The World of Computer Software/The World of Computer Software.iso/tc13-011.zip/TC13-011.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-07 | 20KB | 441 lines

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Jan 93 13:19:00 CST     Volume 13 : Issue 11

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Motorola 'Secure-Clear' Cordless Telephones (Tim Tyler via Monty Solomon)
    Sci.electronics Phone Fraud! (Larry Ching via Monty Solomon)
    CRTC Review of Telecom Regs (Dave Leibold)
    Cell Phone SID in US / My Friend, Nynex Mobile ... (Phydeaux)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:29:17 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Motorola 'Secure-Clear' Cordless Telephones


[Moderator's Note: Monty passed this along to the group.  PAT]

 Newsgroups: sci.crypt
 From: [e-mail] (Tim Tyler)
 Subject: Motorola 'Secure-Clear' Cordless Telephones
 Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 Organization: UMCC
 Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:39:56 GMT


          "Why A Motorola Cordless Phone?"

     "Cordless phone eavesdroppers are everywhere" says pro golfer Lee
Trevino, spokesman for Motorola.  "But with my Motorola Secure Clear
Cordless Phone, my private conversations stay private."

     So says a glossy brochure (# BA-81) that Motorola's Consumer
Products Division (telephone # [phone]) distributes to promote
their new 'secure' cordless phone product line.  When I first read the
cover of the brochure, I said to myself, "Wow, I wonder what
sophisticated technology it must use?"  Motorola has been developing
and selling secure voice and data systems, from DVP and DES up to the
current 'FASCINATOR' algorithm for classified military and federal
government secure voice for many years.

 Page Two of the slick brochure provides some rhetorical questions
and answers:

          Why Motorola Cordless Phones?

     Q. What is meant by Secure Clear?

     Secure Clear is an exclusive technology that assures you no
eavesdroppers will be able to use another cordless phone, scanner or
baby monitor to listen in to your cordless conversations.

     Q. How difficult is it to eavesdrop on someone's cordless
conversation?

     It's not difficult at all. Simply by operating a cordless phone,
scanner or baby monitor on the same channel as you're on, an
eavesdropper can listen in.  Security codes alone DO NOT prevent
eavesdropping.

     Q. What are security codes and what do they do?

     Security codes allow the handset and base to communicate with
each other. With the Secure Clear cordless phone, one of 65,000
possible codes are randomly assigned every time you set the handset in
the base.  This means that a neighbor cannot use his handset to link
with your base and have phone calls charged to your phone number.

     Q. Describe the basic difference between Secure Clear and

    Secure Clear protects against eavesdropping.  Security codes
prevent the unauthorized use of your phone line. Usually all cordless
phones have security codes, but not both.

     Q. What is the purpose of the Secure Clear demo?

     The Secure Clear demo is a unique feature of Motorola phones that
allows you to actually experience what an eavesdropper would hear when
trying to listen to your conversation.  By pressing the SECURE DEMO
button on the Motorola phone, you and the person on the other end will
hear the same scrambled noise an eavesdropper would hear.

                       ----------


     Hmmm ... I went to the Motorola Secure Clear cordless phone
display at a Sears store, took a deep breath, and hit the demo button
in order to hear what the "scrambled noise" which would protect a
conversation from eavesdropping sounded like.

     White-noise like that of a digital data stream? Rapid analog
time-domain scrambling?  No, the scrambled "noise" sounded like
inverted analog voice.  That's right, they're using the 40 or 50 year
old (3kHz baseband) speech inversion system -- the same one which they
stopped marketing for their commercial two-way radio gear about a
decade ago -- to make Lee Trevino and other ignorant people's "private
conversations stay private."

     For those of you not familiar with speech inversion, it simply
flip-flops the voice spectrum so that high pitched sounds are low, and
vice versa.  It sounds a lot like Single Side Band (SSB)
transmissions, although an SSB receiver will not decode speech-
inversion scrambling.  Prior to 1986, several companies -- Don Nobles,
Capri Electronics, etc. sold inexpensive kits or scanner add-ons which
could be used to decode speech inversion.  Several electronics
magazines also published schematics for making your own from scratch,
at a cost of about $5.

     After the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, it
became illegal to decode or decipher encrypted communications which
you weren't a legitimate party to, so the standard practice of selling
these quasi-legal products as 'experimental kits' or 'for educational
purposes only' became common.  Today, some companies will not
specifically sell a 'speech-inversion descrambler,' but instead market
a 'speech inversion scrambling system' which means the kit will encode
as well as decode speech inversion, although most people buy them
simply to hook up to their scanners and monitor the few public safety
agencies and business that (still) use speech-inversion scrambling.

     Yes, technically, it is a felony for you to use a speech-
inversion descrambler to monitor these Motorola 'Secure Clear'
cordless. Or for that matter, the new Radio Shack DUoPHONE ET-499,
cordless phone which also depends on speech-inversion for privacy
protection.  The public utility of the ECPA has been argued about ever
since before it was enacted.  It is rather obvious that the ECPA was
pushed upon the ignorant, money-hungry Congress by the powerful (&
wealthy) Cellular Telephone Industry Association (so the CTIA could
propagate misinformation to the public, but that's another story ...).
I also realize that the 46/49MHz cordless phone channels are
apparently allocated for analog-voice only.

     Despite the ECPA, it is unconscionable to me that Motorola -- who
surely knows better -- would produce the slick brochure & specifically
market the 'Secure Clear' line as being invulnerable to eavesdropping.
Their wording unequivocally gives the impression that the 'Secure
Clear' conversations are secure, not only from other cordless phone
and baby monitors, which have several common frequencies, but also
against communications hobbyists with scanner radios.

     It is bad enough that many public safety officers still think
that by using the 'PL' ('Private Line,' also known as CTCSS) setting
on their Motorola two-way radios, no one else can listen in.  While
the 'Private Line' fiasco might be attributable to misconception on
the part of the radio users, in my opinion, Motorola's Consumer
Products Division has to know that there are thousands of scanner
monitors who have the technical ability to defeat the speech-inversion
'Secure Clear' system.  A Motorola representative at the 1992 Summer
Consumer Electronics Show in Chicago confirmed this to me, with a
smirk on his face.

     There's a big difference between Motorola's aforementioned
wording and that of Radio Shack's on page 3 of their 1993 catalog:

        New! Voice-Scrambling Cordless Telephone
        DUoFONE ET-499.  Cordless phones are great.
        But since they transmit over the airwaves,
        your private conversations could be
        monitored. Now you can enjoy cordless
        convenience with voice scrambling for
        added [emphasis theirs] privacy protection --
        frequency inversion makes transmissions
        between the handset and base unintelligible...

     It's not "Motorola should know better."  Motorola DOES know
better.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be spending time or money on truly
'secure' (based on current technology, of course) communications and
transmission security systems.

     I sure am thankful that our federal government and military users
of secure-mode communications systems don't rely on Motorola's
marketing department to provide factual information as to the level of
security provided by Motorola equipment.  Too bad that for the most
part, the public does.

     For anyone looking for a cordless telephone that offers a decent
level of privacy, take a look at some of the new cordless phones which
use 900MHz.  Most of the new ones not only use CVSD digital voice for
the RF link, but also direct-sequence spread spectrum.  By no means
are these phones secure ('encoded,' yes, but 'encrypted,' no), despite
some of the wording in their owner's manuals.  The Tropez 900 actually
seems to generate a very weak analog harmonic in the 440MHz spectrum,
but you'll still be a lot better off than poor old Lee Trevino.


Tim Tyler      Internet: [e-mail]  MCI Mail: 442-5735
P.O. Box 443    C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: [e-mail]
Ypsilanti MI    Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
48197

------------------------------


Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:34:36 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sci.electronics Phone Fraud!


[Moderator's Note: Monty also passed this along for us today.  PAT]

 From: [e-mail] (Larry WB Ching)
 Newsgroups: sci.electronics
 Subject: SCI.ELECTRONICS Phone fraud !!!
 Summary: A recent attempt to rip-off sci.electronics correspondents.
 Keywords: fraud, con artists, phone numbers
 Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 Date: 1 Jan 93 23:16:23 GMT
 Sender: [e-mail]
 Organization: Portal Communications  -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091


 At about 6PM Thursday evening, I got a phone call. The operator said
that he had a collect call to me from Charles Pooley in New York. The
name was familiar, but I didn't remember exactly why. I said I would
accept the call, but then the "operator" said the call couldn't get
through because I had the call collect option blocked. He then said he
could pass the call through if I gave him my calling card number. I
said that I'd rather call Mr. Pooley myself, and could the "operator"
give me Mr. Pooley's number.  There was a pause, then a phone number
with a San Jose area code! It didn't occur to me until later that , if
the call was from New York, why was the call-from number (408) !??!

 I remembered that Charles and I had been corresponding on a topic
from sci.electronics. I was lucky enough to have an old message from
him lying around, and emailed him a message about my mysterious phone
call.

 Charles Pooley replyed to me today -- turns out the guy tried the
same scam on him too! But this time, the bogus operator said the
collect call was from me to Charles! Charles was also wary, and didn't
give the crook his calling card number.

 So - WATCH OUT! How this con artist chose my name and Charles' to try
is beyond me. As far as public postings in sci.electronics, I don't
think Charles and I had exchanged more than four public postings. Most
of our correspondence has been via "private" email.

 This has definitely raised my paranoia level. If, out of the millions
of public postings during 1992, someone should choose two
correspondents who have exchange only a slight amount of messages ....
I mean, why us?  Or, is there a "boilerroom" operation going on, with
a bunch of phony operators, armed with USENET listings -- calling
people with this con?

 OH! - I may have put my phone number in one of my public
sci.electronics postings - that's probably how the scamsters make
their selection. Makes sense ...

CHILDREN BEWARE!!!


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I note the public access site you use for Usenet
(Portal Com) is located in area 408 (San Jose, CA).   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:49:48 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: CRTC Review of Telecom Regs

[from Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
press release]

December 16, 1992

CRTC TO REVIEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

OTTAWA/HULL - The CRTC today announced that it intends to review the
approach it takes to regulating telephone companies that provide basic
local telephone service in order to ensure that the manner in which it
regulates is efficient, effective and in the public interest (Telecom
Public Notice CRTC 92-78).

In recent years, technological change and increasing competition have
significantly altered the nature of the telephone industry. The
Commission wants to examine whether or not there are more efficient
and effective ways to regulate or to streamline regulation, without
compromising basic regulatory goals such as affordable local service
and prevention of anti-competitive behaviour.

"Canadians currently enjoy the benefits of a first-class
telecommunications industry," said CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer. "By
undertaking a review of our regulatory procedures we are trying to
ensure that the Canadian telecommunications industry remains at the
forefront of international communications and continues to provide
top-quality service, local as well as long distance, to meet the
growing information requirements of residential and business users."

Since telephone companies have evolved into multi-dimensional service
providers subject to increasing competition, questions arise about the
continued appropriateness of traditional monopoly-style regulation.
However, the Commission considers that regulatory streamlining will
depend in part on the degree of effective competition in the markets
served by the telephone companies. While some markets may be
increasingly competitive, Canada's telephone companies continue to
exercise considerable market power due to their control over access to
local telephone systems and their dominance in the long distance
telephone market. Where telephone companies exercise market power,
regulation will be required to protect subscribers and industry
competitors from any abuse of that power.

"While the Commission is committed to considering changes to the
current framework, in pursuit of regulation that is more effective and
more efficient, the resulting framework must ensure that subscribers
and competitors are adequately protected," said Louis (Bud) Sherman,
CRTC Vice-Chairman for Telecommunications. "Changes must take account
of any monopoly or dominant power the telephone companies could
exercise."

Having raised these general issues, the Commission invites the
telephone companies and other interested parties to submit comments
and specific proposals for changing the existing regulatory framework.
Submissions should bee aimed at achieving the following goals:

* reduction of the regulatory burden where there is already effective
competition in place;

* encouragement of the development of new technology and innovative
services to serve the expanding information requirements of
residential and business customers;

* protection of subscribers and competitors from abuse of market power;

* equitable treatment of subscribers in terms of service and prices;

* the opportunity for telephone companies to earn a reasonable rate
of return; and,

* a recognition that the telephone companies and other telecommunica-
tion carriers must be permitted to equip themselves to meet increasing
competition at home and abroad.

During the course of the review proceeding, the Commission anticipates
receiving proposals to:

* streamline or eliminate regulatory requirements in light of changes
in industry structure;

* reduce the size of local service subsidies by, among other things,
new types of local services to generate increases in local service
revenues and encouraging investment to reduce costs;

* change the current system of allocating the subsidy to ensure that it is
equitably distributed among subscribers; and,

* examine alternatives to the Commission's existing rate base rate of
return approach to regulation of the telephone companies that may
better balance the interests of subscribers and competitors, while
maximizing the operating efficiency of the companies.

Parties wishing to participate in this proceeding must notify the
Commission of their intention to do so by writing to the Secretary
General, CRTC, Ottawa,Ontario, K1A 0N2, by March 15, 1993. Submissions
to this proceeding must be filed with the Commission by April 12,
1993. The Commission will convene and oral public hearing, scheduled
to commence on November 1, 1993, in connection with this proceeding.

                          - 30 -

Contact:  Bill Allen, Director
          CRTC Public Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2
          [phone] - TDD [phone] - Fax [phone]

or one of our regional offices listed below:
          Halifax, Nova Scotia - [phone] - TDD [phone]
          Montreal, Quebec - [phone] - TDD [phone]
          Winnipeg, Manitoba - [phone] - TDD [phone]
          Vancouver, British Columbia - [phone] - TDD [phone]

or from the Department of Communications Regional Office:
          Toronto, Ontario - [phone]


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 11:10:14 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)

Subject: Cell Phone SID in US / My Friend, Nynex Mobile ...


Hi!

I have the SID chart from the telecom archives, but it's quite old.
Has anyone managed to get a list of SIDs for US cellular service
providers?  My carrier (Nynex mobile in NJ) tells me to just 'dial
*611' to find out what system you are on.  "We do not have that
information."  My phone displays SID, and I've noticed that there are
many new ones I've wandered into that are not on the list.

It is difficult to get *any* information out of Nynex.  They tell me
they have call delivery into Philadelphia.  I try it and it doesn't
work.  I call them when I'm in Philly, and ask them to call me back on
my mobile number and it *still* doesn't work.  What do they conclude?
Of course, everything is working fine.

Finally, I attempted to get roaming rates and information from Nynex.
They sent me a booklet from 1990 with a few roamer ports listed.  What
I really wanted was the rates. When I lived in Chicago, Cell/One in
Chicago had a nice handy booklet with all of this.  But Nynex told me
they could and would give the information out only for cities/systems
I specifically requested.  That is, in order to find out the rates
for, say, California I would have to name each city and have them read
the information to me over the phone.

How the rates that the customer pays are a confidential item, to be
specifically kept *from* the customer I'll never know. After a lot of
complaining and threatening to cancel my service they finally
photocopied their roamer information -- which is up to date and
includes all systems, roamer ports, daily and per minute charges, etc.

Do many other 'service' providers give customers this much of a hard
time when they want to find out rates?  In the last two years I'd say
my experience with the cellular industry is that the carriers never
have anybody who knows anything answering the phone, and they
absolutely refuse to let you speak with anybody who knows anything.


<sigh>,
reb

-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
h:861 Washington Avenue Westwood NJ 07675 201-376-5766   ICBM: ??.??N   ??.??W
w: reb  Ingres   Park 80 West Plaza I    Saddle Brook, NJ 07662   201-587-1400



[Moderator's Note: Both Cellular One and Ameritech in Chicago have the
booklet you describe, listing roamer ports in hundreds of cities and
dialing instructios, etc. They send them out as part of the sign up
kit or you can get that information mailed out anytime.   PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #11
*****************************