Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 68

Thread: It's Not Only Facebook!

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Alvarez View Post
    I also made it into Rose Mofford's office accidentally, and she called me "darling" while escorting me out. Places are so easy to get into.
    Carlos,
    Did Rose Mofford's hair look in real life anything like the magical spun cotton candy it looked like on TV? I always thought she was kind of cool.
    For a while there she had a battle of the hair going with Governor Ann Richards of Texas.
    Edwin

    3496c3eba8b21b16e6933be07aef14d3.jpg
    Last edited by Edwin Santos; 03-21-2018 at 4:04 PM.

  2. #32
    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/T...he-PSTN-115041

    You don't need to attack this at the CO or deeper. There are plenty of places in the PSTN where you could grab the PRI or analog line to the customer, and that's easily hacked. You keep assuming someone is going to attack this at a core. And since the PSTN is dead, it's all going to be IP soon anyway.

    Everything we both know about the PSTN is useless now (well, very soon). I've already eliminated all TDM type connectivity like PRI and the like.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Sheridan View Post
    Bruce, after reading the news today, perhaps your data was also used to influence elections via Cambridge Analytica.

    I'm glad I don't have a Facebook account.........Rod.
    Yeah, what CA and Facebook pulled off makes the "You tell two friends and they tell two friends..." concept look anemic. Online privacy is a myth.
    “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness..." - Mark Twain

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Alvarez View Post
    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/T...he-PSTN-115041

    You don't need to attack this at the CO or deeper. There are plenty of places in the PSTN where you could grab the PRI or analog line to the customer, and that's easily hacked. You keep assuming someone is going to attack this at a core. And since the PSTN is dead, it's all going to be IP soon anyway.

    Everything we both know about the PSTN is useless now (well, very soon). I've already eliminated all TDM type connectivity like PRI and the like.
    So there is no FCC order to kill the PSTN - there's just some people who are talking about it. I really doubt if the FCC would issue a technology order - their position has always been that the market makes those decisions. If your premise is that someone would have to tap the access line, either analog or T1 (or ISDN PRI) line (or even an optical link), then certainly someone could intercept the communications, while committing a crime. However, that does not make FAX an unsecure method of communications, per se.

    Wiretapping (without a warrant) is considered a fairly serious offense in the US. And I doubt if it's very common.

    Mike

    [The communications techniques used in the network are determined by international standards bodies of the United Nations (SONET, SDN, T and E carriers, SS7, and many more). None of these were ever mandated by the FCC, nor should the FCC issue such mandates. The structure of the network has never been mandated by the FCC. Perhaps what people are talking about is the political aspect of the network. There are still requirements that voice service be provided (available) to each citizen of the US. If there wasn't such a mandate, the companies would only provide service in the cities where it's profitable. Providing service to an outlying farm is probably not profitable because they will never recover the cost of providing the service. Same is true for electric power in many places, and there's the same kind of mandate.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 03-21-2018 at 5:13 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  5. #35
    I have no idea how to further say that fax simply is less secure than e-mail, and is not secure in the sense that it's not encrypted.

  6. #36
    Hah, I believe she was wearing something on her head at the time. Obviously it was a long time ago. Scarf, hat, dunno. I was already a little worried about pawing around unescorted, even though I had legit work there. But it was easier to sneak in than to go through the security crap. Also I love to see what I can get away with, especially when there's no real risk.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Alvarez View Post
    I have no idea how to further say that fax simply is less secure than e-mail, and is not secure in the sense that it's not encrypted.
    Sure, that's true. But if it's very difficult for someone to intercept the communications, the fact that it's not encrypted doesn't make a lot of difference.

    I don't send faxes anymore (unless forced to), but I wouldn't worry about my fax being intercepted because it was not encrypted. And I think that's why doctors still use faxes, even with their problems (the image often isn't very good and the information can be misinterpreted because of that, the receiving fax can have a paper jam and not report that the fax didn't go through). Fax is an old technology with a lot of issues but interception is not one of the major ones.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  8. #38
    I just intercepted a fax. Because of this conversation, I had a discussion with a neighbor who unfortunately still has to use fax for work, and works from home. I had never really thought about this, and he deals in trade secrets for a big company you've heard of. I asked if I could do it, but he didn't help in any way, and there was no way for him to know I did it. I simply broke the tiny lock off his demarc and threw on some clips. He's bringing this info to his CIO/CTO. Because people know he works for them, know the value of his secrets, and he'd be easy to find. Just one example.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Alvarez View Post
    I just intercepted a fax. Because of this conversation, I had a discussion with a neighbor who unfortunately still has to use fax for work, and works from home. I had never really thought about this, and he deals in trade secrets for a big company you've heard of. I asked if I could do it, but he didn't help in any way, and there was no way for him to know I did it. I simply broke the tiny lock off his demarc and threw on some clips. He's bringing this info to his CIO/CTO. Because people know he works for them, know the value of his secrets, and he'd be easy to find. Just one example.
    Sure, but what you're doing is wiretapping. With that you could hear all of his conversations, also. Wiretapping is not specific to fax. This is assuming he has standard analog POTS service.

    If he had something like AT&T Uverse, what you'd see at the demark is the VDSL signal. So you'd have to be able to interpret the VDSL signal and then extract the fax out of the signal. But, as you pointed out, if you wiretap and have the knowledge and equipment you can see anything in the data stream.

    But wiretapping at my house is just not something that keeps me awake at night. What you're arguing is that someone can wiretap our telephone lines, not that fax is inherently insecure.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 03-21-2018 at 6:22 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  10. #40
    Fax is inherently insecure because it can be wiretapped just like phone calls. E-mail is inherently more secure because in most cases it cannot.

    Neither keeps me up at night, but I don't use fax ever, and my voice calls go over a VPN since I own the network. Also I'm not a target. My neighbor is. How much industrial espionage has been done with wiretaps?

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Alvarez View Post
    I have no idea how to further say that fax simply is less secure than e-mail, and is not secure in the sense that it's not encrypted.
    But don't you think those sophisticated hackers out there doing the stealing ignore fax transmissions because they think it's just old people sharing recipes?
    “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness..." - Mark Twain

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie Moriarty View Post
    But don't you think those sophisticated hackers out there doing the stealing ignore fax transmissions because they think it's just old people sharing recipes?
    Unfortunately fax is used to transmit the most sensitive info. Stupid but true. The old people sharing recipes are doing it with Evernote.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,675
    Mike, Carlos is correct that SS7 has been largely depreciated since it was developed for the old class 4 and class 5 network switches which in the current world have been replaced by soft switches and IP/SIP in the network core. "Circuits" are a thing of the past outside of legacy gear that may still exist in some "mom and pop" areas in the US and some countries elsewhere. "PSTN" runs largely on IP/SIP at this point beyond the local CO and any remaining copper lines to homes and businesses.

    I just retired from 21 years in that ecosystem that dates back to ol' Alexander Graham Bell.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  14. #44
    This is an interesting discussion.
    Help out a non-techie here - so if I'm following correctly, a fax can be intercepted by wiretapping the analog phone line whereas an email cannot.
    So this would require physical presence in the sense that say, an Albanian hacker would have to get to the incoming or outgoing analog line in order to wiretap it.

    However, can an email be accessed remotely by the Albanian hacker if he/she had the skills to hack the email server through the internet from wherever? I'm trying to understand the distinction in difficulty as well as the distinction in proximity.
    I'm thinking of the news stories of how John Podesta's email was hacked during the Clinton campaign.

    Edwin

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Becker View Post
    Mike, Carlos is correct that SS7 has been largely depreciated since it was developed for the old class 4 and class 5 network switches which in the current world have been replaced by soft switches and IP/SIP in the network core. "Circuits" are a thing of the past outside of legacy gear that may still exist in some "mom and pop" areas in the US and some countries elsewhere. "PSTN" runs largely on IP/SIP at this point beyond the local CO and any remaining copper lines to homes and businesses.

    I just retired from 21 years in that ecosystem that dates back to ol' Alexander Graham Bell.
    The ugly thing is that the brand new neighborhood near me was ... wired with telco copper. Sigh. I thought, "Bless their little hearts." Our local cable company offers coax-based gigabit at $120/mo. Doesn't suck, when you work from home and everything is online.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •