business out of here, I might > consider it, but I'm not, so I thanked the person and hung up. > As I backtracked through the web pages I had visited, all of them had > a seemingly innucuous set of buttons, "business" vs. "residential." I > didn't try the experiment, but I suspect that if I clicked "business" > it would have shown that DSL was available, at a steep price. > So, it seems, the providers are hoarding the DSL circuits in my CO so > they can milk the businesses for $160 bucks a month before offering it > to residential customers (going rate about $30 per month). High speed > access through the cable company is about $50.00 per month. > Unless there are regulations against this, I guess I'm SOL (and so is > the original poster.) ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Experts Warn of Microsoft 'Monoculture' Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:12:50 -0500 Organization: Bell Sympatico email@crazyhat.net wrote: > Yeah, we'd all get a $5 coupon for our next purchase of a Microsoft > service pack (which they'd start charging for to cover the cost of the > lawsuit) Many times I've seen companies charge for firmware upgrades that customers want because of new features, but give the firmware upgrades away free if they were needed to fix a bug. I'd love to see a law that requires software publishers to provide customers with a freee upgrade if that's what's required to fix a serious bug or plug a vulnerability. It would definitely revolutionize the software industry - or at least split it into two groups that even executives could tell apart: those who stand by their products and those who are required to state on the package and in all advertising and catalog listings that their product should not be relied upon. It scares the crap out of me the way that big companies put big bucks on the line using off the shelf software with histories of big bugs and no one -- CIO, CFO, CEO, whoever -- ever stops to ask, "what if that software screwed up and the aftermath cost us a hundred million dollars?" Geoffrey Welsh Always looking for a good condition original 'chicklet keyboard' Commodore PET ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: The Virus Underground Organization: Bell Sympatico Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:42:00 EST lawrence.jones@ugsplm.com wrote: > But the simple fact of the matter is that Windows and it's related > applications were explicitly designed to do things for you, > automatically, so you don't have to know what you're doing. Unix-like > systems and most of their applications, on the other hand, were > designed to do exactly what you tell them and not one thing more, > forcing you to know what you're doing in order to use them at all. The implication here is that current technology forces us to choose between security and user-friendliness. I can hope that someone will invest techniques to make things user-friendly without making them insecure, but my cynical side tells me that these new techniques will be either secure or user-friendly, but not both. I must force myself to because mixing that observation with the level of stupidity that humans demonstrate at every possible opportunity leads us to the very frightening conclusion that no popular system can ever be secure. William Robison wrote: > Are we all asking the wrong question about virus software? > Why do we all keep using IE and Outlook? (kinda like hitting your > thumb with a hammer, over and over). That's like asking why we use the tires that come with our cars when there are so many better ones available. They're there and they work. Even if the replacements were free, not everyone is going to be aware of the advantages of the alternatives and not everyone who is aware is going to choose to invest the time and effort. > How many times do we have to be explotied before we realize > there has to be a better way (and there are, certainly, many > alternatives to IE/Outlook). Users have developed a comfort level with Microsoft OSes and applications; they are what everyone supports and talks. Even if a user is aware that they have been compromised (it's amazing how many computer users cannot grasp the simplest principles of operation, let alone notice when their computer is misbehaving) and they're aware of the existence of alternatives, they may not feel comfortable wandering away from the familiar. The fact that Microsoft seems to be implying that their patch process is a good enough solution doesn't help. > But don't you think that if the whole world started using *nix to > the extent they now use Windows the virus writers (like that snotty > teenage kid discussed about here in the Digest a couple weeks ago) > wouldn't shift gears and start writing things to mess with *nix like > they do Windows now? I suspect the only reason some mail programs > are relatively 'immune' at the present time is just a question of > where to get the biggest bang for the buck where the virus writers > are concerned. PAT] I've said the same thing in the past in various forums and been criticized for it -- do Mac and UNIX mail applications execute attachments as quickly and casually as Outlook [Express]? That said, many readers here will recall that RTM's internet worm (does anyone have an authoritative pice to say whether it was the first or not?) ran on UNIX and exploited Sendmail vulnerabilities; IIRC, Microsoft did not have an internet-capable platform at the time. Geoffrey Welsh Always looking for a good condition original 'chicklet keyboard' Commodore PET ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #78 *****************************