|
|
The Telecom Digest for May 15, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 132 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Caller ID Spoofing Puts Innocent Man In Jail (Sam Spade)
WV-PSC Okays Sale of BOC VeriZon/Atlantic/C&P-of-WV to Frontier (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: Phone number helped track terror suspect (David Clayton)
Re: Phone Number Tracking Terrorists (Randall)
Re: New attack bypasses virtually all AV protection (T)
====== 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: Thu, 13 May 2010 18:13:12 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Caller ID Spoofing Puts Innocent Man In Jail
Message-ID: <zfydnWAga600PnHWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Steven wrote:
>>Me:
>> If I were the victim I would be speaking with an attorney about the
>> police's haste, and lack of understanding of how lousy Caller ID info
>> can be. Seems like they should have first put a trap on the women's
>> line, then looked at ANI before they went gestapo.
>>
You:
> The same could be said in the way that The Internet was set up, had some
> changes had been made as the net aged we would not have the spam
> problems we have now, or at least we would really know who the spammer was.
>
I'm not sure I agree because the PSTN is basically a closed system
unlike the Internet.
Plus, if someone Spams someone else, the hapless, innocent chef doesn't
end up close to being shot and then spending 5 days in the slammer.
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 23:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: WV-PSC Okays Sale of BOC VeriZon/Atlantic/C&P-of-WV to Frontier
Message-ID: <683232.72624.qm@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
On Thursday NIGHT, the WV-PSC approved VeriZon's sale of legacy BOC
Bell Atlantic (Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone) to Frontier.
This is the last of all of the 9 such states which were required to
approve of any sale of VZ to Frontier for their own states, in the
14 states of the overall transaction. All of the other states involve
legacy GTE and Contel of VeriZon, while West Virginia is legacy BOC
(C&P Tel) of VeriZon.
Today, Thursday 13-May-2010, is the anniversary of VeriZon and Frontier
announcing the intended sale, back on Wednesday 13-May-2009.
There are numerous news/media/press/etc. reports on this, especially from
radio/TV/newspaper/etc. websites, which can all be found from doing
Google "News" searches.
The West Virginia Public Service Commission's "Order", dated Thursday
13-May-2010, can be downloaded as a pdf file (over 6-megs), from the
webpage for this VZ/Frontier filing with the WV-PSC on this matter:
http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/tblCaseActivitiesList.cfm?CaseID=36696
The FCC still needs to approve the entire deal, the sale of VeriZon's
legacy GTE (and Contel) exchange areas in most of the states where they
still have retained such legacy GTE (and Contel), as well as the sale of
VZ' legacy BOC Bell-Atlantic/C&P-Tel-of-WV, all to Frontier. The FCC's
webpage with downloadable documents for this matter is:
http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/frontier-verizon.html
Additionally, the ratecenter of Crows-Hematite VA, a very small rural and
rather isolated settlement with a low population, gets its dial-tone from
the VZ/BA/C&P-WV ratecenter/c.o.switch of White Sulphur Springs WV, which
is to be sold to Frontier. ALL are associated with the Charleston WV LATA.
While Crows-Hematite VA is close the VZ/BA/C&P-VA Roanoke VA LATA, and
has inter-LATA EAS with nTelos'/Clifton-Forge-Wayne's ILEC's ratecenters
of Clifton Forge VA, Covington VA, and Potts Creek VA, there are NO
other nearby VeriZon/Bell-Atlantic/C&P-VA exchanges/switches nearby to
"rewire" the Crows-Hematite VA customers over to -- and it could also
require a LATA-change as well, if it were to happen. (nTelos/CF-W ILEC
also serves Waynesboro VA, but that too is a bit of a distance away from
Clifton Forge/Covington/Potts Creek VA). ALL of the Roanoke VA LATA
ratecenters surrounding Crows-Hematite for something like 40-50 miles
(within VA) are all "independent", NOT VZ/BA/C&P-VA!
Frontier has applied to the Virginia State Corporation Commission to be
an ILEC within the state of Virginia (they have no other presence as an
ILEC in Virginia), specifically to be the new ILEC for Crows-Hematite VA,
taken over from VeriZon (C&P-Va). The VA-SCC has a docket on file, and
documents can be downloaded from:
http://docket.scc.virginia.gov/vaprod/DOCUMENTS.ASP?MATTER_NO=127929
The VA-SCC still has to approve of this sale.
VeriZon is in the process of re-aligning certain central-office dial-tone
provision in a handful of communities along the MD/VA state-line, in the
western part of WV's eastern panhandle/ western part of MD's western
panhandle. This (both the small part of eastern WV, and western MD) is
all a part of the Haggerstown MD LATA. Some Maryland ratecenters/customers
of VZ/BA/C&P-MD have been getting their dial-tone from VZ/BA/C&P-WV
c.o.switches in West Virginia for decades. Vice-versa, some West Virginia
ratecenters/customers of VZ/BA/C&P-WV have been getting their dial-tone
from VZ/BA/C&P-MD c.o.switches in Maryland for decades. VeriZon (C&P) is
re-aligning these customers/ratecenters so that they will soon receive
their dial-tone from nearby VZ (C&P) c.o.switches in their own state.
EXISTING legacy local/EAS (intra-LATA) calling (both intra-state and
inter-state) that has existed for decades WILL CONTINUE, only now if it
is inter-state, it will also be inter-company (between VeriZon/C&P-MD and
Frontier in West Virginia).
VeriZon is retaining legacy GTE (and Contel) in Pennsylvania and Virginia
which are both Bell-Atlantic BOC states of VeriZon -- Bell-of-PA and
C&P-of-Va.
North Carolina is one of the states where VeriZon is selling off old GTE
(including Contel), over to Frontier. However, the somewhat isolated
ratecenter of Knotts Island NC (once-Contel-later-GTE) is being retained
by VeriZon. Knotts Island NC is either a barrier island or a peninsula
that extends south from the eastern coast of Virginia. There is a remote
switch at Knotts Island (it does not get its dial-tone from Virginia,
though), but the only access by land to Knotts Island NC is through
Virginia. There is a ferry boat connecting Knotts Island NC with the
mainland of eastern NC though, and the mainland part of NC in the area
is Carolina-Tel-and-Tel/United/Sprint/Embarq-now-part-of-CenturyLink and
the United/CenturyLink "Rocky Mount NC" LATA. Knotts Island NC is rather
a part of the VZ/BA/C&P Norfolk VA LATA, and maintains a community of
interest with southeastern Virginia, which has traditionally been both
BOC C&P-VA and Contel, all now part of VeriZon. Note that there is also
some inter-LATA intra-state EAS/local between Knotts Island NC and the
CenturyLink (old United/Carolina-Tel) on the northeastern NC mainland.
VeriZon is retaining the legacy GTE (and Contel) that it has still
retained in California, although they are selling a handful of exchanges
that border Oregon (old GTE/West Coast, which is more associated with
GTE and its predecessors for OR/WA/ID), and also border Nevada (old
Contel, not too far from Reno/etc), and also border Arizona (old Contel),
over to Frontier, which also has a presence in Oregon, Nevada, and
Arizona. Back in the 1990s, Frontier's predecessor, Citizens Tel, bought
some old GTE and Contel in California that GTE chose not to retain.
VeriZon is retaining the legacy GTE/Contel in Texas that they did NOT
sell to Valor back in 2000 shortly after BA/NYNEX bought GTE/Contel to
become Frontier. (Valor was a brand new ILEC created circa 2000 or so,
mostly to buy legacy GTE/Contel in Oklahoma, New Mexico, and SOME
exchanges in Texas including both the TX and AR sides of Texarkana;
other GTE/Contel areas in Arkansas were sold by VZ to CenturyTel. In
2006, Valor merged with the landline side that Alltel spun-off when
Alltel was to be wireless-only, to form the new Windstream; Alltel
Wireless is mostly now being merged into VeriZon-Wireless).
And VeriZon is retaining legacy GTE in Florida, all in the Tampa Bay/etc.
metro area, which is all its own LATA, and has been General Telephone for
over 50 years now.
I might have mentioned in previous postings that Florida had old GTE (the
Tampa Bay/etc. area) but that it never had any old Contel. It turns out
that is not true... in the old 904 area code of 1965 thru 1997, the
Florida panhandle and north-eastern Florida, Contel had five separate
small contiguous patches of service area. By the early 1980s or so, most
of it was sold to Centel (later merged into United to become Sprint then
spun-off-to-become-Embarq, now purchased by CenturyTel to become a part
of CenturyLink), and one exchange in the far western part of the
panhandle was sold to what has since become part of Frontier.
Contel was once present in 42 different states, all at the same time!
One of these states was Alaska (along with GTE, PTI) as well. The only
states where Contel never had any service were Mississippi, Hawaii (which
of course was 100% GTE-HTC), Massachusetts/ Rhode Island/ Connecticut,
and Maryland/ Delaware, and of course nothing in the (NOT a state) of DC
which like MA, RI, CT, MD, DE, is 99% or even 100% a BOC state. And
Contel was never present in Ohio, although there was (and still is) a
Continental Telephone Company in Ohio, however, this is NOT the same
"Contel". The Continental OHIO Telephone Company is a local home-grown
telco in the TOWN named "Continental OH"! And Contel once had a presence
in parts of Canada and the Caribbean as well!
GTE's one-time operations outside of the mainland US included parts of
Canada (MOST of British Columbia, much of eastern Quebec), Hawaii,
Alaska, the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, and even a small
interest in Venezuela's CANTV), and in addition to Hawaiian Tel, General
also owned Micronesian Telecom in the Mariana Islands (Saipan/etc) but
NOT to be confused with the Federated States of Micronesia... and until
1967 also PLDT Philippine Long Distance Telephone (ILEC and LD), when
friends of the Marcos family took over GT&E's interests in PLDT.
Mark J. Cuccia
markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA, pre-Katrina
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 16:11:14 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Phone number helped track terror suspect
Message-ID: <pan.2010.05.14.06.11.10.890283@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 13 May 2010 12:37:32 +0000, danny burstein wrote:
.........
> And the very first episode of "The Lone Gunmen" [a], a spinoff from "The X
> Files" following the exploits of the three somewhat strange...
> technogeeks, had the plot device of a jetliner about to crash into the
> WTC. Oh, and this aired in March, 2001.
>
> No one ever claimed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ever watched it...
Since that show didn't last very long, I'd say the ratings proved very few
people ever watched it on the air..... and the DVDs would have come out
well after September 2001.
It is amazing how some people seem to believe that they are the only ones
capable of coming up with a particular idea, innit?
--
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: Fri, 14 May 2010 07:19:02 -0400
From: Randall <rvh40@remove-this.insigthbb.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Phone Number Tracking Terrorists
Message-ID: <B7417C50-6426-4D4B-98A3-70EF883742DC@remove-this.insigthbb.com>
On May 14, 2010, at 3:20 AM, telecom-owner@telecom-digest.org wrote:
> From: "Gray, Charles" <charles.gray@okstate.edu>
> To: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org.
> Subject: Phone Number Tracking Terrorists
> Message-ID:
> <18AC66D00A844644BF202001BCE0FE26039C32B20C@STWEXE3.ad.okstate.edu>
>
...
> I still believe that in war, there are just some things that "the
> public" doesn't need to know. There is still wisdom in the WW II
> security poster that said "Loose lips sink ships".
And that reveals the genius behind declaring war on a tactic such as
"Terrorism" - that war will NEVER end!
(See "Drugs, War on ..." for details)
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 11:44:26 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New attack bypasses virtually all AV protection
Message-ID: <MPG.265739e7e885fde8989cdf@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <p062408aec80d2bc36398@[10.0.1.4]>, monty@roscom.com says...
>
> New attack bypasses virtually all AV protection
> Bait, switch, exploit!
>
> By Dan Goodin in San Francisco
>
> Posted in Security, 7th May 2010 18:17 GMT
>
> Researchers say they've devised a way to bypass protections built in
> to dozens of the most popular desktop anti-virus products, including
> those offered by McAfee, Trend Micro, AVG, and BitDefender.
>
> The method, developed by software security researchers at
> matousec.com (http://www.matousec.com/), works by exploiting the
> driver hooks the anti-virus programs bury deep inside the Windows
> operating system. In essence, it works by sending them a sample of
> benign code that passes their security checks and then, before it's
> executed, swaps it out with a malicious payload.
>
> The exploit has to be timed just right so the benign code isn't
> switched too soon or too late. But for systems running on multicore
> processors, matousec's "argument-switch" attack is fairly reliable
> because one thread is often unable to keep track of other
> simultaneously running threads. As a result, the vast majority of
> malware protection offered for Windows PCs can be tricked into
> allowing malicious code that under normal conditions would be blocked.
>
> ...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/07/argument_switch_av_bypass/
So does this mean the older single core machines will be all the rage
again?
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 (5 messages)
|
or 