|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 210 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: TLS vs S/MIME (was: Skype threat)
Re: TLS vs S/MIME (was: Skype threat)
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: What is this device called
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Manipulation and abuse of the consumer credit reporting agencies
====== 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:00:40 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.31.05.00.38.501064@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:14:37 -0400, David Clayton wrote:
........
> The problem with proposing such draconian methods is that they make us
> seem powerless and frustrated. I propose a more modest solution: the phone
> could be confiscated and held at a local police station until the offender
> picks it up: that's a measured response which discourages further abuse.
>
Fair enough, then take out the SIM card and hand it to the perp, keep the
handset for a few weeks (or to be forfeit if eventually found guilty) and
let 'em go through the hassle of setting up another phone with all the
contacts etc. that cannot be stored in the SIM.
A few cycles of that should discourage some of the tech junkies who
seemingly cannot do without using their toys while driving.
Vehicles are confiscated and crushed for being misused in a dangerous
manner, phones should be no different.
--
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, 31 Jul 2009 05:40:17 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <hl0575945npci3qdpr2vtjq0s4vat74rbl@4ax.com>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>I invited a SSU freshman class to go to Santa Rosa for a film and dinner.
>The first thing that some of these teens did at the restaurant was to put
>their cell phones on the dinner table.
>
>Their little gadgets promptly vibrated, buzzed and made a variety of
>demanding sounds. My dinner guests were soon miles away texting, having
>what sounded like one-way conversations intruding into our dinner and
>playing phone games, ignoring the rest of us at the table in front of
>them.
>
>What happened to old-fashioned connective mealtime conversations?
I guess I'm revealing my approximate age when I state I was highly
irritated when I got my third and fourth cell phone call of this month
today. I've been aiming for two calls or less a month but not getting
there.
When I look at the stats inside the phone I've had two hours of calls
in the last year that I've had the phone with the average call length
being 90 seconds.
I've also sent and received 4 or 6 text messages but mostly for
testing purposes.
I'm on a prepaid plan where I stuff in $100 per year. I'm the
cellco's worst nightmare as I'm sure I won't consume that in a year.
Hehehehehe
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
***** Moderator's Note *****
It starts with "4 or 6" test messages, and then, there you are
standing up in the support group saying "and now I need surgery on
both thumbs...". ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:19:03 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <bKMcm.11205$sC1.5912@newsfe17.iad>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> It starts with "4 or 6" test messages, and then, there you are
> standing up in the support group saying "and now I need surgery on
> both thumbs...". ;-)
>
Why does anyone who has a smart phone that can send and receive email
need text messaging at all?
Have we finally drunk the Kool-Aid?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:16:21 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.31.05.16.19.851912@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:46:11 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 7/30/2009 5:15 AM, David Clayton wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:56:33 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote: ........
>>> As mentioned at prior-cited URLs regarding Echelon, the loophole in
>>> present law is that "non-USA entities" are freely allowed to monitor
>>> intra-USA communications, presently rendering moot whether Uncle Sam
>>> can monitor (or not) its citizen's voice and data communications. The
>>> "non-USA entities" includes the USA's Echelon partners (UK, Canada,
>>> Australia and New Zealand).
>>
>> Hey, just because some of us have on our territory large US listening
>> posts doesn't mean we have access to what they collect.
>
> Understood.
>
> I'm not privy to how/what information is exchanged/shared, and if I were
> I wouldn't be able to reveal that. :-)
>
> My guess is the post(s) in your country are ground stations for the
> satellites.
As a citizen in a country with numerous US military/surveillance
installations, I still remember the laughter quite a few years ago when
our government "negotiated" access to some of the collected information as
part of a deal to keep housing the bases when their leases were expiring.
The laughter was our government trying to assure people that the info we
would get access to was of any worth rather than some sort of token
gesture to keep justifying the presence of foreign bases to the local
electorate - and we all had a good chuckle because no one at all took the
agreement seriously.
Even when it was pointed out that each and every US base on Australian
soil most likely has its own Russian nuclear missile pointed at it,
most people seem to think that is an acceptable situation.
--
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, 31 Jul 2009 06:14:29 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Message-ID: <4A72EE35.20106@thadlabs.com>
On 7/31/2009 5:26 AM, David Clayton wrote:
> [...]
> As a citizen in a country with numerous US military/surveillance
> installations, I still remember the laughter quite a few years ago when
> our government "negotiated" access to some of the collected information as
> part of a deal to keep housing the bases when their leases were expiring.
>
> The laughter was our government trying to assure people that the info we
> would get access to was of any worth rather than some sort of token
> gesture to keep justifying the presence of foreign bases to the local
> electorate - and we all had a good chuckle because no one at all took the
> agreement seriously.
>
> Even when it was pointed out that each and every US base on Australian
> soil most likely has its own Russian nuclear missile pointed at it,
> most people seem to think that is an acceptable situation.
Your last sentence brings back memories of the spine-chilling situation here
in Silicon Valley.
At the intersection of two major freeways, US-101 and Calif. Hwy 237, was
the absolute number 1 military target of the former USSR: the Air Force's
"Satellite Test Center" aka The Blue Cube aka Onizuka Air Force Station.
It was the primary control center of all USA's spy satellites (and just 4
miles from my home) flanking what was Moffett Field Naval Air Station and,
then Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, now Lockheed-Martin.
Every year for decades the San Jose Mercury News featured a several-page
layout showing the extent of blast damage to Silicon Valley and environs
from an air-blast thermonuclear weapon. And that, too, was supposedly deemed
an acceptable situation. NOT.
I believe we should end this thread -- we're getting way off the topic of
telephony and I appreciate the moderator's (Bill's) tolerance to date.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Ah, but it wouldn't be summer without a little nostalgia. However,
you're right, it's time for the thread to end.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:38:23 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <4A72753F.2030602@thadlabs.com>
On 7/30/2009 8:51 PM, Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> [...]
> It's common to see a woman on a cellphone in her SUV with several
> kids in the car, trying to navigate through a tight left turn lane.
One can only wish and hope that maternal instinct would prevail and
they'd stop using cell phones while driving unless they're competing
for the Darwin Awards (which shouldn't be done on public roads).
Each new day I'm more convinced cell phone use by a driver, handsfree
or not, should be illegal and carry a hefty fine (> $1,000 1st time)
because people are simply not using good sense.
Distracted driving laws and enforcement should include eating, preening,
texting and anything else affecting safe driving.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:26:21 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <4vv47557nvi2v6d1sjlfjrtjv405ddoltn@4ax.com>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> When there are multiple people in the car, the conversation is as
>much of a distraction as using a cellphone is.
I disagree for the most part. Generally a passenger will notice that things are
getting a bit dicey and keep quiet for a bit while the merge or lane change or turn
is happening.
Also it's a lot easier to tell a passenger hold on a sec. I've had to help people on
the cell phone two or three times to hang on until they stop babbling.
Not always of course.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:34:03 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: TLS vs S/MIME (was: Skype threat)
Message-ID: <l90575h1cgm1remnrfk0h57gmh4cl5tgmt@4ax.com>
Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net> wrote:
>> (Regretfully the email software I've been using since 1995, Eudora, has
>> *lousy* support for S/MIME.
>
>I'm another diehard Eudora fan. I'm using Eudora's TLS capability to
>encrypt the traffic between Eudora and my mail server. Is this less
>secure or desirable than S/MIME?
I'd forgotten about TLS. Indeed I'm using it on one of my email accounts on a US
based email server that I don't control. Hehehehe
>I don't know squat about S/MIME. From
>a few seconds of Googling, it looks like it provides signature
>verification capability, which isn't included in TLS.
S/MIME can provide signature/envelope verification but also provides encryption.
Assuming that both parties to the email have previous exchanged emails with their
pubilc keys attached.
>But if you're
>just interested in protecting your email from prying eyes on the net,
>signatures aren't really necessary.
Correct. But then you know someone hasn't inserted or deleted anything in the email.
>****** Moderator's Note *****
>
>The advantage of S/MIME or PGP is that they are End-To-End encryption
>methods. TLS, OTOH, is only secure up to the server, and the emails
>are stored in plaintext inside the machine.
Correct. Especially if you replace the last word machine with server.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:06:56 -0400
From: Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: TLS vs S/MIME (was: Skype threat)
Message-ID: <net-news69-93A10F.13065631072009@news.toast.net>
I
> >****** Moderator's Note *****
> >
> >The advantage of S/MIME or PGP is that they are End-To-End encryption
> >methods. TLS, OTOH, is only secure up to the server, and the emails
> >are stored in plaintext inside the machine.
>
Smacking self in head. DUH! If I'd thought about it for a few seconds,
I would have remembered that.
It doesn't really matter in my case, since I don't correspond with
anybody else who cares enough about privacy to use encryption. So TLS
encryption between my client and server is the best I can get anyway.
But yeah, if both ends care enough about security to want an end-to-end
solution, TLS ain't gonna do it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:16:52 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <8bJcm.41$nh2.17@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 7/30/2009 2:08 PM, John Mayson wrote:
>> [...]
>> I invited a SSU freshman class to go to Santa Rosa for a film and
>> dinner. The first thing that some of these teens did at the restaurant
>> was to put their cell phones on the dinner table.
>
> That "should" have been a signal for the waiters to collect the
> phones (and return them after dinner). Seriously.
>
>> Their little gadgets promptly vibrated, buzzed and made a variety of
>> demanding sounds. My dinner guests were soon miles away texting, having
>> what sounded like one-way conversations intruding into our dinner and
>> playing phone games, ignoring the rest of us at the table in front of them.
>>
>> What happened to old-fashioned connective mealtime conversations?
>
> As I wrote previously, welcome to the beginning of the MATRIX. :-)
>
> The only places I've seen in California that have signs stating
> cell phones must be turned off (or ringers muted) are voting
> locations. There may be other venues; I'd suspect courtrooms
> might be one, but stories of jurors texting during a trial are
> becoming common.
>
> If it was my call (no pun), I'd install jammers in restaurants
> (fully knowing it's illegal to do so). Perhaps constructing the
> equivalent of a Faraday cage (grounded copper screening in the
> walls and ceiling) would work and be legal (until, perhaps, a
> doctor sues the restaurant for a missed emergency call). Sigh.
>
The Faraday cage approach is perfectly legal and all you would have to
do to avoid anyone prevailing against you in a lawsuit would be to
provide prominent notice of the lack of radio reception in the
restaurant. There is even a paneling commercially available for radio
shielding for which an available option is warning labels on every sheet.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:37:59 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <4A738E67.9020703@thadlabs.com>
On 7/30/2009 8:45 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
> [...]
> If it was my call (no pun), I'd install jammers in restaurants
> (fully knowing it's illegal to do so). Perhaps constructing the
> equivalent of a Faraday cage (grounded copper screening in the
> walls and ceiling) would work and be legal (until, perhaps, a
> doctor sues the restaurant for a missed emergency call). Sigh.
Looks like others feel the same way, too. :-)
I just found this on Slashdot:
" School System Considers Jamming Students' Phones
"
" The St. Ansgar, Iowa school system is considering buying
" cell-phone jamming equipment for up to $5000 if it is deemed
" legal. The use of the equipment would be suspended in the
" case of an emergency, but one has to wonder if they would be
" quick enough to shut it down should an emergency arise.
" 'A Federal Communications Commission notice issued in 2005
" says the sale and use of transmitters that jam cellular or
" personal communications services is unlawful.'
Original story is here:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090730/NEWS/90730007/1001/NEWS
ST. ANSGAR, Iowa (AP) - School officials in St. Ansgar in northeast
Iowa are considering buying equipment to jam cell phone signals if
they can do so legally.
Earlier this month, the school board passed a motion to spend up
to $5,000 to block the phone signals.
Officials said students aren't following rules that prohibit the
use of cell phones during school hours. They noted that use of the
jamming equipment would be suspended during emergencies.
Interim superintendent Jim Woodward says the Iowa Association of
School Boards is helping research whether it's legal to block the
cell phone signals.
A Federal Communications Commission notice issued in 2005 says
the sale and use of transmitters that jam cellular or personal
communications services is unlawful.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:22:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: ranck@vt.edu
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <h4ur7b$l15$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> If it was my call (no pun), I'd install jammers in restaurants
> (fully knowing it's illegal to do so). Perhaps constructing the
> equivalent of a Faraday cage (grounded copper screening in the
> walls and ceiling) would work and be legal (until, perhaps, a
> doctor sues the restaurant for a missed emergency call). Sigh.
There is no guarantee that a cell phone will receive signal
in any particular location. I just returned from a 4 day
music festival located just off the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Cell coverage is abysmal there. You can occasionally get
a signal and *maybe* make a call, but mostly not. I don't
see how sheilding a restaurant, or theatre, would cause any
legal liability. My cell phone doesn't work in my office
because the building has a metal frame and blocks the signal
just from common construction techniques.
At most, a place that made some extra effort to block cell
signal might need to post a notice that they are a sheilded
location and cell phones won't work, but a lot of places
already block signal without trying. I've been advocating
using the Farady cage idea for at least 10 years. It would
cost very little during new construction. They could make
foil backed wallboard and wallpaper. Instead we get 3 reminders
at the beginning of every movie to turn off our cells. Sigh.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 2009 11:24:57 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What is this device called
Message-ID: <h4v2c9$qek$1@panix2.panix.com>
Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net> wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> There were a variety of interface devices that were made available
>> after the FCC mandated interconnection. I'm most familiar with the
>> CDH, which was intended to connect POTS lines to customer provided
>> equipment. It did the job, but it was too complicated: not only did it
>> have separate supervision leads that were isolated from the talk path,
>> but it had separate ringing leads as well. There might have been PBX's
>> or other CPE which could access the CDH directly, but ordinary key
>> equipment could not: to use it for CPE key equipment, you needed
>> _another_ interface to match the CDH interface.
>>
>> Ma Bell had too many interfaces and they cost too much to install and
>> rent: it was inevitable that the FCC would dictate type-acceptance and
>> allow direct connections. I don't remember when that happended, but it's
>> been the norm ever since.
>
>Yes Bill, but that doesn't help with stuff that is not type accepted.
>Isn't the new term of art certified? I'm trying to devise a way to
>patch the PSTN incoming calls to manual switchboards that predate
>customer dialing. If you connect the interconnect terminals of some
>of those boards it will look like an off hook condition to the PSTN.
You are trying to do this today or you are trying to do this in 1970?
There are some old Data Access Arrangement boxes out there, but they are
not particularly useful today. Some of them have dialing hardware, some
of them do not. Most have four-wire interfaces but some have two. In
1970 they were VERY useful because they provided a political line of
demarcation.
If you have an existing switchboard, bringing telco lines into it as a
trunk shouldn't be a huge problem, depending on what kind of switchboard
it is. Even if it's for a common-battery phone, you should be able to
use a repeat coil to get DC isolation between the telco circuit and the
phone.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:37:26 -0700
From: Bruce L.Bergman <bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <d19675t7cfehm13g67pajhb10nmmclo9v2@4ax.com>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:50:15 -0400 (EDT), Neal McLain
<nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>On Jul 30, 7:06 am, Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:54:32 -0400 (EDT), Neal McLain
>> <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>> >tec...@tantivy.tantivy.net (Bob Vaughan) wrote:
>> > > Other places where you may find antennas include flagpoles (there are
>> > > examples at Palo Alto fire stations 3 (Rinconada Park), and 4
>> > > Mitchell Park), lamp posts (the old Elks Lodge parking lot next to
>> > > Dianah's), and church steeples. There are also some micro sites
>> > > mounted on utility poles (Junipero Serra @ Stanford Ave).
>>
>> >Not to mention fake conifers, fake cacti, fake water towers, real water
>> >towers, fake utility poles, smokestacks, transmission line towers,
>> >abandoned billboard poles.
They also build a lot of real structures specifically to hide a cell
tower inside them. The clock towers and church steeples are the most
common, but architectural details like a "Lighthouse" at a self-
storage facility are a nice way to hide an antenna. Which you would
miss if you didn't pick out the panel antennas on the sides.
But the same storage place is pushing the rule of 'hidden in plain
sight' to the absurd when a huge and not very well camouflaged
"flagpole" tower popped up at the other end of their property...
>> On Nevada Route 160, on the outskirts of Las Vegas, there is a cell
>> phone tower disguised as a pine tree. But no pine trees grow
>> naturally in this desert terrain. In fact, no trees at all. No
>> cactus either, the climate is too dry (2 inches/year of rain) for
>> cactus. The only vegetation is tumble-weed bushes.
>> So here the fake pine tree is a very bad disguise.
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> OK, but how many people that see it _know_ that trees don't grow there?
Actually, that's what they count on - it doesn't have to be a real
good disguise job, it just has to look like a "not-a-tower" to the
casual observer. Break up the classic silhouette and it disappears.
Those of us who know what to look for can't avoid seing them. But
we are not the norm - that's like asking a cowboy not to spot a stray
steer waaaay off in the distance, it becomes ingrained.
You can ask the average person with no telecom or architectural or
Ham Radio experience "What's different about that Clock Tower?" and
they flat out can not 'see the forest for the trees' till you point
out all the little clues you saw instantly. Then you can almost watch
that metaphoric little light bulb above their head blink on.
>> "What happens in Vegas ..."
>
>Well, yeah. But everything else in Las Vegas is fake too, so why not
>a fake pine? Makes as much sense as a fake pirate ship in a fake
>lake, or a fake gondola in a fake Venetian canal.
The common solution to that problem is to plant a few real pines or
palms or whatever around the fake one (tower) so it blends in.
But that only works where you have a water source available to make
it a little Oasis. They do occur naturally, but far more often they
were manmade long ago, you find a house and a water well under that
patch of green.
Now if you place that pocket forest next to an established rest area
or service station (like Halloran Summit to pull one name along the
way to Vegas out of my...) it would be believable.
--<< Bruce >>--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:07:03 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Manipulation and abuse of the consumer credit reporting agencies
Message-ID: <p0624087dc699532acd33@[10.0.1.3]>
Manipulation and abuse of the consumer credit reporting agencies
by Christopher Soghoian
First Monday
Volume 14, Number 8
3 August 2009
Abstract
This paper will present a number of loopholes and exploits against
the system of consumer credit in the United States that can enable a
careful attacker to hugely leverage her (or someone else's) credit
report for hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the techniques
outlined in this paper have been used for the personal (and legal)
profit by a small community of credit hackers, these same techniques
could equally be used by more nefarious persons - that is, criminals
willing to break the law, engage in fraud, and make off with
significant sums of money. The purpose of this paper is to shed light
on these exploits, to analyze them through the lens of the computer
security community and to propose a number of fixes which will
significantly reduce the effectiveness of the exploits, by both those
with good and ill intentions.
...
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2583/2246
------------------------------
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) 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 (15 messages)
******************************
|
or 