gwang@decwrl.dec.com (George Wang) (07/11/89)
Hi there... I just recently saw some interesting information on the subject of war-dialers and phone "hackers".... Supposedly there are people who use their personal computers to "hack" out 950-XXXX or 800 LD phone services.... I was just curious as to the reality of this and also the circumstances involved in doing such a thing (I'm sure you'd get into a LOT of trouble, no doubt!)... More importantly, what have the LD phone companies been doing on this matter? It seems that a while back someone had "hacked" my LD calling card. No doubt I was upset, but what can the phone company do to prevent such a thing? With all the info here on ESS and other sophisticated systems, do these devices provide "anti-hacking" routines?? I heard that many LD companies have a device called ANI? What is this? Also I heard that the rapid dialing of digits by wardialers also set off a "suspicious" activity flag.. Is this true?? I am new to this net and any information would be appreciated... It's quite interesting to see how the phone co really works when you make an ordinary call... Please send email to my unix address or post here.... Thanks in advance, George Wang Gwang@logic.nsc.com
davef@brspyr1.brs.com (Dave Fiske) (07/14/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0231m06@vector.dallas.tx.us>, nsc!berlioz.nsc.com! gwang@decwrl.dec.com (George Wang) writes: > Hi there... > > I just recently saw some interesting information on the subject > of war-dialers and phone "hackers".... Supposedly there are > people who use their personal computers to "hack" out 950-XXXX > or 800 LD phone services.... > > I was just curious as to the reality of this and also the > circumstances involved in doing such a thing (I'm sure you'd > get into a LOT of trouble, no doubt!)... More importantly, what > have the LD phone companies been doing on this matter? It seems > that a while back someone had "hacked" my LD calling card. > No doubt I was upset, but what can the phone company do to prevent > such a thing? With all the info here on ESS and other sophisticated > systems, do these devices provide "anti-hacking" routines?? About 6 weeks ago, I was desperate to get through to a Technical Support number for a mail-order place I had bought some computer equipment from. Of course the line was nearly constantly busy. Finally, I decided I would just keep dialing the number as long as it took, until I got through. Since I was calling from the office, I was using my US Sprint Fon Card. After probably a half hour of repeatedly dialing the same busy number, I started getting a recording that my Fon Card number was not authorized. By this time, I was tired of dialing anyway, so I figured maybe it was just Sprint having a computer problem or something, so I didn't try again till the next day. Same thing. So I called Sprint Customer Service. They cross-examined me about my address, various details about my account, what number I had been calling and when, etc. Once they determined that I was really the person who belonged to that account, they said the unusually high number of calls in such a short period of time had triggered their security system. Apparently Sprint Security tried to contact me, but when I moved a couple years ago, I forgot to tell them of the change of my home phone number. So they called the number they had, which, of course, has been assigned to someone else now, and I guess they figured they had really caught a phone hacker, and they cancelled my Fon Card. The representative said they have no way to reinstate a cancelled card, so they would have to give me a new number and card, which would take two weeks. I certainly had mixed emotions on this. I was glad to know that Sprint does some type of monitoring for security purposes, but it seemed like they jumped the gun a bit--since all the calls I attempted had only reached busy numbers, no revenue was being lost. Plus, wouldn't it be natural to assume that since I had kept getting busy signals, that it really was me calling over and over again, trying to get through? (Also, I had called this same number several times in the preceding weeks, and gotten through--a quick check of my billing information would have shown this.) Having to wait two weeks to get another Fon Card is goofy, too. It makes the customer suffer for what was really Sprint's problem. -- "MAN USES TAPE TO STICK Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) HIS TOE BACK ON!" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef [Moderator's Note: Mr. Fisk, you forgot to mention the article said it was *electrical tape* he used for the repair work. But in a more serious vein, Sprint pulls this kind of garbage all the time. They have no reluctance to cancel accounts at will. No advance notice; no provision for immediate restoration in the event of an error, etc. One reason some of us have remained loyal users of AT&T over the years has been that AT&T would not simply knock someone off the network -- completely disrupting their use of long distance -- without advance warning whenever possible. PT]
john@apple.com (John Higdon) (07/18/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0239m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, davef@brspyr1.brs.com (Dave Fiske) writes: > After probably a half hour of repeatedly dialing the same busy number, > I started getting a recording that my Fon Card number was not > authorized. > [...] > Once they determined that I was really the person who belonged to that > account, they said the unusually high number of calls in such a short > period of time had triggered their security system. Of course, turning off authorization on suspicion of unauthorized use doesn't make any sense, either. If Sprint really suspected that the card had fallen into evil hands, it would be better to let a call go through and then investigate and possibly identify the culprit. But more important, it's this cavalier attitude that puts AT&T in a class by itself. Phone service in this country has been reliable enough that we have all taken it for granted. We *rely* on it. Over recent years, Sprint, MCI, Telesphere, etc., ad nauseum, have demonstrated that they consider telephone service in the same category as cable television: nice when it works, but not really essential. After all, as one Sprint rep told me once, "If it doesn't work, you can always use AT&T." Customers' loyalty to the "OCCs" is truly amazing. If your local operating company took the same attitude in providing dial tone that Sprint et al take in providing long distance service, your life and property would be at serious risk. Furthermore, the OCCs act as though they are doing you a favor by completing a call. "If you play by our screwy rules, and kiss it up just right, we'll put your call through if it's convenient." While it may sound like commercial copy, AT&T acts as though every single call is essential to their business. Not a bad attitude from a company who just a few years ago was indeed the only game in town. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) (07/20/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0245m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: > >But more important, it's this cavalier attitude that puts AT&T in a >class by itself. Phone service in this country has been reliable enough >that we have all taken it for granted. We *rely* on it. Over recent >years, Sprint, MCI, Telesphere, etc., ad nauseum, have demonstrated >that they consider telephone service in the same category as cable >television: nice when it works, but not really essential. After all, as >one Sprint rep told me once, "If it doesn't work, you can always use >AT&T." > >While it >may sound like commercial copy, AT&T acts as though every single call >is essential to their business. John, I have to agree with you 100%. I've always had a love-hate with AT&T (Damn, they sure got mad when they caught me reselling residential service via a homemade switch and wires strung thru ditches :-) Before hissoner got involved, they could be the most rude, most incosiderate, most hateful people imaginable. I remember being stunned the first time I had an AT&T operator THANK me for using the service. Or actually having time for directory assistance. And none of mere civilians will ever be able to imagine what we've lost by having Bell Labs become commercial. On the other hand, I could call "the phone company" when I had a problem. I didn't have to worry about whether it was in-house wiring or network wiring. It all got taken care of. And I could rely absolutely on getting a dial tone AND getting reliable long distance service merely by dialing 1+ or 0+. No AOS, no COCOTS or any of these other cuss words. Yeah, yeah, rates have come down but subscriber rates, especially business have more than risen to compensate for the small users. Of course, big business got the deals they always wanted. Perhaps the solution is simply to speak with our pocketbooks. Enough of us should probably use sprint or mci (flush the others) so that they can stick around and provide competition. Other than that, let's make AT&T "the phone company" again. A little lobbying in congress to keep them and the FCC out of AT&T's hair and things will be complete. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!