From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 15 17:38:12 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2FMcCw11857; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:38:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:38:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403152238.i2FMcCw11857@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 #124 TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:38:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 124 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Network Security for Dummies", Chey Cobb (Rob Slade) AOL Embraces Social Networking (Monty Solomon) Renting to Record Has Its Attractions (Monty Solomon) Correcting the Cable Record (Monty Solomon) Linksys / Netopia Parental Control Services (Monty Solomon) Re: Seen on a Manhole Cover (Daniel Rudy) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (Matt Simpson) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: PRI Voice T1 and CallerID Blocking (Scott Dorsey) Re: Strange Phone Number (Isaiah Beard) 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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:53:41 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Network Security for Dummies", Chey Cobb BKNTSCDM.RVW 20031204 "Network Security for Dummies", Chey Cobb, 2003, 0-7645-1679-5, U$29.99/C$44.99 %A Chey Cobb chey@patriot.net %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 2003 %G 0-7645-1679-5 %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O U$29.99/C$44.99 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764516795/robsladesinterne http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764516795/robsladesinte-21 %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764516795/robsladesin03-20 %P 380 p. %T "Network Security for Dummies" Part one is entitled "The Path to Network Security." Chapter one is meant to be a start on network security, but instead is just a random collection of threats, network connection options, and security aphorisms. The material is both confused and confusing: in one paragraph we are told that you don't have to worry about viruses because virus writers only write viruses for Microsoft software so if you don't use Microsoft software you are safe but you can't live without using Microsoft software so you have to worry about viruses. Chapter two suggests taking an inventory of your computer hardware, software, and policies. The basics of risk management are presented in chapter three, and policies and procedures are explained in four. The outlines are not bad at all. Unfortunately, the sample policies are vague and generic. Part two supposedly turns to the network. Choosing security controls, in chapter five, is limited to an overly simplistic synopsis of antivirus software, firewalls, and intrusion detection systems (IDSs). There is a barebones list of US laws related to security in chapter six. Network components are enumerated in chapter seven. Part three looks at security mechanisms. The material in chapter five is slightly, but insufficiently, expanded as chapters eight, nine, and ten review antivirus, firewalls, and IDS, respectively. Chapter eleven lists commands for setting permissions under UNIX and Windows. Part four seems to be considered advanced security. Chapters twelve, thirteen, and fourteen provide some directions for hardening UNIX, Windows, and Mac systems, but the explanations are almost non- existent. Instead of dealing with the patching of applications, chapter fifteen mostly lists loopholes. Chapter sixteen describes virtual private networks, but the technical details that are given are irrelevant to an exegesis of how the technology actually functions. Basic but reasonable suggestions about making wireless networks slightly harder to get into are given in chapter seventeen. Electronic commerce needs special protection, says chapter eighteen, and mentions some Web security mechanisms. Part five deals with disaster recovery. Chapter nineteen suggests having a computer emergency response team. A slightly disorganized (and rather brief) look at disaster recovery is in twenty. Computer forensics gets a once over very, very lightly in twenty one. The traditional "Part of Tens" lists the ten best security practices, ten best Web sites (for once I agree with the antivirus recommendation), ten security tools, and ten questions to ask a security consultant. Overall, this book is not very good advice about network security, and would not be terribly helpful for improving security. But it does have some (a few) decent bits that provide skeletal outlines of some important security concepts. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2003 BKNTSCDM.RVW 20031204 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu Without education we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously. - G.K. Chesterton http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:25:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AOL Embraces Social Networking Tacking on instant messaging gives AOL a boost in the hot social networking scene. At other sites you communicate with your network of friends and colleagues via e-mail. By Michelle Johnson, 3/15/2004 'You've got social networking!" No, you won't hear that when you log onto America Online, but the "six degrees of separation" craze has arrived in the AOL universe. More specifically, it's arrived at ICQ Universe, a service recently launched by ICQ, which is owned by AOL. Social networking, popularized by sites such as Friendster, Ryze, and LinkedIn, allows you to meet people with connections. Think of it as a personal introduction service in which the people you meet know someone you know. Linking up in these so-called "trusted communities" has become a hot way for job seekers and business types to network, as well as for strictly social interaction such as finding a date or new friends. According to Yael Givon, ICQ's director of marketing, ICQ Universe is the first service to pair up instant messaging with social networking. AOL acquired ICQ (as in "I Seek You"), the first widely used instant messaging service, in 1998. As a worldwide service with 8 million active users and more than 175 million registered users, ICQ draws a wide mix of people from around the globe. The company's new ICQ Universe (universe.icq.com) uses an animated graphical interface to visually map out your "six degrees." So it puts a graphic of you and your particulars (name, age, profession, number of people in your universe) at the center of your network, with images of friends, family, and colleagues in orbit around you. You can upload a photo of yourself or use one of the cartoon-like mugs available in the Universe's image gallery. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/03/15/aol_embraces_social_networking/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:16:58 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Renting to Record Has Its Attractions By Daniel Greenberg Special to The Washington Post The inner workings of digital video recorders like TiVo and ReplayTV can be confusing, but not their basic point -- they put viewers back in charge of television, letting them pause, rewind and replay live TV and easily store far more shows than a stack of videotapes would allow. Now cable TV companies are getting in on the act. Instead of selling video recorders, at $150 and up, they're renting them: Subscribers to digital-cable services (required for this add-on) can pay a few more dollars a month to trade in their cable boxes for ones that include digital video recorders. In the Washington area, Comcast's recorder costs $9.95 a month -- since the recorder replaces the $3-a-month cable box, it adds only $7 to regular digital service -- while Cox's adds $9.99 to the bill. (Adelphia charges $8.95, plus a service fee, but offers this option only in Stafford County.) We tried Comcast's model over three weeks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35513-2004Mar6.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:17:22 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Correcting the Cable Record The Washington Post We got a great example of why you should never assume anything last week, when we ran a correction on the review of Comcast's digital video recorder Reviewer Daniel Greenberg criticized this TiVo-esque device for not allowing viewers to watch one show while recording another. But within minutes of the start of my Web chat Monday afternoon, I had readers reporting that they could watch-while-recording on their own Comcast DVRs. Daniel -- a guy even more detail-obsessed than I am, which is both saying a lot and probably unhealthy -- confirmed that the model in his living room did not offer that feature. How could this be? The answer came from a Comcast publicist, who said Comcast subscribers in the District, Montgomery County and Prince George's County get the model of DVR that we reviewed, while those in Comcast's other service areas around here get a different model that includes two cable tuners. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55911-2004Mar13.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:57:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Linksys / Netopia Parental Control Services IRVINE, Calif. & EMERYVILLE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 15, 2004--Linksys, a division of Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq:CSCO) and the leading provider of broadband, wireless and networking hardware for the consumer and Small Office/Home Office, and Netopia, Inc. (Nasdaq:NTPA), a market leader in broadband equipment and software, today announced they have teamed to offer a Parental Control Service to select Linksys home networking customers. Linksys will incorporate Netopia Parental Controls into its flagship Wireless-G Broadband Router with SpeedBooster (model number WRT54GS), which is now available nationwide at leading electronics superstores, through major online retailers, and other Linksys resellers. The Parental Control service uses a thin-client model, delivered on the Broadband Router, which functions as the "choke point" of Internet access going into a home. This solution automatically covers all Internet-capable devices (wired or wireless) on the home network and can deliver far stronger protection than desktop or ISP-based parental control software that is installed separately on each computer. While family-specific security functions are embedded in the WRT54GS, the core service is network-hosted in order to minimize deployment costs and offer the most robust features. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40821152 ------------------------------ From: Daniel Rudy Reply-To: dcrudy@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789 Organization: SBC Internet Services Subject: Re: Seen on a Manhole Cover Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:27:53 GMT And somewhere around the time of 03/13/2004 05:47, the world stopped and listened as Fred Goldstein contributed the following to humanity: > chsvideo@hotmail.com (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) wrote, >>fg> The LERG entries, which DSL Reports seems consistent with, are a >>> bit strange. It shows 760-750 as an RSC ("remote switching center", the >>> "large remote"), a remote node off of the San Marcos DMS-100 switch >>> (which also has a lot of Vista prefix codes on it). An RSC can serve >>> a few thousand lines, depending on load. It's run by the host >>> switch's processor, with backhaul trunks to the host, but has its own >>> internal switching matrix (and "emergency standalone" capabilities). >>> It's theoretically possible to put a few trunks onto an RSC, but >>> normally the trunks (to other switches) are all at the host. >> Interesting ... out of curiosity by "few thousand" do you mean "less >> than a prefix", "a prefix", or "a few prefixes"? (Further, must a >> exchange exist entirely on a RSC or can it be split between the RSC >> and the host switch?) > Prefix codes nowadays are like DNS addresses; they can be flexibly > pointed at whatever. They are portable between switches and carriers, > though they are not geographically portable, which simply means that a > given prefix is billed to a given place, no matter where the physical > switch or customer is. Even absent number portability, number > assignment is via a common pool in the host, so prefix codes are not > really assigned to remotes. Actually, they are if the remote is in a different rate center than the host. Oh, and a DMS-100 is a telco central office switch manufactured by Northern Telecom aka Nortel. Not a bad switch. As for the remote switching center, it is basically switch hardware that is extended from the host to serve a remote or rural area where a full switch is not needed. The PBX is more than likely served by the host switch via fiber links ... probably SONET. As for the GTE manhole cover, that is probably a cable splice point or repeater station for Verizon's trunking circuits. Verizon, like SBC, is a ILEC aka RBOC which can afford to have their own trunking between central office sites. Daniel Rudy Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply. ------------------------------ From: net-news02@jmatt.net (Matt Simpson) Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Date: 15 Mar 2004 06:04:27 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com In an editor's note, Pat wrote: > The Demopublicans and the Rebublicrats have things so tied up (and > they are essentially the same regards oppressive government > legislation, etc) no one else ever gets a chance at it. And when a > third party candidate comes along who is at all popular with a large > number of people, (i.e. Ralph Nader) then the Demopublicans all > grouse about how the new comer is going to spoil the election for > the others. Those who are not happy with the stranglehold the two major parties have on our political system and wish to vote for candidates they prefer instead of choosing the lesser of two evils should push for the adoption of "Instant Runoff Voting". http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ This system would encourage people to cast their votes for candidates they actually preferred, without the fear that doing so would allow the eviler of two evils to be elected with less than a majority. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:14:16 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Organization: Excelsior Computer Services Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, why is it so bad if the government can tap into my e-mail the same way they do into my phones? If the government can use the technology to stop one terrorist attack, or to catch one future greedy CEO, or to break up a drug dealing operation, why should I care if they can also read my personal e-mail? Why aren't the same people who are afraid of touch-screen voting problems in favor of tools that will help police catch cyber- criminals? Or what about spam? What's the point of making it illegal if law enforcement doesn't have the tools to catch violators? Every aspect of my well being in the USA is based upon the rule of law. Couldn't one make the argument that the only way this "bugging" of the Internet could be used against innocent people is if we lose the rule of law here, but that if we lose the rule of law then the Internet problems will be insignificant compared to all the others? My personal view is that all of these efforts are in vain anyway. Any first-semester encryption textbook gives me the tools to create secure electronic communications on the Internet. (For example, if I really cared to, I could generate a huge one-time random cypher, give the only copy to my friend, and the only way people could read our conversations is if they stole a copy of the key. If I wanted to transfer the key without telling my friend "I'm transfering the key," I could use a track on a publicly available CD for the key, or send a JPG of a friend, etc.) -Joel ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: PRI Voice T1 and CallerID Blocking Date: 15 Mar 2004 12:59:03 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) In article , wrote: > Is it true that a PRI ISDN voice T1 with incoming calls can always > identify the callerID of the calling party? Call blocking can't > prevent CallerID being passed along by the PRI ISDN voice T1 circuit? Are you sure you are not talking about ANI? --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:56:16 -0500 From: Isaiah Beard Subject: Re: Strange Phone Number Adam wrote: > Anyone know what type of phone number this is: 646-539-9007 ? > I keep getting calls from this number but when I return the call, > I am asked for a pin. Likely someone is calling you from a VoIP calling card, such as Net2Phone direct. When a call is made through such a card, they tend to pass CID info as the dial-in point's number, rather then the originating caller's number. E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. ------------------------------ 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: 620-402-0134 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 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 #124 ******************************