|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 91 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Re: The Conficker Worm: April Fool's Joke or Unthinkable Disaster?
Re: The Conficker Worm: April Fool's Joke or Unthinkable Disaster?
Re: The Conficker Worm: April Fool's Joke or Unthinkable Disaster?
Re: The Conficker Worm: April Fool's Joke or Unthinkable Disaster?
====== 27 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: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:39:29 -0400
From: Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Message-ID: <gqvqqh$hc1$1@news.motzarella.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I am curious what kind of handling, back in the 1960s, a domestic
> letter marked "Air Mail" would get; that is, beyond having an airplane
> fly it instead of a train or truck, would it be expedited in other
> ways?
As I recall, as the 1960s went on much first-class mail also moved by
air. The mail that was designated as "Air Mail" got priority;
first-class mail flew on a space-available basis.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:13:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Conficker Worm: April Fool's Joke or Unthinkable Disaster?
Message-ID: <gqvspi$6hv$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <pan.2009.04.01.00.00.32.585665@myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:45:51 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/the-conficker-worm-april-fools-joke-or-unthinkable-disaster/
>>
>> The Conficker Worm: April Fool's Joke or Unthinkable Disaster?
>>
>> By JOHN MARKOFF
>> MARCH 19, 2009, 6:25 PM
>>
>.........
>> It is possible to detect and remove Conficker using commercial antivirus
>> tools offered by many companies. However, the most recent version of the
>> program has a significantly improved capacity to remove commercial
>> antivirus software and to turn off Microsoft's security update service. It
>> can also block communications with Web services provided by security
>> companies to update their products. It even systematically opens holes in
>> firewalls in an effort to improve its communication with other infected
>> computers.
>........
>Woo-hoo! something that will force more people into spending even more
>money upgrading their (obviously) inadequate Windows "security" tools.
If you go to: http://www.bdtools.net/
you can d/l a free detector/remover for Conficker.
Its a zip file, and if you have multiple PCs to check, distribute the
zip file and unzip it and run the exe (there are 2, a GUI version and a
linemode version) on each PC. It sets something so it will only run
once unless you buy the pay version.
--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
***** Moderator's Note *****
If you need AV software for Windows, go to
http://www.avg.com/product-avg-anti-virus-free-edition and download
the AVG product. There's no charge for non-commercial users.
Or, switch to Linux, which is both free and immune to Conficker and
most other threats.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Conficker Worm: April Fool's Joke or Unthinkable Disaster?
Message-ID: <ecac4618-991b-4b46-a296-d74a6a972146@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
So far (12:30pm Pacific time, April 1) only one of my customers is
suffering from what appears to be Conficker. I have had several calls
from non-customers and they sound like mild versions of Conficker. I
expect that I'll get to everyone by tonight.
Oh, and PS: I am in the habit of turning off and removing the anti-
virus programs from nearly all my customers' computers, feeling
confident that Windows firewall, a router, and an updated service pack
should be just fine. I also turn off unneeded services. And as I
said previously, only one of my hundreds of customers has any
problems. So much for needing McAfee, Norton, and the lesser-
knowns.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Although this is on the edge for telecom, I'm allowing it in order to
encourage a debate about security in the SS7 networks. It occurs to me
that it may be possible to code a worm which could allow remote access
to central office software, and there are no AV programs in CO's that
I know of.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:49:41 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Conficker Worm: April Fool's Joke or Unthinkable Disaster?
Message-ID: <WQUAl.3443$im1.164@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
David Kaye wrote:
> So far (12:30pm Pacific time, April 1) only one of my customers is
> suffering from what appears to be Conficker. I have had several calls
> from non-customers and they sound like mild versions of Conficker. I
> expect that I'll get to everyone by tonight.
>
> Oh, and PS: I am in the habit of turning off and removing the anti-
> virus programs from nearly all my customers' computers, feeling
> confident that Windows firewall, a router, and an updated service pack
> should be just fine. I also turn off unneeded services. And as I
> said previously, only one of my hundreds of customers has any
> problems. So much for needing McAfee, Norton, and the lesser-
> knowns.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Although this is on the edge for telecom, I'm allowing it in order to
> encourage a debate about security in the SS7 networks. It occurs to me
> that it may be possible to code a worm which could allow remote access
> to central office software, and there are no AV programs in CO's that
> I know of.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
I can't see how a virus could get on a switch, that is unless some fool
teck was using the terminal to go on the net and D/L something, I know
we are not allowed to leave our network on company computers. When I
need to do something I use my iBook and then I have the VPN set.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sam Spade <samspade@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Conficker Worm: April Fool's Joke or Unthinkable Disaster?
Message-ID: <69824.93085.qm@web44810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Although this is on the edge for telecom, I'm allowing it in order to
> encourage a debate about security in the SS7 networks. It occurs to me
> that it may be possible to code a worm which could allow remote access
> to central office software, and there are no AV programs in CO's that
> I know of.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
>
>
Don't think so, Bill. SS7 was developed first and foremost to get
interoffice signaling out of band to stop the blue boxers. The first
iteration was CCIS, common channel interoffice signaling. Remember
multi-freq? (I know you do.)
The old MF was just data carried on the voice channel; no direct
access to any aspect of the switch program or call control systems.
All the SS7 channel does is pass call setup information, including
CLID. Sure, CLID can be spoofed by those who control the CLID
origination message, but that is hardly access to the switch program
or call control software.
I can't speak for other LECs, but Pacific Bell (then SBC, now the new
AT&T) in California and Nevada used to let authorized engineers call
in on directory numbers that ported to switch software where they
could do everything they could do at the counsel in the central
office. That required a pass code, but the hackers figured that one
out. So, in the late 1980s, as I recall, they increased the security
to where an authorized engineer in the field would call network
control who had names, employee numbers, and pass codes that changed
weekly. If the engineer passed muster the network control supervisor
would open the port for five minutes. And, then use a one-time pass
code just assigned by the network center supervisor. So, if the
engineer in the field didn't get on in that time window the port would
close. A hacker could call the c.o. port number any other time and
get a no answer.
***** Moderator's Note *****
At N.E.T., they would simply unplug the modems: the vendors had to
call in to a control center, be vetted, and wait for a tech to go to
the office and plug in the access modem.
But that's not what worries me. The maintenance port is, of course, a
serious security concern, but it isn't safe to assume that SS7 is
"secure" because it's _supposed_ to carry only call data.
The problem isn't the network: the problem is that central office
software is a "monoculture", like Windows, and anyone who finds a hole
in one switch will have access to every switch that's connected to the
network.
I did, of course, publish that on April 1, so I'll say right now that
I'm serious (and it's April 2 now).
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
Please put at the end of your subject line, or I may never
see your post! Thanks!
We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator
atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via
email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the
digest, you don't need to change anything.
------------------------------
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 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.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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) 2008 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 (5 messages)
******************************
|
or 