kleef@cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) (09/01/87)
[I post this article here, because the moderator of DCOM.TELECOM seems to be non-present] Phone Phreaking in Europe ======================= Recently, the Dutch monthly Personal Computer Magazine published an article by me on how to make free phone calls around the world. As it turned out, phone phreaking is possible in Europe too. The article caused considerable rows all over the country and furiated the Dutch PTT. The technique used is the same as was used in the United States. Although the Dutch telephone system is basically a 'hacker-proof' system, the inventors of the free-phone system discovered a couple of toll-free telephone numbers that led to a transport company in Denmark. And the lines used were CCITT-C4 connections. These type of connections are old and 'open' for hacking. On C4 lines, the inter-network tones are distributed over the same telephone line as the caller uses. More than 99 percent of the 'normal' Dutch telephone lines use a C5 type connection, whereby all inter-network tones are sent via a separate telephone line, so user intervention is not possible. C4 lines, however allow user intervention. So the 'phone-phreaks' made programs that produced network-tones on most of the popular homecomputers. They dialed the 06-number (the Dutch equivalent of the US 800-numbers) that led to Denmark and used the computer and a speaker to put the C4-tones on the telephone line. This way they could call any person all over the world. Shortly after the publication in Personal Computer Magazine and on radio and television, the Dutch PTT put an end to this trick, by rerouting the Denmark numbers over C5-lines. But another option remained and remains open. Telephone calls can now be made through Spain. The entire Spanish telephone system is based on the CCITT-C4 protocol. Therefore, by calling Spain and using the tone-program, you can call over the world again. Phoning isn't free of cost (you're charged a call to Spain, fl. 1,80 per minute, about $ 0,90) but it's cheaper than calling the US e.g. directly. And ofcourse, telephone calls from within Spain can be made without costs at all. This disturbs the Spanish PTT a great deal, because modernization of the telephone system there isn't scheduled before 1989. Publication of this phenomena (as El Pais did, following the article in the Dutch computer magazine) will lead to an abundant use of C4-programs on home computers. Thus presenting the Spanish PTT with possibly many millions of costs. The PTT there said they knew it was possible, but figured that as long as the C4-trick wasn't disclosed, the number of people using it would remain small. They calculated the costs at a few thousands every year. This will, ofcourse, go up incredibly. Paul Molenaar Bitnet: U00212@HASARA5
marvit@hplabsb.UUCP (Peter Marvit) (09/02/87)
#define DRIFTON
>While, I do not condon the activity, phone phreaking does have a ...
^^^^^^
Obviously a typo indicating that the original author has unsafe (illegal)
phone sects. :-)
#define DRIFTOFF
-Peter "May the eather-gawdz forgive this inanity" Marvit
HP Labsrupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (09/02/87)
I find this discussion of phone phreaking a bit disturbing. Hey, isn't this sort of activity illegal? Doesn't this type of activity, in a way similar to shoplifting, end up penalizing all the legitimate users who pay their rightful costs? What is the point of posting this happy news to the net? Are we to rejoice in the knowledge that it is not too late to rip off European phone companies? I suspect that if someone posted an article describing how there are still a couple of neat ways to break into the San Diego National Bank, a lot of eyebrows would rise. Mine have risen over this posting, which I feel is totally inappropriate. ------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my own views, although I would be surprised if CSC disagreed with them in this case. .......................How's that, Gary? -------------------------------------------------------------------
lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (09/02/87)
> > I find this discussion of phone phreaking a bit disturbing. Hey, While, I do not condon the activity, phone phreaking does have a legitimate place in the legend and folklore of programmer histories and as such contemporary discussions of the topic should be allowed to take place. -- John H. Lawitzke UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke Division of Engineering Research ARPA: lawitzke@eecae.ee.msu.edu (35.8.8.151) Michigan State University Office: (517) 355-3769 E. Lansing, MI, 48824
hunt@spar.UUCP (09/02/87)
In article <812@cod.UUCP> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: > [...] > I find this discussion of phone phreaking a bit disturbing. > [...] > I feel [discussion of such an illegal act] is totally inappropriate. > My sentiments exactly. Neil/.
rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (09/03/87)
In article <2133@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: >> >> I find this discussion of phone phreaking a bit disturbing. Hey, > >While, I do not condon the activity, phone phreaking does have a >legitimate place in the legend and folklore of programmer histories >and as such contemporary discussions of the topic should be allowed >to take place. > >-- >John H. Lawitzke UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke Point one: The First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the poster's right to discuss what he wants to discuss. I did not say that he should not be allowed to do so. Point two: I do not know what you mean by having "a legitimate place in the legend and folklore of programmer history." That statement sounds to me like semantic nonsense. "Legend" and "folklore" are two warm, fuzzy words that are usually associated with benign activities, not crimes. Would you speak of the "legend and folklore of Hitler's Wafen SS Deathshead Dvision"? Not if you were sensitive to the activities of that unit in World War II, I'll bet. Which brings me to... Point three: My original concern was not so much that telephone phreaking was discussed as it was that the poster discussed the topic as blandly as he might have shared information about a statistical algorithm. Some computer enthusiasts seem to be oblivious to the immoral and criminal nature of certain types of hacker activity. I therefore felt obliged to criticize what I interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on the part of the original poster. If nothing else, I hoped to point out to that poster that his article sounded value neutral on a topic that all computer users should condemn for a variety of reasons. ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (09/03/87)
In article <813@cod.UUCP> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >Point two: > >I do not know what you mean by having "a legitimate place in the >legend and folklore of programmer history." That statement sounds to me >like semantic nonsense. "Legend" and "folklore" are two warm, fuzzy >words that are usually associated with benign activities, not crimes. >Would you speak of the "legend and folklore of Hitler's Wafen SS Deathshead >Dvision"? Not if you were sensitive to the activities of that unit in >World War II, I'll bet. Which brings me to... I think it would be more appropriate to think of it like the "legend and folklore of the wild west" (gunfighters, train robberies, etc.) or the "legend and folklore of Chicago gangsters". Popular movies and TV series have been made about these. >Point three: > >My original concern was not so much that telephone phreaking was >discussed as it was that the poster discussed the topic as blandly as he >might have shared information about a statistical algorithm. Some >computer enthusiasts seem to be oblivious to the immoral and criminal >nature of certain types of hacker activity. I therefore felt obliged >to criticize what I interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on the part of >the original poster. If nothing else, I hoped to point out to that >poster that his article sounded value neutral on a topic that all >computer users should condemn for a variety of reasons. Yes, I noticed it contained no moral judgement about the activity. However, I interpreted the posting as a news story, and those are SUPPOSED to be non-judgemental. It described the problem that European PTTs are having with phone-phreaks clearly, and that was it. I was glad to read it. --- Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com seismo!think!barmar
rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) (09/03/87)
In article <2133@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: >> >> I find this discussion of phone phreaking a bit disturbing. Hey, > >While, I do not condon the activity, phone phreaking does have a >legitimate place in the legend and folklore of programmer histories >and as such contemporary discussions of the topic should be allowed >to take place. That's mighty nice of you to allow us to talk about a particular topic. Phone phreaking may be illegal, but it is not illegal, nor immoral, nor in bad taste to tell people about it. Just to do it. Has something happened to the right of Freedom of Speech that we aren't allowed to talk about? rob-- william robertson rob@philabs.philips.com "better living through shell scripts"
hunt@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM (Neil Hunt) (09/03/87)
In article <813@cod.UUCP> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >In article <2133@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: > >> I find this discussion of phone phreaking a bit disturbing. Hey, > >Point one: > >The First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the poster's >right to discuss what he wants to discuss. I did not say that he should >not be allowed to do so. > I though that there was some restriction about discussion of illegal or immoral acts on certain channels of communication, such as radio, and networks ? Neil/.
kleef@cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) (09/04/87)
In article <8086@think.UUCP> barmar@godot.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: > >Yes, I noticed it contained no moral judgement about the activity. >However, I interpreted the posting as a news story, and those are >SUPPOSED to be non-judgemental. It described the problem that >European PTTs are having with phone-phreaks clearly, and that was it. >I was glad to read it. > >--- >Barry Margolin >Thinking Machines Corp. > And that was the only intention I had posting it. It was the first time in Holland the telephone-system was 'phreaked' and I thought it was news-worthy. I might add that the article in the magazine contained some details on what processes take place as you dial a number, but (naturally) lacked the information to be able to start phreaking. BTW: there's one clear flaw in the original article. It stated that the whole of SPain uses CCITT-C4 for the phone system. This is wrong: the system is called SOCOTEL. But it's just as 'open' as C4 is.
john@geac.UUCP (John Henshaw) (09/04/87)
In article <812@cod.UUCP>, rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: > I find this discussion of phone phreaking a bit disturbing. Hey, > isn't this sort of activity illegal? Doesn't this type of activity, > in a way similar to shoplifting, end up penalizing all the legitimate > users who pay their rightful costs? What is the point of posting > this happy news to the net? Are we to rejoice in the knowledge > that it is not too late to rip off European phone companies? > Would you rather *not* hear about it - and let the problem continue? The Dutch PTT did something about the problem only after it had gone public, yet it is probably safe to say that they were aware of the potential for abuse. They solved the problem when it became a *real* problem. Now, they've got a *better* phone system, and a methodology for resolving this kind of difficulty in the future. Getting the facts straight is the first and best step to solving any problem. I find the hacker's actions to be unethical - but ultimately useful. Dependence upon ignorance is for the cowardly and the lazy. -john- -- John Henshaw, (mnetor, yetti, utgpu !geac!john) Geac Computers Ltd. "My back to the wall, Markham, Ontario a victim of laughing chance..."
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (09/04/87)
Have you thought about the fact that if such algorithms are posted,
people will be forced to beef up security? Progress from Crime!
But seriously, I am an advocate of attempting to break computer
security systems, to force better sceurity systems, as long as the
"hackers" aren't out to be wontonly destructive. Kind of a "Ha, ha, I
broke in, now you have to fix the hole." idea.
Smitty
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604, CN 5063 that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu, msmith@remus.rutgers.edu (Good luck getting there!)rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (09/04/87)
Since I had ventilated quite a bit on this topic, I had decided to refrain from further comment. However, Mr. Robertson's comment is sufficiently thought-provoking (or something) to warrant a brief response. In article <1665@briar.Philips.Com> rob@briar.philips.com (Rob Robertson) writes: >In article <2133@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: >>> >>> I find this discussion of phone phreaking a bit disturbing. Hey, >> >>While, I do not condon the activity, phone phreaking does have a >>legitimate place in the legend and folklore of programmer histories >>and as such contemporary discussions of the topic should be allowed >>to take place. > >That's mighty nice of you to allow us to talk about a particular topic. >Phone phreaking may be illegal, but it is not illegal, nor immoral, >nor in bad taste to tell people about it. Just to do it. > >Has something happened to the right of Freedom of Speech that we >aren't allowed to talk about? > >rob-- > william robertson > rob@philabs.philips.com > > "better living through shell scripts" Freedom of speech is not really the issue here. I cannot stop posters from discussing phreaking, nor would I want to. The article on European phreaking offended me because there was absolutely no hint of the moral outrage that I feel should be the reaction to this type of crime. I was simply exercising my right of free speech to register my feelings. Since there are some people in the computer field who believe that software piracy is justified because publishers charge more than what they want to pay, I am sure some people will not have the same emotional reaction to the article that I did. Perhaps the article was taken out of context. Perhaps it was intended as a bulletin to European phone companies to alert them to possible danger. Maybe. I can't shake the feeling that the author simply does not see phreaking as a bad thing. Just my reaction, which I shared with the Net. If you don't think there is a problem with today's moral standards, by the way, go ask Ivan Boeski (sp?). ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) (09/04/87)
In article <715@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM>, hunt@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM (Neil Hunt) writes: > I though that there was some restriction about discussion of illegal > or immoral acts on certain channels of communication, such as radio, > and networks ? The content restrictions are directed at limited-bandwidth BROADCAST media regulated by the FCC. Also, while there are FCC restrictions on "obscenity", there are no other regulations that try to impose morality standards on media. This is a good thing -- for instance, I think it's immoral to have more than 2 children but the millions of "Cosby" TV viewers are probably happy that I can't impose my moral judgments on TV content. Also, guns are censored on Swedish television, yet "Miami Vice" fans would be disappointed if they couldn't be fired on TV. Usenet and other computer networks aren't regulated by the FCC. The phone network which carries UUCP traffic IS regulated, but the regulations are almost wholly concerned with voice transmission -- data isn't covered. You can make an obscene voice call but you can't make an obscene modem call, because the latter doesn't exist in the FCC code. Finally, the only type of discussion that's a federal crime is sedition -- conspiracy to commit treason. You can talk about anything you like, as long as you don't plot the overthrow of the government or reveal classified government secrets. Discussions of weaknesses in European phone systems aren't anything that the U.S. government is concerned with. -- {hplabs,amdahl,ames}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? One in a million, perhaps.
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (09/05/87)
>Have you thought about the fact that if such algorithms are posted, >people will be forced to beef up security? Yeah. I sez, best keep it secret so we don't spoil a good thing. >But seriously, I am an advocate of attempting to break computer >security systems, to force better sceurity systems, as long as the >"hackers" aren't out to be wontonly destructive. Kind of a "Ha, ha, I >broke in, now you have to fix the hole." idea. Dizgustin. I sez, if you break the system, tell me (quick) but otherwize keep quiet about it! All that work down the drain, fer nuttin, just cuz some dude couldn't keep his lips buttoned.
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/06/87)
> Yes, I noticed it contained no moral judgement about the activity. > However, I interpreted the posting as a news story, and those are > SUPPOSED to be non-judgemental. It described the problem that > European PTTs are having with phone-phreaks clearly, and that was it. > I was glad to read it. However... UNLIKE a news story it also gave useful information about how and where to engage in such activities. Pretty specific information, too. Plenty accurate if you're the sort to take advantage of it. I believe that's called "aiding and abetting". -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- 'U` <-- Public domain wolf.