Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 29 : Issue 81 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse 18- to 24-year-olds most at risk for ID theft, survey finds Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Digital Thieves Dominate Data Breaches Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Re: Worldwide weekend of free WiFi with Skype Access Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Sonoma Restaurant Patrons' Ripped Off By ID Thieves Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal International CID transmission Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse Re: Sonoma Restaurant Patrons' Ripped Off By ID Thieves Re: Sonoma Restaurant Patrons' Ripped Off By ID Thieves Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Re: International CID transmission ====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. 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 are 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, and other stuff of interest. Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:59:27 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <ho3k0h$k88$1@news.eternal-september.org> > Not Verizon here -- "former SNET land" means AT&T, just like for you. > > Think it's really "not getting the SS7 data"? or just not bothering > to pass it along? > > And yes, our cellular carrier, like yours, is not AT&T (unlike yours, > though, it's T-Mobile, not Sprint). > > Cheers, -- tlvp > -- > Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP > I forgot that SNET is now AT&T, never figured out why they sold out to AT&T. I'm told from CO techs that I work with is for some reason the University switch is not passing it on over the trunks to AT&T, they use a system that finds the cheapest route for each call. This group at UCR is off campus and uses the PBX of Bourns Corp, and it is a Joes Telephone and Screen Door Co. I think it is a NT switch, I saw it through an open door once and it was Dark brown and green -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:59:25 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse Message-ID: <Obepn.262188$OX4.60818@newsfe25.iad> Barry Margolin wrote: > In article > <b84507a8-c487-4a83-ac81-7b2b2af191fc@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > >>Recently, an unknown person used a Walmart store telephone to access >>the P.A. system to broadcast offensive comments throughout the store. >>Police and store officials are investigating. >> >>Walmart announced its changing its system to restrict access. > > > Presumably the change is something modern like requiring a PIN to be > entered. > You don't understand the Walmart way of doing things. Modifying the store's telephone system to require a PIN would probably cost more money than programming the PA out of "public accessible" stations. This is the company where upper middle managers from headquarters share a motel room when on business trips. Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:53:56 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: 18- to 24-year-olds most at risk for ID theft, survey finds Message-ID: <p06240824c7cc28f000dc@[10.0.1.4]> 18- to 24-year-olds most at risk for ID theft, survey finds By Allison Klein Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 17, 2010; B01 Ryan Thomas, an airman in the Air Force Honor Guard, bought some DVDs on the Internet using his debit card. It was a $20 payment made from his account, which had about $900. But the following day, his account balance was zero. Someone had stolen his account information and bought computer games and other items. "I didn't know better about securing your information on the computer," said Thomas, 21, who lives in Southeast Washington and flies planes over Arlington National Cemetery during funerals. After the 2007 incident, Thomas took a class about how to protect information in cyberspace. But last month, he was hit again, this time by someone who targeted his account from Malaysia. Similar identity-theft cases are rising sharply across the country, as young people -- sometimes cavalier with their personal information -- are hit the hardest, according to a survey released last month. Identity fraud can include stealing a credit card number or opening a bank account in someone else's name. Thieves generally cross state lines in the commission of their crimes and are often linked to rings overseas in places such as Russia and Spain. The "core millennial" group, identified as people ages 18 to 24, is at the greatest risk because it takes them longer to figure out that they have been defrauded -- meaning their information is compromised for a longer period, according to the survey, which is a snapshot of the identity fraud landscape from last year. ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/16/AR2010031604209.html Date: 20 Mar 2010 23:27:37 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <20100320232737.55513.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Not Verizon here -- "former SNET land" means AT&T, just like for you. > >Think it's really "not getting the SS7 data"? or just not bothering >to pass it along? > >And yes, our cellular carrier, like yours, is not AT&T (unlike yours, >though, it's T-Mobile, not Sprint). My guess is that there's a variety of paths from Poland to the US, your legacy ILEC is getting old paths that don't have full SS7 connectivity, your recently created mobile carrier is getting newer paths that do. There's no reason I know for T or VZ to want to discard SS7 info if they have it available, and I gather there's reasons for them to want to keep it. For example, if the called number is busy, they can tell the foreign switch to generate the busy signal, and free up the trunk. R's, John Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:58:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Digital Thieves Dominate Data Breaches Message-ID: <p06240825c7cc2a9a64b4@[10.0.1.4]> Digital Thieves Dominate Data Breaches Theft by hacking is now the top cause of companies' reported data losses, but a few steps can mitigate the damage. Erik Larkin, PC World Monday, March 01, 2010 06:01 PM PST For the first time, hackers have become the biggest cause behind publicly reported data breaches, according to a recent report. The Identity Theft Resource Center began tracking the cause of reported breaches three years ago. For the past two years, the top cause was what the ITRC calls "data on the move"--typically a lost laptop with unencrypted data, or even a lost briefcase. That changed in 2009, when about one out of every five data breaches had a hacker behind it. Why does this matter? A thief who walks away with a laptop is likely more interested in wiping its hard drive and selling it than in selling its data. But a hacker who invades a company's network and swipes a trove of credit card numbers is sure to use them, or sell them to someone else who will. The ITRC notes that its study is based only on reported breaches. Because state laws and policies vary, not all breaches or their causes are reported. The number of data breaches dropped from 657 in 2008 to 498 in 2009 (in 2007, there were 446). But the while the total number of breaches dropped, the number of hacker-launched thefts rose. And that's bad news. The upshot? As security gurus I talk to like to put it, assume that your information has been compromised, and be ready to catch it when it's used. ... http://www.pcworld.com/article/189070/digital_thieves_dominate_data_breaches.html Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:27:12 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <iZSdnZWAzYZNxDjWnZ2dnUVZ_vc4AAAA@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <pan.2010.03.20.06.20.03.611536@myrealbox.com>, > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >I've just realized that I don't remember how many digits the CLID >field can carry. What's the limit? IIRC, there was a change a few years back (5+??) that upped 'phone number' fields from 13 to 16 digits. Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:15:04 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <io-dnaY3YO-V-DjWnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <D33pn.66262$gF5.59185@newsfe13.iad>, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > >My understanding is that the LEC expects the PBX to supply the CID >because of the class of trunk that is provisioned for the PBX. Thus, >the LEC is a party to any spoofing. > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >I don't think that's a valid analogy: after all, the LEC expects >telephone users to be responsible, but accepts any number they >dial. Does that mean a LEC is a party to crank calls? > >A customer using a tariffed service (which the LEC is required by law >to provide) in a way that the tariff either proscribes or does not >cover can hardly be blamed on a Common Carrier. At least SOME telcos have -- and USE -- the ability to restrict what the customer provides as the CID data. Other carriers 'choose' not to incur the expenses associated with doing so. These carriers are not a 'party' to spoofing -- they're not actively doing anything to promote it. What they are, by their choice, is 'facilitators'. In SS7, all nodes (switches) are "created equal". Every switch extends the same degree of 'trust' to _every_other_ switch, with regard to data received from another switch. Well and good, when all the switches are owned/operated by 'trustworthy' telcos. But, when one is in 'untrustworthy' hands, there is no way to treat data from it differently. If connectivity is ISDN PRI, things are different. This is not a 'peer' relationship -- the telco does trust the C.O. side (they own/operate it), but the CPE is not necessarily as trusted. The potential does exist to 'validate' that data as part of the 'translation' to SS7 for transport to the ultimate destination. Extra software cost, extra 'administrative' cost in maintaining the checks for what is/isn't valid. Potential increased support costs for troubleshooting problems. These are valid reasons, from a 'cost containment' standpoint, for a telco to -not- filter/validate the customer-provided data. It is a classic case of 'self-interest' vs. the 'good of the community'. It should be no surprise to anyone how that decision comes down. <wry grin> The only effective way to address the situation is by governmental action. But that gets messy. Example: I have fiber from three separate switches, in three different C.O.s, belonging to 3 unrelated telcos. One is outgoing only trunks, one is inbound local trunks, the third is inbound toll-free trunks. When somebody originates a call, I may want CID to show (1) one of my toll-free numbers, (2) the main switchboard incoming number, (3) a 'departmental' reception number, (4) the actual DID for the originating station, (5) the number of 'someone else' at the company that the recipient should call back (e.g. 'reminder call' from a message center, for, say, a doctor's office -- ID to show the number of the Drs office, not the message center). Some of those numbers may not even be terminated at the location this call is originating from. Writing rules allowing a customer to do -those- kind of things (and other 'legitimate' ones not enumerated above), but not 'spoof' with a number they "shouldn't", is NOT easy. Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:23:55 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <io-dnaE3YO-G-jjWnZ2dnUVZ_r0AAAAA@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <op.u9uoiqx8itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>, tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:35:16 -0400, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > >>> Second question: Do the U.S. gateway switches send the CPIN message >>> to foreign countries (other than Canada, which is not really foreign >>> from a telephony standpoint)? >> >> Yes. I get CLID on calls to and from the UK all the time. > >Interesting: here in former SNET land, inbound calls from Poland to >our land-line never show any CLID, but inbound calls to our >cell-phones always *do*. Is there any possibility of STUPID caller-id CPE on the land-line? One that only understands NANP format numbers -- and chokes, and therefore doesn't display anything, when confronted with something 'foreign'? In years past, I've encountered a lot of budget CPE gear that was very US-centric. Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:06:42 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Worldwide weekend of free WiFi with Skype Access Message-ID: <ho3nui$ge0$1@reader1.panix.com> In <20100320175730.74190.qmail@simone.iecc.com> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes: > Telecom Digest Moderator wrote: >>Skype is, as I understand it, an outlier on the VoIP competition >>curve. Rather than resort to OEM solutions (Vonage), or purpose-built >>hardware (MagicJack), it let's users employ PC's for VoIP. To me, that >>implies that Skype has aimed at the "early adopter" market, but I'm >>not sure it's a viable business model in the long term. Opinions? >You can get Skype wifi phones that look similar to normal cordless >phones. I know people who use them as their primary phones. Including.... the original, pre-Apple, "Iphone". Yes, childrrrrn, before Apple came out with their unit, Cisco (which had and has a very serious line of corporate and backbone/enterprise level voice-over-IP-offerings) dabbled in the consumer market with a Skype optimized 802.11 ("wifi") phone. Led to some ugly court battles when Apple first prepared its phone for the market. Mine works fine... with the annoying glitch that, while it can hook up to password protected bases, it can't handle the "splash screens" that some utilize. (Same grumble, btw, for my UMA [a] enabled t-Mobile phone) [a] UMA= "Unlicensed Mobile Access". It lets t-mobile "cell phones" utilize, when available, a "wifi" internet connection for connectivity. Has lots of advantages. disclaimer: I'm not only a user, I'm also a shareholder. -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:40:24 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse Message-ID: <j5GdnTLhy5Nl9zjWnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <b84507a8-c487-4a83-ac81-7b2b2af191fc@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >For decades, many businesses have had public address systems >integrated with their telephone network. An extension could dial a >special code and then be connected to the P.A. This was often used, >among other functions, to page managers. (This capability existed >long before Divesture, and apparently a rare example of where Bell >allowed an interface between its equipment and privately owned >customer equipment). Bell allowed such things "routinely". As long as they (Bell) supplied the "interface", at a tariffed (and more-or-less exorbitant) rate. Classical examples include the infamous "DAA" for connecting customer- owned modems (which 'rented' for nearly the price of a Bell-supplied modem), the similar devices for answering machines (the subject of the watershed 'Carterphone' lawsuit), taped-announcement playback systems (single or multi-line), auto-dial alarm notification devices, radio station call-in lines, etc., etc. Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:12:32 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Message-ID: <_-idnZryLtod7zjWnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <4BA1C02C.2040703@thadlabs.com>, > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >I don't think car batteries get a continuous recharge: IIRC, the >voltage regulator interrupts the circuit from the alternator to the >battery when the proper voltage is reached. Not exactly. The regulator stabilizes the alternator/generator output to an appropriate level. (effectively a constant-voltage, variable-current power supply, "within limits".) The battery 'floats' across the alternator output as it powers the rest of the vehicle's systems. >However, this brings up a good question: are car batteries suitable >for use in any backup service? Despite their shortcomings, their >price/performance ratio might justify the compromises. To use a Clintonism, "That depends on what you mean by 'suitable'." <grin> Standard auto batteries are -not- intended for deep-discharge cycles. Repeated deep discharge radically shortens battery life. Standard auto batteries generally suffer if routinely discharged below 50% of full-charge level. "Deep discharge" batteries, on the other hand are good for 80%-90% discharge without damage. IF you can afford to put in twice the AH you'll use, and have a cut- off when the 50% level is reached, regular auto batteries are 'ok'. Also, if it is a true =emergency= (only!!) system -- where you just need 'something' for a relatively short, but _unspecified_ time period -- auto batteries do provide some of the least expensive per amp-hour storage, if maintained properly and not drained excessively. As an 'off grid' power supply, or as part of an 'uninterruptible' grid-based power source, auto batteries are 'medium lousy', to put it charitably. If you have need to get a specific duration of power, batteries designed for deep discharge will provide more power for a longer period, and for more occurrences, than auto batteries. It boils down to "if you expect to use it", get batteries designed for the task. If you don't expect to use, it get the 'cheap' ones. Batteries do age, and do have to be replaced periodically. If the use will be only a few times during the projected lifetime, the benefits of 'deep discharge' designs are probably =not= worth the extra cost. Analyzing the trade-offs is not a simple process. :) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:18:01 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Message-ID: <_-idnZXyLtpU7jjWnZ2dnUVZ_t0AAAAA@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <cMednUTtDtC1Mj7WnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@supernews.com>, > >What's the amp-hour capacity of a typical car battery? May I assume >that I can draw that capacitiy for that many hours from a new auto >battery? No. > Can I draw 1/10 that capacity for 10 times more hours? Batteries are typically rated at the total number of A-H they will produce if totally discharged over TWENTY HOURS. If the discharge rate is higher, the total A-H produced is less. There is also the issue of 'can you do it _repeatedly_'. (how many times?) Over the 'lifetime' of an auto battery you'll get a lot less total A-H out (at a given discharge rate) if you run from 100% charge to ~0% charge than if you run from 100% charge to 50% charge. i.e., only pull 1/2 the 'rated' A-H before recharging. Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:16:25 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Message-ID: <MPG.260f679fb6e83b73989cbe@news.eternal-september.org> In article <4BA41C79.1060303@thadlabs.com>, Telecom Digest Moderator wrote: > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I'm sorry, but I'm lost. I just can't get my head around it: I've > seen a car battery melt a screwdriver, and then after a quick > jump-start it was fine. If that isn't "rugged", I can't define it. > > I'd like to set up a ham radio station for "Field day" in June, and > claim the extra credit available for battery operation, so that's > one question, i.e., would a car battery work to power a ~5 amp load > for twelve hours? Beyond that, though, I'm just flabbergasted that > auto batteries can't be used in some way when emergency power is > needed. I suppose it's like trying to explain why a car alternator > isn't the best candidate for a hand-cranked power source: intuition > always loses out to training. Back when I was more active in the hobby and belonged to W1AQ if we went battery it was deep cycle batteries that we used. Of course we also used aluminum extension ladders as makeshift towers. I can recall one field day when I was eating lunch in the mess tent during a storm. I happened to look out and saw the bottom of one of the 'tower's dancing. We had to go out and tie it down in the pouring rain. When my buddy donated his portable 55' military crank up tower it was a god-send. ***** Moderator's Note ***** That brings up another "what if" question: do LEC's still have microwave backup capability for emergencies? Years ago, when I was working a remote for MIT radio station WTBS on Boston Common, a phone technician unrolled a length of twenty-five pair cable, which went over to a van with a ~1 meter microwave dish on it mounted to a hydraulic lifting stack, and told me which colors were my program and talkback circuits. Do LEC's still maintain a stock of portable short-haul microwave for temporary or emergency use? Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:02:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Sonoma Restaurant Patrons' Ripped Off By ID Thieves Message-ID: <p06240827c7cc2bb9a803@[10.0.1.4]> Sonoma Restaurant Patrons' Ripped Off By ID Thieves KTVU.com March 18,2010 SONOMA, Calif. -- More than 70 people from the Sonoma Valley who ate at a popular pizzeria said identity thieves have racked up bogus charges on their credit cards. Mary's Pizza Shack on Sonoma Square claimed an international hacker broke in to their computer system and stole the numbers. Lorna Todeschini recently learned that a pizza night in Sonoma last November was why she got an unexplained charge on her Visa bill two weeks ago. ... http://www.ktvu.com/bartshooting/22884635/detail.html Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:31:03 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <5d36d.6c315fa0.38d6b4b7@aol.com> In a message dated 3/20/2010 3:40:52 PM Central Daylight Time, sam@coldmail.com writes: > Some tariffs are a requirement of the regulator but some tariffs are > initiated and filed by the carrier, then approved by the regulator. > For example, so far as I know, most calling features are (were in the > case of California) offered under LEC-initiated tariffs. > I don't know which type of tariff the feature group trunk for PBXes is; > regulator initiated or LEC initiated. > I remember in my fighting days how Pacific Bell loved to hide behind > tariffs of their creation, by stating, "Oh we must do what that tariff > says because that is the That is a true statement--it is the law. It does not matter whether the carrier or the commission originated the tariff--once the commission approves it it is the law. Many tariffs are prepared by the carrier at the direction of the commission. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:55:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: International CID transmission Message-ID: <73958.5112.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Just wondered what other people's experience has been with transmission of international caller ID transmission? I've found that on several mobile carriers (T-Mobile NL and Orange IL) that numbers are delivered (on my mobile as that person if they're in my contacts on the phone) or the actual number in the format of +country code/area code/number e.g. +97254NXXXXXX for an Orange Israel number or +316NXXXXXXX for a T-Mobile Netherlands number. If someone calls me from a land line in either Israel or the Netherlands I get no CID data. Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 07:43:38 -0700 (PDT) From: SVU <brad.houser@gmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse Message-ID: <317de4ef-9a9d-4097-9abc-cd4b10e1cc59@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com> On Mar 20, 9:35 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Presumably the change is something modern like requiring a PIN to be > entered. PINs can be learned, just like extension numbers. I used to work at a company that had this, and the abuse came in the form of inappropriate names: "Jack Mehoff, paging Jack Mehoff. Please call..." etc. The fix was all calls to the paging number went through a person. Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:15:01 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <FTwpn.55283$yk1.43397@newsfe20.iad> Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 3/20/2010 3:40:52 PM Central Daylight Time, > sam@coldmail.com writes: > > >>Some tariffs are a requirement of the regulator but some tariffs are >>initiated and filed by the carrier, then approved by the regulator. > > >>For example, so far as I know, most calling features are (were in the >>case of California) offered under LEC-initiated tariffs. > > >>I don't know which type of tariff the feature group trunk for PBXes is; >>regulator initiated or LEC initiated. > > >>I remember in my fighting days how Pacific Bell loved to hide behind >>tariffs of their creation, by stating, "Oh we must do what that tariff >>says because that is the > > > That is a true statement--it is the law. It does not matter whether > the carrier or the commission originated the tariff--once the > commission approves it it is the law. > > Many tariffs are prepared by the carrier at the direction of the > commission. > And, many are of the carriers own initative. I don't believe I implied that a tariff, regardless of its origin and once approved, is not a matter of law. But, 20 years ago when I was up on this stuff, there were tariffs that were originated by the carrer, and the carrier could file for their amendment of deletion with no quarrel from the regulators. In such cases, 30 days later they were no longer a matter of law. In California most ordinary tariffs were filed in a form called an Advice Letter. For example, Pacific Bell had a residential small Centrex offering that had its genises at the old AT&T headquarters. It could have 2 to 10 lines, with call pick up, hold, transfer within the group, and perhaps a few other features. Many BOCs offered it but under different names. Pacific Bell called it COMMSTAR II. Once divestiture was complete, Pacific decided to remove the offering. So, they filed an Advice Letter dropping the offering but grandfathering those who had the service so long as they made no changes. The grandfathering of such discontinued offerings was not required by the California PUC, rather Pacific's legal department did it on their own motion to preempt customer objections to the removal of the offering. This is an example of a lot of regulatory power on the part of the regulated rather than the regulator. Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:01:47 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse Message-ID: <JcednaPM-9WmFDvWnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <Obepn.262188$OX4.60818@newsfe25.iad>, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: >Barry Margolin wrote: >> In article >> <b84507a8-c487-4a83-ac81-7b2b2af191fc@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >> >>>Recently, an unknown person used a Walmart store telephone to access >>>the P.A. system to broadcast offensive comments throughout the store. >>>Police and store officials are investigating. >>> >>>Walmart announced its changing its system to restrict access. >> >> >> Presumably the change is something modern like requiring a PIN to be >> entered. >> >You don't understand the Walmart way of doing things. Modifying the >store's telephone system to require a PIN would probably cost more money >than programming the PA out of "public accessible" stations. That ignores the fact that a number of employees employees need access to the PA from phones that are 'public accessible' -- on the sales floor. The software for doing the authorization code is very probably already in place in the PBX. Its the same functionality as is used to require a code for an outside line, or for long-distance/toll dialing. Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:24:58 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Sonoma Restaurant Patrons' Ripped Off By ID Thieves Message-ID: <_0xpn.55284$yk1.2339@newsfe20.iad> Monty Solomon wrote: > Sonoma Restaurant Patrons' Ripped Off By ID Thieves > > KTVU.com > March 18,2010 > > SONOMA, Calif. -- More than 70 people from the Sonoma Valley who ate > at a popular pizzeria said identity thieves have racked up bogus > charges on their credit cards. > > Mary's Pizza Shack on Sonoma Square claimed an international hacker > broke in to their computer system and stole the numbers. > > Lorna Todeschini recently learned that a pizza night in Sonoma last > November was why she got an unexplained charge on her Visa bill two > weeks ago. > It is a relatively easy matter to get those fraudulemt charges removed from a credit card account. It's much more difficult with a debit card; different rules. The least protection of all is with a business bank account. Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:56:57 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Sonoma Restaurant Patrons' Ripped Off By ID Thieves Message-ID: <pan.2010.03.21.21.56.55.563589@myrealbox.com> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:02:41 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > Sonoma Restaurant Patrons' Ripped Off By ID Thieves > > KTVU.com > March 18,2010 > > SONOMA, Calif. -- More than 70 people from the Sonoma Valley who ate at > a popular pizzeria said identity thieves have racked up bogus charges on > their credit cards. > > Mary's Pizza Shack on Sonoma Square claimed an international hacker > broke in to their computer system and stole the numbers. ........ Every organisation that processes Credit Cards from all the major card providers must conform to the PCI-DSS standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard This is an incredibly tough standard if you record or store CC numbers in any form, and unfortunately most organisations ignore this standard even though it is a clear condition of their agreements with the CC providers. One day soon one of these cavalier places that obviously don't comply with PCI-DSS will get hit with the full costs allowing the numbers to be stolen, and that might "encourage" the many others to tighten their security. - - Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:11:01 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Walmart changing phone system after abuse Message-ID: <6eb3f73c-3f60-4d95-8b0f-2c3618091d1d@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> On Mar 20, 8:40 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote: > Bell allowed such things "routinely".  As long as they (Bell) supplied > the "interface", at a tariffed (and more-or-less exorbitant) rate. > > Classical examples include the infamous "DAA" for connecting customer- > owned modems (which 'rented' for nearly the price of a Bell-supplied > modem), . . . What exactly (dollars, please) is 'exorbitant'? In the early 1970s our DAA rented for about $1.00 a month. I don't know what a Bell 110 baud modem would've cost, but I suspect back then, give the high cost of electronics in those days, the modem rent would've been more, perhaps much more. If the price of a DAA was nearly the cost of a modem, most people would've rented the Bell modem and gotten the full service along with it. It appeared most people chose not to do so. A great many businesses had integrated PA systems. If the interconnect rate was so exhorbitant, I suspect most businesses would've simply had a separate PA system. For example, our hospital had its PA integrated with the PBX operators' position. They merely pulled a key and spoke right into their headsets. It would've been very easy to have a separate PA system microphone at their position, as some PBX setups had. Note that way back then PBXs and key systems weren't so automated and most businesses had to have an attendant or receptionist answer the phone; that person could've easily served as an PA announcer, too. Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:10:51 -0400 From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <op.u9x8gdicitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:59:27 -0400, Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: >> Not Verizon here -- "former SNET land" means AT&T, just like for you. >> >> Think it's really "not getting the SS7 data"? or just not bothering >> to pass it along? >> >> And yes, our cellular carrier, like yours, is not AT&T (unlike yours, >> though, it's T-Mobile, not Sprint). >> >> Cheers, -- tlvp >> -- >> Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP >> > I forgot that SNET is now AT&T, never figured out why they sold out > to AT&T. They didn't -- they sold out to SBC. Ultimately SBC, after acquiring AT&T, decided to adopt its acquisition's name. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:16:56 -0400 From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <op.u9x8qijwitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:27:12 -0400, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote: > In article <pan.2010.03.20.06.20.03.611536@myrealbox.com>, >> >> ***** Moderator's Note ***** >> >> I've just realized that I don't remember how many digits the CLID >> field can carry. What's the limit? > > IIRC, there was a change a few years back (5+??) that upped 'phone number' > fields from 13 to 16 digits. Heh ... my "SBC/SNET" caller-ID box has display room for 10 digits and two hyphens in the CLID field, and 15 characters in the NameDisplay field. As I recall, that box was a "good-will" freebie from SBC, perhaps exactly because it was just obsoleted by virtue of that change :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:24:42 -0400 From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal Message-ID: <op.u9x83gdgitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:23:55 -0400, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote: > In article <op.u9uoiqx8itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>, > tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Interesting: here in former SNET land, inbound calls from Poland to >> our land-line never show any CLID, but inbound calls to our >> cell-phones always *do*. > > Is there any possibility of STUPID caller-id CPE on the land-line? > Certainly stupid CPE is at least as likely as inept CO SS7 signal-handling. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:34:28 -0400 From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: International CID transmission Message-ID: <op.u9x9jq2nitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:55:29 -0400, Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote: > Just wondered what other people's experience has been with > transmission of international caller ID transmission? I've found > that on several mobile carriers (T-Mobile NL and Orange IL) that > numbers are delivered (on my mobile as that person if they're in my > contacts on the phone) or the actual number in the format of > +country code/area code/number e.g. +97254NXXXXXX for an Orange > Israel number or +316NXXXXXXX for a T-Mobile Netherlands number. If > someone calls me from a land line in either Israel or the > Netherlands I get no CID data. In CT: from Orange(IL)-SIM-locked Israeli Motorola, roaming on Cingular, calling to domestic T-Mobile(US) handset: +9725xxyyyzzz, as above. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition 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 Bill Horne. 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. The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom 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 Copyright (C) 2009 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. 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 The Telecom Digest (26 messages)