32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for January 29, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 23 : "text" Format
====== 32 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:14:48 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Coca-Cola Laptop Breach A Common Failure Of Encryption, Security Basics
Message-ID: <p06240823cf0d09352f3a@[172.16.42.4]>
Coca-Cola Laptop Breach A Common Failure Of Encryption, Security Basics
By Robert Westervelt
January 27, 2014
Coca-Cola is notifying employees, contractors and people associated
with its suppliers following a data breach at its Atlanta
headquarters that resulted in the theft of laptops and information
exposure on at least 74,000 people.
The laptops, which have been recovered, were stolen by a former
employee, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported
the security incident Monday. A Coca-Cola spokesperson did not return
repeated requests from CRN for a comment on Monday. Coca-Cola told
the newspaper that the laptop was not encrypted and contained the
names, Social Security numbers and addresses of the individuals and
included other details, such as driver's license numbers,
compensation and ethnicity.
The firm said the laptops were stolen by an employee who was assigned
to properly dispose of the equipment. The newspaper reported that
Coca-Cola is sending out notification letters to 18,000 people whose
names and Social Security numbers were found on the laptops as well
as 56,000 people who had other personal information potentially
exposed.
...
http://www.crn.com/news/security/240165711/coca-cola-laptop-breach-a-common-failure-of-encryption-security-basics.htm
-or-
http://goo.gl/YXdm0x
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:09:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Aereo Update: And the Question is . . .
Message-ID: <a6c77e3a-4cf5-492b-bc74-4d97f600f4a4@googlegroups.com>
On Monday, January 27, 2014 12:16:21 PM UTC-6, Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article <586a2d35-9d9e-4123-b31f-07b4c79b91a9@googlegroups.com>
> Never mind that: the broadcaster owns a compilation copyright on
> their broadcast output -- syndicated programs, network programs,
> local programs, and commercials integrated into a single product
> -- and that would be sufficient to deny Aereo the use of the
> signals if Aereo is found to be engaged in "public performance".
> (I don't know if ABC actually made a claim for compilation
> copyright in the lower courts; if not, they forfeited that
> particular issue on appeal, but have other grounds as Neal rightly
> notes.)
But the broadcaster still has to enter into some sort of deal to
obtain the right to the programming it broadcasts even if it rolls
them all into a compilation copyright on the end product. The
counterparty of that deal may be an affiliated broadcast network, a
syndication vendor, a production company, an employee's paycheck, a
musician, a photographer, a scene designer, a carpenter, whatever.
And one or more of these counterparties is surely going to base its
price on the number of end users -- in this case viewing households.
> Most MVPDs are not architected to emulate the Aereo model...
Agreed. But they can certainly build the necessary architecture if
the financial return justifies it.
> ... and they have contractual relationships with many big broadcast
> groups thanks to the non-broadcast programming they carry that
> could make it difficult to do so.
True, in cases where the big broadcast group (e.g. ABC stations) is
co-owned by the same company (e.g. Disney) that owns the non-broadcast
programming (e.g. ABC Family; ESPN). Independent group owners (e.g.
Belo and Sinclair) usually don't sell non-broadcast programming.
> Satellite in particular has no way they could do what Aereo does,
> since it is purely a broadcast medium.
MVPDs already have satellite signals at their headends. Obviously
they couldn't distribute them without carriage agreements with the
program suppliers. And yes, they'd have to pay license fees for
carrying them no matter which technology they use for distribution
-- NTSC, "digital cable", or IP.
I agree that some big programmer could try to engage in reverse
bundling -- something like "if you want to carry ESPN, you have to
pay retrans-consent fees for the ABC station even if you pick it up
with an array of tiny antennas." That could precipitate an
interesting lawsuit under the Sherman Act.
> Cable providers in many areas would have difficulty siting Aereo-
> style tuner/antenna arrays in sufficient number to serve all of
> their customers close enough to the transmitter sites to get usable
> signals.
In my experience, it's the other way around. It's easier and cheaper
to lease a corner of a farmer's field a few miles out-of-town than
the top floor (or rooftop) of an urban building.
> Aereo has chosen its initial markets carefully; don't expect them
> to build out Rockford or El Paso any time soon.
Like the radio, television, telephones, electric power, running water,
sanitary sewers, even the internet, Aereo is starting in the major
markets. If it survives the current legal spat (and if the ROI
justifies it), my guess is that it will work its way down to smaller
DMAs including Rockford and El Paso.
At this point I have to note the exception to the above rule: Cable
Television. CATV started in rural communities and then worked its
way into larger communities. The eternal question -- which one came
first? -- remains a mystery. My friend Robert B. "Coop" Cooper has
written an exhaustive study of this question. I have posted it on
The Old CATV Equipment Museum website at:
http://theoldcatvequipmentmuseum.org/220/226/2262/index.html
Neal McLain
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:15:10 -0600
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Personal Cell Phone Wipe by Employers
Message-ID: <-tCdndjnr_kjvXrPnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Matt Simpson <usenet@news.jmatt.net> writes:
> When you connect a cell phone to an Exchange system via Active Sync,
> you give the Exchange administrator a LOT of control. Aside from
> wiping your phone, the admin can also selectively enable/disable
> many of the phone's capabilities.
And Apple has the iPhone Configuration Utility for enterprise
deployment of configuration and control of iOS devices.
"iPhone Configuration Utility lets you easily create, maintain,
encrypt, and install configuration profiles, track and install
provisioning profiles and authorized applications, and capture device
information including console logs.
Configuration profiles are XML files that contain device security
policies, VPN configuration information, Wi-Fi settings, APN settings,
Exchange account settings, mail settings, and certificates that permit
iPhone and iPod touch to work with your enterprise systems."
And also allows remote wipe, remote lock, etc.
--
Doug McIntyre
doug@themcintyres.us
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:58:52 -0500
From: Bob K <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: : Re: Aereo Update: And the Question is . . .
Message-ID: <52E7EFDC.2040408@Rochester.RR.com>
On 1/27/2014 1:16 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
> Never mind that: the broadcaster owns a compilation copyright on their
> broadcast output -- syndicated programs, network programs, local
> programs, and commercials integrated into a single product -- and
> that would be sufficient to deny Aereo the use of the signals if Aereo
> is found to be engaged in "public performance". (I don't know if ABC
> actually made a claim for compilation copyright in the lower courts;
> if not, they forfeited that particular issue on appeal, but have other
> grounds as Neal rightly notes.)
>
I guess I am at a loss to really understand some of this.
It the olden days, TV stations made their money by selling advertising
time. And, they still do seem to carry plenty of advertisements! It
was my understanding the more viewers they had, the more they would be
able to charge for an advertising spot.
To increase their viewing audience, stations spend a lot of money
running as much power as the FCC will allow, with huge towers to make
sure their signal reaches everyone within their coverage area. In
some areas they may install translators to fill in dead spot, and all
this costs money. The reason they do that is to service as many
households they can -- and hence charge the advertisers as much as
they can.
On the other side of the coin, since they are using a public resource
-- the frequency slice they have licensed to them, I think the FCC
still mandates they offer at least one signal that viewers can receive
without paying any direct charges.
Now, when a service provider, like a cable company or satellite
company, picks up that broadcast and makes it available to their
customers, that is a case of "one hand washing the other". That
signal makes the TV signal available to the customers of the service
-- and therefore more attractive. But, on the other hand, it also
makes the broadcast signal available to more viewers -- and hence
increases the price that can be charged to the advertisers.
If a TV station is allowed to charge a cable company to retransmit
their signal -- that charge isn't paid by the cable company, but
rather is passed on to the cable company customer. Who are we
kidding? The consumer always pays in the end.
Take a look at how many local stations are carried on your cable
system. Multiply that by the charge being paid by the cable company
back to the TV station. I'm not sure just how much that is -- but if
the TV station is charging a dollar per month for every subscriber --
that ends up a tax on every subscriber for the potential ability to
watch that station. And, that is whether or not the end viewer ever
wants to watch a particular station.
It would seem to me that any time a TV station can get someone to help
distribute their signal to more viewers, they should be paying (not
charging) for that service.
...Bob
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:29:30 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Person Cell Phone Wipe by Employers
Message-ID: <52E8759A.2020409@thadlabs.com>
On 1/24/2014 10:47 AM, Pete Cresswell wrote:
> Per Andrew Kaser:
>> Some Companies Wipe Workers' Personal Cellphones Clean After They Leave
>
> Can anybody describe how they do that? Seems like there would have to
> be some sort of authentication/permission involved on the user's phone.
We had a similar thread here in 2010 that I initiated on 11/23/2010
"When you company remote-wipes your personal phone" in which I wrote
on Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:04:08 -0800 the following:
" NPR has a story about someone whose personal iPhone got remotely
" wiped by their employer.
"
"
&http://www.npr.org/2010/11/22/131511381/wipeout-when-your-company-kills-your-iphone
&
"
" It was actually a mistake, but it was something of a surprise
" because they didn't believe they had given their employer any
" kind of access to do that. This may already be very familiar to
" Microsoft Exchange admins, but the problem was her iPhone's
" integration with MS Exchange
"
"
&http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/integration/
&
"
" automatically gives the server admin access to do remote wipes.
" All you have to do is configure the phone to receive email from
" an MS Exchange server and the server admin can wipe your phone at
" will. The phone wasn't bricked, even though absolutely all of its
" data was wiped, because the data could be restored from backup,
" assuming that someone had remembered to make one. But this also
" works on other devices like iPads, Blackberry phones, and other
" smartphones that integrate with MS Exchange. So if you read your
" work email on your personal phone or tablet, you might want to
" make sure that you keep backups, just in case.
and I followed-up on Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:42:35 -0800 with the
following:
" [...]
" the problem was her iPhone's integration with MS Exchange
"
"
&http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/integration/
&
"
" which automatically gives the server admin access to do remote
" wipes. All you have to do is configure the phone to receive
" email from an MS Exchange server and the server admin can wipe
" your phone at will.
"
" Per the Business Deployment guide available at the above URL or
" here:
"
"
&http://images.apple.com/iphone/business/docs/iPhone_Business.pdf
&
"
" on page 2 it's quite clear the iPhone can be wiped per this
" copy'n'paste:
"
" iPhone communicates directly with your Microsoft Exchange Server
" via Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync (EAS), enabling push email,
" calendar, and contacts. Exchange ActiveSync also provides users
" with access to the Global Address List (GAL), and provides
" administrators with passcode policy enforcement and remote wipe
" capabilities. iPhone supports both basic and certificate-based
" authentication for Exchange ActiveSync. If your company currently
" enables Exchange ActiveSync, you have the necessary services in
" place to support iPhone -- no additional configuration is
" required. If you have Exchange Server 2003, 2007, or 2010 but
" your company is new to Exchange ActiveSync, review the following
" steps ...
" [...]
" Download and install the Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync Mobile
" Administration Web Tool, which is necessary to initiate a remote
" wipe. For Exchange Server 2007 and 2010, remote wipe can also be
" initiated using Outlook Web Access or the Exchange Management
" Console.
"
" on page 14:
"
" And if the device falls into the wrong hands, users and IT
" administrators can initiate a remote wipe command to erase
" private information.
"
" on page 16:
"
" If a device is lost or stolen, it's important to deactivate
" and erase the device. It's also a good idea to have a policy
" in place that will wipe the device after a defined number of
" failed passcode attempts, a key deterrent against attempts to
" gain unauthorized access to the device.
"
" [...]
"
" REMOTE WIPE
"
" iPhone supports remote wipe. If a device is lost or stolen, the
" administrator or device owner can issue a remote wipe command
" that removes all data and deactivates the device. If the device
" is configured with an Exchange account, the administrator can
" initiate a remote wipe command using the Exchange Management
" Console (Exchange Server 2007) or Exchange ActiveSync Mobile
" Administration Web Tool (Exchange Server 2003 or 2007). Users of
" Exchange Server 2007 can also initiate remote wipe commands
" directly using Outlook Web Access. Remote wipe commands can also
" be initiated by Mobile Device Management solutions even if
" Exchange corporate services are not in use.
"
" on page 19:
"
" This gives IT departments the ability to securely enroll iPhone
" in an enterprise environment, wirelessly configure and update
" settings, monitor compliance with corporate policies, and even
" remotely wipe or lock managed iPhone devices.
"
" on page 22:
"
" REMOTE WIPE
"
" A mobile device management server can remotely wipe an iPhone.
" This will permanently delete all media and data on the iPhone,
" restoring it to factory settings.
"
" So, it seems best to powerdown an iPhone before April 1 of any
" year to avoid corporate pranks from the IT department. :-)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:18:08 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Modems, wArEz, and ANSI art: Remembering BBS life at 2400bps
Message-ID: <MPG.2d523cfbef0837d1989f40@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <20140127163326.GA17239@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
bill@horneQRM.net says...
> ... BBS systems are going to make a comeback: with the NSA
> monitoring all the Internet traffic, and common carriers allowed to
> favor content they like, those wanting an added measure of privacy
> and transparency are likely to revive the BBS systems - and maybe
> even join FidoNet again!
I'm afraid that's probably moot too because they'll be listening in on
the wired phone circuits too.
Smoke signals might work - and amateur radio might still have some
value.
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 23:19:22 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Modems, wArEz, and ANSI art: Remembering BBS life at 2400bps
Message-ID: <20140129041922.GA21145@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:18:08PM -0500, T wrote:
> In article <20140127163326.GA17239@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
> bill@horneQRM.net says...
>
> > ... BBS systems are going to make a comeback: with the NSA
> > monitoring all the Internet traffic, and common carriers allowed to
> > favor content they like, those wanting an added measure of privacy
> > and transparency are likely to revive the BBS systems - and maybe
> > even join FidoNet again!
>
> I'm afraid that's probably moot too because they'll be listening in on
> the wired phone circuits too.
That might be true, or not: technically, it's possible, but I wonder
if the NSA's monitoring hardware is concentrated at the Internet
backbones to the exclusion of local dialup-data monitoring capability.
System such as W.A.S.T.E. could be installed so that small groups can
use a BBS for trading encrypted files, but (all kidding aside) they
will likely have to rely on Internet connections and (very) robust
encryption to keep the NSA out. Modems are going away because
circuit-switched phone connections are going away. The only ray of
hope for modem users is that FAX machines are still in use, so even
VoIP providers have had to made provisions for at least 14,400 bps
data.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Bright before me the signs implore me
To help the needy and show them the way
Human kindness is overflowing
And I think it's going to rain today
- Randy Newman
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:16:57 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Modems, wArEz, and ANSI art: Remembering BBS life at 2400bps
Message-ID: <MPG.2d523cb16454d5bb989f3f@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <p06240817cf0bbf6be35e@[172.16.42.4]>, monty@roscom.com
says...
>
> Modems, wArEz, and ANSI art: Remembering BBS life at 2400bps
>
> Here's how we geeked out in the era before the World Wide Web came to be.
>
> by Lee Hutchinson
> Jan 22 2014
> Ars Technica
>
> You've almost certainly never seen the place where I grew up, and you
> never will because it's long gone, buried by progress and made
> unreachable by technological erosion and the fine grind of time. What
> I did and learned there shaped me, but that knowledge is archaic and
> useless - who today needs to know the Hayes AT command set, the true
> baud rates of most common connection speeds, or the inner secrets of
> TheDraw? I am a wizard whose time has passed - a brilliant steam
> engine mechanic standing agape in the engine room of the starship
> Enterprise.
>
> I am a child of the BBS era. BBSs - that's "Bulletin Board Systems" -
> were sort of the precursors to the modern Internet, though that's not
> quite accurate, since the Internet evolved separately and in
> parallel. It would be more accurate to say that many people in their
> 30s and older today were introduced to the world of the Internet
> either through or because of the interlinked telephone universe of
> BBSs. That one experience begat the other.
>
> ...
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/01/modems-warez-and-ansi-art-remembering-bbs-life-at-2400bps/
>
> -or-
>
> http://goo.gl/1PWp2E
>
The only S command I can recall is ATS11=40 - that would set the inter-
digit time for DTMF dialing to 40ms. The #1A ESS systems around here at
the time worked with it. But if you got jacked and put on a #5 Xbar you
had to go out to 70ms.
***** Moderator's Note *****
IIRC,"ATA" would force a modem to answer a line, and "ATD" would
connect an outgoing call after it had been dialed on a separate phone.
"ATS0=0" would disable auto-answer.
Those commands came in handy when connecting various pieces of CO
equipment to modems, so that OEM techs could access the machines.
AFAIK, it's still done that way, as a security measure.
Bill Horne
Moderator
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.
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) 2014 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 (8 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues