telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (03/31/85)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA> TELECOM Digest Sun, 31 Mar 85 11:25:50 EST Volume 4 : Issue 173 Today's Topics: Blocking Incoming Calls and other SL-1 hacks Collect Wrong Number news from the SW: MCC's Bobby Inman named to SWB's board of directors 2400 baud modem review ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 28 Mar 85 02:31:14-CST From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: Blocking Incoming Calls and other SL-1 hacks To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA Does anybody know enough about the guts of the Northern Telecom SL-1 PBX to tell me if there is a way to set up an extension which cannot receive any incoming calls under any circumstances? The situation is that we are setting up a call-back system for extra dial-in security. One of the vulnerable points of such systems has to do with people dialing in on the lines used to place the outgoing call-backs. It is theoretically possible that if an incoming call arrived at the same instant the call-back system initiated a call, a break-in could occur. In order to make efficient use of the outgoing trunk lines, we want the outgoing lines connected to the call-back system to go through the PBX. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a fool-proof way to set up a line which cannot be dialed into. In particular, there seems to be no way to set up permanent call-forwarding. Another idea was to give these lines 4-digit extension numbers starting with something like 8, so that any attempt to dial them would produce a WATS dial tone. Apparently the software doesn't let you do this sort of thing. We are told that the only way to properly do this would be to use the customer partition feature (which is designed to let several customers share the same switch) and declare all the call-back extensions to be a different "customer". The problem here is that they would either have to be given their own set of outgoing trunk lines or else special hardware would be required to tie them in to Customer 0's trunk lines. In either case we are talking big bucks. I'm still hoping that some sneaky trick exists to accomplish this. And talking about sneaky tricks, somebody discovered a feature (bug?) in the SL-1 which allows extensions to be call-forwarded to outgoing trunk lines. For example, if dialing 8 gives you access to a WATS line, then call-forwarding an extension to "8" will give callers to that extension a second dial tone and allow them to place long distance calls. If the extension can be dialed directly from outside the premises, this is obviously a big security problem. Furthermore, the audit-trail printout produced by the SL-1, which normally logs all long-distance calls dialed and identifies the extension, shows no record of such calls. I'd be interested to learn whether this is an inherent flaw, or whether our switch was simply not configured correctly. CLive ------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 March 85 23:30-EST From: Michael Grant <GRANT%UMDB.Bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA> To: Telecom Digest <TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA> Subject: Collect Wrong Number I'm mad, I mean really mad. (not crazy mind you, but just plain pissed off) About an hour ago I got this call, the conversation went as follows: RING Me: Hello Operator: I have a collect call from Terry, will you pay for the call? Me: No. a few seconds of silence Terry: Is Joe there? Me: Ummm...I think you have a wrong number Terry: Is this 202-439-6339 Me: Nope, that wasn't very nice of that operator Terry: What do you mean? Why did you accept the call if you didn't know me? Maybe you know... Me: I DIDN'T ACCEPT IT! I got her number, and said goodbye. I flashed the hook, and got an operator back on line, Operator: Are you done? Me: Yes, but I didn't accept the call, why did you put it through? Operator: I'm not the same operator, I didn't put it through, it's not my problem. she hung up on me. That was the rudest encounter I have ever had with an operator in my life. I dialed O operator, and explained my problem, he told me I would have to call my bussiness office and get it taken off my bill. I'm going to also lodge a formal complaint. What's happening to phone service in this country? Don't anyone say it...Divestiture. Damn. -Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sat 30 Mar 85 15:19:07-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: news from the SW: MCC's Bobby Inman named to SWB's board of directors To: telecom@UTEXAS-20.ARPA [ from the Austin American Statesman - March 30, 1985 ] Bob Inman, chairman and chief executive officer of MCC has been elected to the board of directors of Southwestern Bell Corp. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 1985 08:39 MST (Sun) From: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA> To: Telecom@BBNCCA Subject: 2400 baud modem review The following review was not written by me. It was downloaded from a Remote CP/M system. Unfortunately there is no way to reach the author because it is unsigned. It is presented here for its possible informational value. Please address discussions/comments to the mailing list, not me. I don't own a 2400 baud modem. --Keith 10 Mar 85 *** DISCLAIMER *** The products described here were repeatedly tested for a specific application only. No value was placed on advanced features not directly related to their intended use. The opinion expressed herein is that of the reviewer and may, in fact WILL differ considerably from other reviewers' opinions. This is an unsolicited review. Anyone able to disprove the reviewes claims is welcome to do so. This review is about as unobjective as it can get. In a data processing environment, chances are the employee with a terminal and a modem (or computer) and access to the business computer via dialup will be more productive and is more likely to put in a few hours' worth of unsolicited overtime per week than the employee who has access to the same computer only during working hours. Therefore, it was decided that the office computer be set up with at least one high-speed dialup line and the most economical choice was that of a 1200/2400 baud modem. The modems were going to be used for two purposes: 1. unattended autoanswer 2. occasional use for dialout Testing was started as soon as modems became available through a local distributor. Due to this factor only two brands were evaluated. Here is the story on both of them: 1. PENRIL 2024 The Penril 2024 seems to be the first widely available 1200/2400 baud modem, with the exception of the prohibitively priced VADIC 4400 series. The 2024's list price is somewhere around $900. The 2024 offers two baud rates, 1200 and 2400. The 1200 baud protocol can be switched from 212A to V.22 at configuration time. By today's standards, the 2024 cannot be considered a "smart" modem in that its smartness is limited to the ability to dial a phone number. Placing the modem in autoanswer mode is accomplished by simply configuring the internal and external switches according to the manual, releasing all front panel switches and plugging it in. The 2024 does not have a power switch (a definite plus in this application). Originating a phone call with the 2024 is a cumbersome procedure, especially in an application where the modem may be 100 feet away from the terminal. First, the modem must be taken out of autoanswer mode by pressing a front panel switch. Next, the originate baud rate must be selected by locking the HI/LO switch IN or OUT. Note that if you set up the modem for 2400 baud, you can call a 1200 baud number because of the "fallback" feature. You just have to adjust your terminal baud rate after connect. The 2024 has no abort provisions. While dialing, the TALK/DATA switch can be used to abort. When connected, you must either cause the remote computer to drop carrier or you again have to hit the switch. An alternative is dropping the DTR line low, but in some instances that's a bit hard to do. Dialing a phone number is very awkward. The sequence is "CRNnnnnnnn<CR><LF>" so to dial 555-1212, you type CRN5551212^M^J. Fine if the ENTER key on your keyboard generates a CR-LF sequence; with most terminals you have to hit two keys. Sorry, no redial capability. The Penril worked fine calling the local TYMNET 2400 baud access number, but no connection was established to any long distance modem at 2400 baud. The modem is superbly suited for unattended autoanswer mode. the 2024 can be turned on and left alone and if something goes wrong it's the software but not the modem. The continuous high-pitched noise coming out of the built-in speaker may be objectionable to some -- it picks up the strongest local AM radio station. the speaker can be turned low or off via an internal jumper block. One 2024 modem was tested initially in early November 1984, and two were again tested in late February 1985. No difference was found between the three modems, even though the early onemay have been a preproduction unit. 2. USR COURIER 2400 The USR Courier seems to be the first smart low-priced modem to be released, probably due to the fact that, unlike many manufacturers, it does not use the Rockwell chip set. It features Hayes 2400 compatibility. I will briefly summarize the positive aspects of the modem: - externally accessible, well-labeled configuration switches - external switch to reverse pins 2 & 3, thus eliminating the need for a null modem - result codes can be completely turned off via switch - volume control for internal speaker After setting the configuration switches (an easy task for anyone who has ever set up a modem) the Courier is ready for operation. With the appropriate switch setting, it can be used both in originate and answer mode without any hardware changes. Originating a call can be accomplished with the now-famous ATDT sequence, except that command letters no longer have to be in caps. As with other smart modems, any character typed while dialing or waiting for carrier aborts the action and hangs up the line. The "escape" character can be used to either return the modem to command mode (like the Hayes) or to hang up (like other USR modems) depending on a configuration switch setting. The Courier was used to successfully connect to the local TYMNET number. A later model also was able to talk to a VADIC 2400 baud unit over long distance (Wayne Masters' RCPM). The Courier was also able to call and be called by a Penril 2024 and another Courier. As to autoanswer mode, the modem was a complete washout to put it mildly. Surely, hard- and software are partly to blame but the fact that other modems (including USR Password and AD212A) work with the same setup indicates a serious flaw in the Courier. The hardware used, for whatever reason, drops DTR while changing baud rates. The duration is so short that all other modems tested on the hardware, EXCEPT the Courier, are totally unaffected. The Courier will, upon carrier lock and receipt of the first character typed, drop the carrier 3 out of 4 times at 1200 and 2400 baud. While no considerations were given to 300 baud performance, it was noted that those problems only exist at 1200 and 2400 baud. Placing a 5MFD capacitor from the DTR line to ground totally fixed this problem. In autoanswer mode, the modems were used as follows: - all result codes are inhibited - on carrier loss, computer reboots, cycles DTR, then waits for a character typed by constantly polling the data input port - on receipt of character, baud rate is tested and, if necessary, changed I must again stress that this method works with all modems tested. The USR Courier, however, would simply refuse to answer any more phone calls after answering a few. No set pattern was discovered. Sometimes, the modem would work properly for 5-10 calls then refuse to answer, at other times it would only allow 1 or 2 calls. When it refused to answer, no outside indication was given as to the problem. The appropriate LEDs on the front panel were lit yet the modem did not respond to the ring. Surely, this is a most serious deficiency and I have decided that the Courier is unfit for use in this particular application. I am convinced the problem lies solely with the Courier, particularyly sonce both the Auto Dial 212A and the Password 1200 work in the exact same environment (except for the much-needed 2400 capa- bility, of course). In closing I must again stress that the USR certainly is a superb modem and very well suited to originate applications. Considering that 99 out of 100 modems sold will never be used for pure autoanswer purposes, the Courier is not at all a failure. One modem was tested in late November, two in late February (both were preproduction units) and thre PRODUCTION units were tested in March. All five units exhibited the same problems. ...may those who have the power to change things do so, may those whose toes I stepped on test for themselves before stepping on mine, may those who want to buy a Courier not be discouraged. If YOU intend to use a USR Courier in an autoanswer-only environment, please by all means give it a try, it may sure work for you. If it doesn't, you have been warned, and if it does, either "they" fixed it or the problem is installation-dependent... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ******************************