The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-385-Vol-1of3.iso/t/tc13-003.zip/TC13-003.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 18KB | 451 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Jan 93 22:14:30 CST      Volume 13 : Issue 3

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (John R. Levine)
    Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Shrikumar)
    Re: EasyLink and Internet? (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: Easylink and Internet? (Jim Gorak)
    Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Doug Sewell)
    Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Dave Grabowski)
    Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem (Tom Benham)
    Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem (Jim Budler)
    Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? (Bob Yazz)
    Re: GTE Betting the Bankroll on Wireless (Dave Ptasnik)
    Re: More Idiocy From GTE (Andy Sherman)
    Re: How to Prepare For the Startup of an AM Radio Tower Nearby (Nick Sayer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 2 Jan 93 11:36:23 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> [Zounds! The whole calling card number is on the mag stripe.]

I think you will find that historically with telco calling cards there
hasn't been a distinction made between a "non-secret" part, the first
ten digits, and a "secret" part, the last four.  In years past when
calling fraud wasn't such an issue, the check code was so simple that
the operator could validate it as the call was placed by checking a
little cheat sheet.  If a calling card number was compromised, the
telco would issue an entirely made up number in which the fourth digit
was a 1.

The only use to date that I have found for the mag stripe on a calling
card is in the card reader phones found mostly at airports, which read
the whole calling card number and stuff it down the line at the
appropriate time as you're making a phone call.  These phones are
already hard enough to use, and I suspect that if they read ten digits
from the card and asked you to enter the other four by hand, nobody
would use them at all.

If you are concerned about the security of your calling card, leave it
at home.  Every phone I've ever seen that reads calling cards also
lets you punch in the number by hand.  Admittedly, then you have to
look out for shoulder surfers, but I guess this again proves that
there's no free lunch.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 13:22:35 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] wrote:

> I've been working on a credit card / phone project, and discovered
> something that is probably known to many but was news to me: My PIN is
> _on_ my calling card!  Recorded on Track 2, offset 23 characters after
> the SS.  In the clear.

I believe the bankcard passwords are also often in the clear in the
ISO mag stripe. Shudder! Remember having read something to that
effect on the net. Could some please deny ... please .. please!

Or do the ATMs check with the central computer each time (hope the
traffic is encrypted.)


shrikumar ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: EasyLink and Internet?
Date: 2 Jan 1993 16:57:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


As far as I can tell you could always send to Internet from EasyLink.
In the help files it tells you how. A bit costly I would guess, but if
you needed to send a message I guess the cost would not matter.  I
tried it once when I first got on Internet and it worked fine. I was
even able to send one to myself on GTEMail. As time passes more of the
systems seem to be linking.

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

Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 06:24 GMT
From: Jim Gorak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Easylink and Internet?


[e-mail] (Donald R. Newcomb) writes:

> I have long understood that sending email between EasyLink and
> Internet was out of the question. ....(part deleted)

> Can anyone tell me there has been a change of policy at EasyLink re.
> Internet mail? Can we send to EasyLink? If so, what is the proper
> set-up for the address envelope? Can they send to us? What does the
> address look like?

There are a couple of ways to address e-mail from the Internet to an
AT&T Easylink subscriber. I have been using the "Easy" way. I'm not
sure that this official but, so far, it has worked every time for me.

You need to find out the Easylink subscriber's Easylink number (ELN),
i.e. 62925933, which is my Easylink number. the Internet address is:

            [e-mail]

An Easylink subscriber can send to an Internet address bu using the
following format: (i.e. for [e-mail])

IPM
PRIMARY
COUNTRY US
ADMD ATTMAIL
ORG UUCP
DDA ID-internet(b)dnewcomb(a)whale.st.usm.edu
END+
(message text...)
   "      "
   "      "
   "      "
(message text...)
MMMM


Hope this works for you.


Regards, Jim Gorak

X.400  S=Gorak;DDA:ID=3735974;A=MCI;C=US | Internet   [e-mail]
MCI    Jim Gorak / 373-5974              | CompuServe >MCIMAIL:373-5974
Telex  6503735974  "6503735974MCI UW"    | Tele-Home  [phone]
Post   3231 S. Landl Lane  #108          | Tele-Work  [phone]
       Milwaukee, WI 53227-4474  USA     | Tele-FAX   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 14:22:56 GMT


say,halim s ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Does anyone know or could you tell me a reference for this "standard"?
> I am sure some address generator software would have this algorithm.

Here's the algorithm (about two months ago I translated it into a 4GL
language for our DBMS.  There was also an article in a recent PC
magazine including source code).  Your post was pretty well
on-the-money.

Here's the algorithm (with a disclaimer that I'm working from memory
after having glanced briefly at the code last week, and double-checked
it against the bar-codes of some bills I have to mail):

(1) Coding can be five digits (rare), nine digits (most common) and
    more to include house codes/street address numbers (this is not
    very common yet).

(2) You have a tall start bar, N+1 sets of five bars (the +1 is a check
    digit) and a tall stop bar.  The tall bars are ones, and the short
    bars are zeros.  The code is self-clocking (that's scanner termin-
    ology).

(3) There will always be two tall bars and three short bars.  The bars
    are numbered 7, 4, 2, 1, and 0 and are summed together (with the

    means that 0-9 are:

    0 - 11000
    1 - 00011
    2 - 00101
    3 - 00110
    4 - 01001
    5 - 01010

    6 - 01100
    7 - 10001
    8 - 10010
    9 - 10100

(4) The check digit is 10 - mod(sum of digits,10).  So for 32232-5121
    the check-digit is 9 (3+2+2+3+2+5+1+2+1 = 21, 10 - mod(21,10) - 9.
    For 43218-2210 it's 7, for 50360-0001, it's 5.


Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
[e-mail]       [e-mail]    <internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Grabowski)
Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:05:47 GMT


  {The New York Times} had a short article with diagram that explained
the mysterious barcodes on January 28, 1990. Here's the gist (jist?)
of it:

  Bars are divided into sets of five. Within a set, each bar,
left-to-right, represents the numbers 7, 4, 2, 1, and 0. In each set
of bars, only two are tall. These two represent the numbers that
should be added to get a digit. (By convention, 7 + 4 = 0).

  The barcode starts and ends with a tall bar. The check digit is the
number that would be required so that the sum of all digits plus the
check digit is evenly divisible by ten. i.e., if the zip+4 code was
15230-9821 (digits add to 31), the check digit would be 9, because
31+9=40, which is divisible by 10.


Dave
Kappa Xi Kappa - Over & Above!                         [e-mail]
9 Sussex Ave., Newark, NJ (car theft capital USA)   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Benham)
Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 03:02:28 GMT


[e-mail] (John Boteler) writes:

> I don't sell ZyXELs, but thought I'd throw in my $0.02 to aid in the
> discussion of such fancy modems.

On the topic of modems.  DO any of these modems also support
synchronous transmission for HDLC?  I was looking at Motorola's line
and they apparently have two different lines: one 'Sync-UP' and the
other 'FasTalk'.  It is not clear to me why there should be two lines
of modems.  Currently I've got a V.32b+Fax+++ async modem, but it does
NOT support synchronous xmit which I need for SDLC connections.
Guidance appreciated.


Tom

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Budler)
Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem
Organization: Silvar-Lisco
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993  07:06:10 GMT


The PPI modem doesn't currently do Caller-ID. I'm using one right now.
It could probably offer it with a firmware change, but it doesn't.


Jim Budler            [e-mail]
Silvar-Lisco          [e-mail]
703 E. Evelyn Ave.    [e-mail]
Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086  +1.408.991.6115

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 21:26:52 GMT


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> But what people do not understand is that those preciously private
> telephone numbers will soon be displayed out of state on a wide scale.
> It is only other CALIFORNIANS that will not see the number displayed.

You don't seriously believe such a state of affairs will stand, do you
John?  The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, period.  I
can even see the potential for lawsuits against Pac Bell over this.

Sounds like an incentive to switch to a long distance company that
does not use SS7.  How do you think AT&T might feel about this?


Bob Yazz

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

Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1992 11:09:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE Betting the Bankroll on Wireless


willard![e-mail] (Leigh Melton) wrote:

> GTE is betting the bankroll on wireless systems.  It's the number one
> priority in Stamford HQ, or so I'm told by a friend who works for GTE.
> They apparently feel that wireless is their chance to "dig ATT's
> grave" and finally beat Ma Bell at a *different* game, as they never
> could using current systems.  So far, the wireless PBX seems to be the
> item that everyone is drooling over.

I love it!  The telco with one of the worst basic dial tone
reputations in the business is chasing a silly pipe dream.  Why can't
these guys get a clue and start improving the one thing that is their
bread and butter.  They should be offering more and more dial tone
features for basic service, ISDN at realistic prices with realistic
features, Caller ID (at least at the Higdon estate), etc.  But
NOOOOOOOOO, they have to play games with selling equipment.

"Wireless" PBX's will continue to be a very small part of the market
for a long time.  They still require a ton of wiring (all those little
antennas and mux's all over the building).  The equipment cost is
higher on a per phone basis, so is not practical for large phones with
lots of feature keys that sit on desks.  Most people don't really want
to carry a small personal phone around with them all the time, they
leave their offices to avoid phones.  Many women's outfits don't have
pockets or belts for storing the phones.  Because the sets have to be
small and light, they tend to be number code intensive for feature
activation, customers LOVE codes ;-).  Sure cordless is great for some
people in some applications.  But certainly not most people and most
applications.

I'm sure AT&T is quaking with fear, and GTE rate payers and
stockholders are gibbering with glee.  Once again everyday users will
see rates go up, and/or slow feature realeases, and/or service
degredation to pay for this latest folly.  C'mon GTE, get a life.


All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of -
Dave Ptasnik          [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: More Idiocy From GTE
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 16:46:52 EST


On 28 Dec 92 15:07:25 GMT, [e-mail] (Charles
Mattair) said:

> As I'm at a friends house, I decide to put the call on calling card.
> 102880+10D.  <boing> GTE.  Huh ...?  I know this is intralata but I
> told them to use AT&T.  They can't override my choice of carrier can
> they?  Try it again except as 102880 + 7D (713 has gone 1/0 + 10D on
> all LD calls but who knows what GTE is doing).  <boing> GTE.

Local exchange carriers look at the whole number before passing it off
to an IXC, precisely because of what you tried to do.  AT&T is very
likely not tariffed to carry that call, so the switch knows better
than you do, and routes it via the LEC.  However, AT&T issued CIID
card should still be good for a GTE carried call.  AT&T has reciprocal
card verification and billing agreements with virtually every LEC in
the country so that your AT&T card is AOS-proof and OCC-proof but not
LEC-proof.  (That is a feature, not a bug).


Andy Sherman    Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
[phone]  -  [e-mail] or [e-mail]
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: How to Prepare For the Startup of an AM Radio Tower Nearby
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: 03 Jan 1993  02:56:23 UTC



[e-mail] writes:

> Can anyone suggest any measurements, recordings, or other things that
> should be done now, before broadcasting starts, that will help if we
> need to later complain to the FCC about interference, bad phone noise,
> etc.?  If there are any firms that specialize in this type of
> measurment, their names or numbers would be appreciated.

This pushes one of my hot buttons.

In the vast majority of cases the interference is the fault of the
home electronics equipment designers who failed to adequately shield
the equipment from high density RF fields. In all but the tiniest
minority of cases the transmitter in question is operating entirely
normally, legally, and totally within the norms of modern engineering
practice. In many cases it is simply the sight of an antenna that gets
the xenophobes working. It is common practice for a new Amateur Radio
operator in the neighborhood to put up an antenna without connecting
it to a transmitter for a month or two. Invariably a couple RFI
complaints come in from the xenophobic community.

The solution is to make consumer electronics less susceptable to RFI.
The FCC has jurisdiction over susceptability regulation of all home
electronics. They have chosen to abrogate that responsibility in favor
of letting the manufacturers have their own way.

If you suspect that the transmitter is emitting harmonics or other
out-of-band emissions, then you can indeed sick the FCC on them.  It
is incredibly unlikely that a commercial station would put out illegal
amounts of spur simply because spurs cost money A) in fines from the
FCC and grief from the guy at double the frequency and B) it's wasted
energy and therefore wasted money (a 7 kW FM transmitter with a -13 dB
spur is putting out 350 watts on that spur. That's 10% waste. Techies:
Yes, a -13 dB spur is pretty outrageous, and the math is simplified,
but it sort of illustrates the idea).

There is one exception: CB stations with (illegal) amplifiers almost
always throw out spurs because the operators of those stations don't
know how to tune the amp properly. This is NOT the case with Amateur
radio stations (yes, Virginia, there is a bloody huge difference) --
for one thing the amps in the Amateur service aren't illegal (Hams can
use up to 1500 watts PEP, CBers can use about 5 [I forget the actual
number, but it's very tiny]).

So what to do?

1. Don't be a xenophobe. If it's not bothering your home electronics,
don't throw a tantrum!

2. If it IS causing you trouble, it is PROBABLY because your device is
susceptable NOT because the transmitter is doing something wrong. Call
the transmitting agency with this attitude and you'll be a lot more
likely to get help than if you call 'em up and insist that everything
was fine before they came along. Being the cause of RFI and being "at
fault" are two entirely different things.

3. Tell the FCC that the consumer electronics industry is entirely
incapable of regulating susceptability in consumer electronics, as
they have proven quite conclusively.


Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>  N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
[phone], log in as 'guest'    PGP 2.1 public key on request

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #3
****************************