From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Feb 2 23:33:02 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i134X2H21892; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:33:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:33:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402030433.i134X2H21892@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 #53 TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:33:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 53 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Faked CallerID Info? (Danny Burstein) Re: Faked CallerID Info? (Sam Etler) Re: Faked CallerID Info? (Clarence Dold) Re: Faked CallerID Info? (Felis Inferis) Re: Faked CallerID Info? (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: Mydoom Computer Virus Launches Record Attack on SCO Web Site (Dold) SCO Options, was Re: Mydoom vs. SCO (Danny Burstein) Re: "Superman TV" and Telephones (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: FCC Seeks to Limit F-Word on US Airwaves - Sources (Steven J Sobol) IE Handling of User Information in HTTP and HTTPS URLs (Monty Solomon) 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: Danny Burstein Subject: Re: Faked CallerID Info? Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:06:11 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In John Levine writes: >> Strangely the number in question is 794-902-XXXX, which appears to be an >> unused area code! > Most likely: he called from a PBX with ISDN trunks that permit the > PBX to send any caller ID it wants. > Second most likely: he has a box that sends cl-id chirps that fooled > the conferencing system. Zeroeth most likely: he used a calling card which sent out a pseudo caller id string very loosely based on its non-dialable outgoing trunk. _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:20:13 CST From: Sam Etler Subject: Re: Faked CallerID Info? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I *thought* (there I go, thinking for > myself again) that sometime in the past two weeks a rule saying correct > caller ID information had to be sent, whenever possible. PAT] Nope. The rules that went into effect on 1/29/2004 were set forth in the FCC's Report and Order FCC 03-153 in Part XII. This R&O created 47 CFR 64.1601(e) which states in part: "Any person or entity that engages in telemarketing, as defined in section 64.1200(f)(7) must transmit caller identification information." It goes on to say that either CPN or ANI (billing number) can be used, and when available, the name of the telemarketer or the entity for which the telemarketer is placing calls. The provided number must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during business hours. (47 CFR 64.1601(e)(1)). It also says that tax-exempt nonprofit organizations don't have to comply. (47 CFR 64.1601(e)(3)). As you can see this only applies to entities involved in telemarketing. This is defnied in 47 CFR 1200(f)(7) as: "The term telemarketing means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person." So this does not apply to businesses who have a legitimate reason for setting their Caller ID when not involved in telemarketing (and believe me, there's plenty of good reasons to do it that most people will never encounter) or private individuals who are doing it for kicks (and perhaps not so legitimate reasons). sam ------------------------------ From: dold@FakedXCall.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Faked CallerID Info? Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:11:58 UTC Organization: a2i network Sam Etler wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I *thought* (there I go, thinking for > myself again) that sometime in the past two weeks a rule saying > correct caller ID information had to be sent, whenever possible. PAT] There is a recent ruling that telemarketers must show a number that can actually be called back, and they should no longer show up as "out of area". I noticed that I have received some telemarketer calls that show an 800 number on caller ID, with the name of the survey or marketing firm. I've also received multiple calls from one outfit, pitching the same thing, and they show up as a personal name and number from San Francisco. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Felis Inferis Subject: Re: Faked CallerID Info? Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 17:24:01 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com One the one hand, your caller may have had access to a PBX or a PRI ISDN line through which Caller ID can sometimes be fabricated (see Lucky225's outstanding article in 2600, Spring 2003), or on the other hand there could have been an ANI failure. However if at any time during the call you heard any strange digital-sounding chirps or squeaks, chances are someone on the line used a device or a sound program such as S.O.B. that creates a Caller ID signal. Without knowing by what mechanism you receive your Caller ID, it's tough to say, but this one would only work if you had a normal Call Waiting Caller ID box for POTS use. Related link: http://artofhacking.com/orange.htm On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:36:09 -0500, Chironex wrote: > I recently hosted a very priveliged conference call using an online > calling service. Once the call was complete, I received a list of the > people connected to the call, and noticed that there was an additional > caller who was not authorized. It was not the conference call > service, nor was it any of my employees as I can account for all of > their caller ID info. > Strangely the number in question is 794-902-XXXX, which appears to be an > unused area code! > Is this possible and how the heck did someone do this???? ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:42:28 EST Subject: Re: Faked CallerID Info? In a message dated Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:41:30 CST Sam Etler wrote: >> Strangely the number in question is 794-902-XXXX, which appears to be an >> unused area code! >> Is this possible and how the heck did someone do this???? > There's a lot of ways to do it, but anyone with a dedicated ISDN PRI > connection can set the Calling Party Number (Caller ID) field to > whatever they want. Not only can you set it to a fake area code or > prefix, but most networks allow you to send from 0 to 15 or more > digits. AT&T's 4ESS network allows up to 17 though some digits may be > stripped when the call enters another carrier's network. > Now, setting your billing number is an entirely different and much more > difficult matter. > sam > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I *thought* (there I go, thinking for > myself again) that sometime in the past two weeks a rule saying > correct caller ID information had to be sent, whenever possible. PAT] Today I got a call showing the number as 727 450-1267 with the name shown as "BLOCKED" or "--PRIVATE CALL--" (depending on which CID box I read it on). But if it is blocked, how come it displays a number? Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ From: dold@MydoomXCom.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Mydoom Computer Virus Launches Record Attack on SCO Web Site Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:19:37 UTC Organization: a2i network ptownson wrote: > Here is the grim story as reported on Bloomberg earlier today. It > appears over 250,000 computers are attacking SCO, which has been > shut down since Saturday. Tomorrow, Tuesday, the trouble-makers are > starting on Microsoft's web site in the same way. I read some network analysis that said this was patently not true, and that it is more of SCO trying to ... whatever it is they do instead of sell software. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: SCO Options, was Re: Mydoom vs. SCO Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:08:57 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In ptownson writes: > Here is the grim story as reported on Bloomberg earlier today. It > appears over 250,000 computers are attacking SCO, which has been > shut down since Saturday. Tomorrow, Tuesday, the trouble-makers are > starting on Microsoft's web site in the same way. > http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid3Demail&refer3Dnews_index&sid3D s80lU If, for some reason or another, you absolutely must get in touch with SCO: "The assault on SCO is expected to last until 12 February. Until then, SCO has said it will use the alternative domain name www.thescogroup.com." http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994629 Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:20:20 EST Subject: Re: "Superman TV" and Telephones jbl wrote on Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:28:58 -0700: > In , Gail M. Hall > wrote: >> What struck me was that when they used their cell phones, the tones >> were sounded as the buttons were pressed instead of the way my current >> cell phone works. Mine makes a beep with each phone press, but I >> don't hear the normal phone tones until I press "Talk" on my phone. > My cell phone (an Audiovox on VZW) plays the touchtone if you dial a > digit (or * or #), or a beep if you press any other button. I don't > hear any tones after I press "send". > On the other hand, my cordless phone at home does act the way you > describe, if you dial before pressing "talk". On my Nokia 5165 you hear the tones as you push the buttons. This seems almost essential if you reach a menu requiring tones to navigate, or if you have to make a numeric entry with tones, or for that matter to push "*" to retrieve your messages. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: FCC Seeks to Limit F-Word on US Airwaves - Sources Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:36:50 -0600 Me wrote: > Jeez, > Count on internet low lifes disregarding the standards of human > conduct and pretending they don't matter. You better hope you don't > get the world you want. You'll regret it if you do. I'm going to try not to fan the flames here, since I just dealt with a ridiculously long thread on the exact same subject as moderator of rec. radio.broadcasting. I will, however, point out that saying the F-word doesn't make you inherently immoral. Of course, if you can prove I'm wrong, you're welcome to do so. *Your* crack about "Internet low-lifes" borders on flame-baiting, though. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:10:44 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: IE Handling of User Information in HTTP and HTTPS URLs A security update is available that modifies the default behavior of Internet Explorer for handling user information in HTTP and HTTPS URLs SUMMARY A security update is available that removes support for handling user names and passwords in HTTP and HTTP with Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) or HTTPS URLs in Microsoft Internet Explorer. The following URL syntax is no longer supported in Internet Explorer or Windows Explorer after you install the MS04-004 Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (832894): http(s)://username:password@server/resource.ext This article is intended to notify you of this change in Internet Explorer's default behavior. If you include user information in HTTP or HTTPS URLs, Microsoft recommends that you explore the workarounds that are described in this article before you install the 832894 security update. For additional information about the 832894 security update, visit the following Microsoft Web site: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS04-004.asp http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;834489 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Caution to readers ... as always, when you read something someone else wrote regarding 'Microsoft Updates' you should *always* verify the message carefully. Do NOT click on any links printed in e-journals or Usenet messages or emails you recieve. Starting with a fresh browser window, type the address in carefully yourself, not just click a link you saw in this Digest, or any other email. I see nothing wrong with the link in Monty's news clipping above, but just take care. Normally, Microsoft notifies its customers through Windows Update only, not via 'security bulletins'. PAT] ------------------------------ 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 #53 *****************************