30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for December 1, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 306 : "text" Format
====== 30 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: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:14:51 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pending legislation would allow robot calls to cell phones
Message-ID: <suhcd7t7up4hdgm4mluq20ngk7eo7ihcpk@4ax.com>
Per HAncock4:
> This bill apparently will allow sales calls to go to cell phones.
> As a low use cell phone user who still pays a la carte usage
> charges, I am naturally very upset at this proposal.
+1 - and, in spite of the obvious negative effects on a small
business operator who gets calls from customers, I am coming
around to the view expressed by others that "Caller Pays" would
solve the telemarketing problem.
--
PeteCresswell
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:23:51 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re.: Cell phones: more texting, less talking?
Message-ID: <pan.2011.11.30.07.23.49.549036@yahoo.com.au>
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 07:50:56 -0500, John Stahl wrote:
> On November 27, 2011, "HAncock4" wrote:
>
>> On the commuter train on Saturday I noticed it was quieter than usual.
>> Typically on a weekend many passengers, especially the younger ones, are
>> yakking away on their cell phones making the train rather noisy.
>> (That's why some railroads have introduced "quiet cars", though not on
>> weekends). Anyway, I did notice a number of passengers 'thumbing away',
>> that is, apparently sending and receiving text messages.
>
> Isn't it amazing how human beings (is it at a certain age level - or
> should I ask is it "up to" a certain age level) have become so non-verbal
> in their inter-personal communications?
..........
Yeah, I noticed that about 10 years ago when e-mail was the "bee's knees"
of electronic communication of that time.
--
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: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:42:05 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Security flaw in Apache could allow attackers into internal networks
Message-ID: <p06240873cafb646f373c@[10.0.1.4]>
Security flaw in Apache could allow attackers into internal networks
By Sean Gallagher
Ars Technica
A newly discovered flaw in Apache web servers could allow attackers
to use servers configured as "reverse proxies" to gain access to or
attack systems hidden from public view. The bug in Apache's reverse
proxy mode only affects servers that have been configured
incorrectly, but that error isn't an obvious one, since it doesn't
interfere with normal operations. The flaw could be used by attackers
to reach Web-enabled resources on other servers connected to the same
network as the proxy.
Reverse proxies are Web servers configured to pass Web requests to
other servers or resources transparently, providing access to
resources on an internal network to Web users while making it appear
that they reside on the server being accessed. They can be used to
provide load balancing of requests to back-end applications,
spreading requests out across multiple hidden servers, or as a way to
protect potentially vulnerable Web applications from attack.
...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/security-flaw-in-apache-could-allow-attackers-into-internal-networks.ars
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:41:05 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Researchers claim HP printers can be remotely controlled by hackers
Message-ID: <p06240870cafb63f01976@[10.0.1.4]>
HP printers can be remotely controlled and set on fire, researchers
claim (updated)
By Jon Brodkin
Ars Technica
Security researchers at Columbia University have accused HP of
selling printers with a flaw that could let hackers gain remote
control over the devices. Once compromised, the access can be used to
steal personal information, attack networks, and even set printers on
fire by feeding them a continuous stream of instructions designed to
heat them up.
The researchers, funded by government and industry grants, reported
the flaw to federal officials and HP this month, and gave a
demonstration to MSNBC, which has an extensive article on the subject
today. HP told MSNBC that it is reviewing the details, but denied
that the problem is as extensive as claimed by Columbia PhD student
Ang Cui and Professor Salvatore Stolfo.
...
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/hp-printers-can-be-remotely-controlled-and-set-on-fire-researchers-claim.ars
Date: 30 Nov 2011 19:49:26 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MSNBC/NYT: Caller ID Forging
Message-ID: <4ed688c6$0$79798$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
"Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net> writes:
>r.e.d. wrote:
>> Can someone point to technical articles/references/etc. giving
>> details about how various methods of caller-id spoofing work?
>... The obvious way to stop that abuse would be for
>the telco switches to verify that the number provided was associated with
>the trunk in question;
Most CLECs I have encounted lately do this filtering automatically.
For instance, on my PRI trunks, I can not send out a CLID number that
is not in my range of DIDs, whereas I could with the old ILEC trunks
on the same gear. When shopping around for trunks for my customers, I
couldn't find a CLEC that wouldn't not filter without going through a
lot of hoops. The ILEC was clueless on the question, but since they
are dinosaurs, their position may not have changed.
But that doesn't discount the bazillions of existing PRI trunks in
existance without the filtering. The LECs don't go around proactively
doing more filtering in fear of breaking things.
>I'm not sure if the proliferation of VoIP has created new mechanisms for
>caller ID forging; I hope someone familiar with the topic can comment.
Yep, VoIP systems can pass the CLID data along to be presented in a
side channel, and depending on the provider, can be pushed out and
sent along in the PSTN as the normal signalling upon normal call delivery.
Not all providers support such, and even less filter based on the VoIP
trunk DID ranges. Some other VoIP providers even provide a webpage to
set your outbound CLID data for your line.
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:51:26 -0500 (EST)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC removes report on AT&T/T-Mobile merger - Looking for original
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1111301349520.10625@panix5.panix.com>
- forwarding over as the original discussion
is semi-public, and he's asking for help in
finding an original, unredacted, copy.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:29:17 -0800
From: PRIVACY Forum mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Subject: [ PRIVACY Forum ] FCC removes report on AT&T/T-Mobile merger - Is the
replacement version the same?
FCC removes report on AT&T/T-Mobile merger - Is the replacement version the same?
http://j.mp/rHEMch
(This message on Google+)
- - -
Yesterday I noted the availability of a long FCC report explaining why
they felt the AT&T/T-Mobile merger was not in the pubic interest.
Various observers have interpreted the report as the FCC calling AT&T
a liar regarding various issues. AT&T condemned the release of the
report.
This morning I was flooded with messages noting a 404 on the relevant
FCC link.
The original report was (as far as I can tell now) at:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1129/DA-11-1955A2.pdf
This link is indeed now dead.
Until a few minutes ago, the cover letter for the report continued to
exist at:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1129/DA-11-1955A1.pdf
But that link has also now gone dead, though the Google Search results
for that URL still show that it was originally present.
The report now is available at:
http://transition.fcc.gov/transaction/ATT-TMO-redacted-PDF-final.pdf
This version shows significant blocks of redacted "Confidential
Information" and does not appear to be text searchable.
I did not have time yesterday to go through the report at the original
location in detail.
I would appreciate it if anyone who has a local copy of the report
from the original location, would confirm to me that the report from
both locations were identical -- in particular that the redactions
noted in the current version were present in the version that the FCC
apparently removed from its original URL.
Thanks much.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com):
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility:
http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:08:27 -0500
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: P.S. on Mobile Informational Call Act
Message-ID: <69c23$4ed67f28$adce29b0$27560@PRIMUS.CA>
HAncock4 wrote:
> They say if a consumer gives someone their cell phone number - say
> an airline - the airline would not be allowed to call it to report a
> delayed flight. I don't think that's accurate.
I wouldn't believe that to be the case, either, but when pursuing your
interests in the court of public opinion, spin (and even outright
deception) are the rule, not the exception.
Long ago, I must have provided my bank with my cellphone number - I'm
not sure whether it was clearly marked as such, but I probably would
have put my home number in first so I would think that it was. A
couple of years back they called it to tell me of some new service
they were offering that they thought I might be interested in. When I
informed them that this was my mobile number and could they kindly not
use it for marketing, the indignant caller remarked that I had
provided them with the number myself... I told her that I provided the
bank with my mobile number so that, for instance, if they suspected my
card was being used fraudulently they could reach me quickly wherever
I was to verify the transaction, and that they could stick to my home
number for marketing. To the bank's credit, they haven't called my
cellphone since.
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:11:20 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pending legislation would allow robot calls to cell phones
Message-ID: <nrhcd7loc588crca4uccn6vhqajjov6hq1@4ax.com>
Per HAncock4:
> Further, I don't understand how Congress could propose this given
> how much everyday citizens hate the telemarketing calls they get
> now.
Call me a cynic, but the only explanation I can come up with is
payola.
--
PeteCresswell
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:20:29 -0600
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MSNBC/NYT: Caller ID Forging
Message-ID: <jb5vm1$4tt$1@dont-email.me>
On 11/28/2011 3:28 PM, Geoffrey Welsh wrote:
> I'm not sure if the proliferation of VoIP has created new mechanisms
> for caller ID forging; I hope someone familiar with the topic can
> comment.
I can configure my VoIP CID to show any arbitrary number.
Interestingly, I can't configure the name, that is apparently
controlled not by my VoIP vendor, but by another party (whether the
original telco that had my number (Qwest), or the local company (XO)
who seems to be somehow involved with the ported number, I don't
know).
Dave
***** Moderator's Note *****
Good question. Of course, the "name" shown in a caller-id display is
ultimately from LIDB, but I'd like someone to review the process
that populates the database from which caller-id-with-name is drawn.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:00:43 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Video shows alarming capabilities of mobile tracking software
Message-ID: <p0624087fcafbdd77b6d0@solomon.telecom-digest.org>
Carrier IQ Video Shows Alarming Capabilities Of Mobile Tracking Software
Devin Coldewey
You may be aware of the growing controversy surrounding Carrier IQ, a
piece of software found pre-installed on Sprint phones that, according
to developers who have investigated, is capable of detecting,
recording, and transmitting various user actions and inputs. Among the
data CIQ potentially has access to are location, SMS, apps, and key
presses.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/29/carrier-iq-video-shows-alarming-capabilities-of-mobile-tracking-software/
BUSTED! Secret app on millions of phones logs key taps
Researcher says seeing is believing
By Dan Goodin in San Francisco
30 November 2011
An Android app developer has published what he says is conclusive
proof that millions of smartphones are secretly monitoring the key
presses, geographic locations, and received messages of its users.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/30/smartphone_spying_app/
Carrier IQ Part #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T17XQI_AYNo
Android Security Test
http://androidsecuritytest.com/features/logs-and-services/loggers/carrieriq/carrieriq-part2/
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) 2011 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 (10 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues