The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-385-Vol-1of3.iso/t/tc13-020.zip/TC13-020.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-12 | 22KB | 541 lines

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:37:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 20

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Mickey Ferguson)
    Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (John Sullivan)
    Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Liron Lightwood)
    Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Curtis Sanford)
    Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Lou Taff)
    1-800-RIP-OFFS (was Calling 1-800 Can Cost a Fortune) (Paul Robinson)
    Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto (Troy Frericks)
    Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto (John David Galt)
    Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto (Brian Onn)
    Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Rob Boudrie)
    Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Ed Oliveri)
    Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Ben Cox)
    Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Paul Robinson)
    Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Barry Mishkind)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:33:27 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Udi
Manber) writes:

> I learned this the hard way after being charged for (apparently)
> dialing the wrong 800 number.

How did this charge appear on your bill? Was it a call to a 900
number, or perhaps a collect call?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 16:41:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> If you always thought that 1-800 numbers (in the US) are toll free,
> think again. With new technology and the lack of regulations, people
> are finding new ways to make money.

         [stuff deleted]

> It is possible, and apparently perfectly legal, to set an 800 number
> such that when you call you hear a recording that tells you that there
> will be charges for the call.

         [more stuff deleted]

> So here are some scam ideas (these are all fiction; do not try it at
> home):

         [more stuff deleted]

How long will it be before the COCOTs jump into the calling card
fraud?  How difficult would it be to program a pay phone to look for
when a caller dials the 800 number which is associated with one of the
long distance providers, and then just capture the calling card
digits, but pass on the digits and complete the call?  Then the COCOT
software just writes the calling card digits and the long distance
provider into its private database, which is then dumped and sold off
to the drug dealers, etc.  The more I think about this, the more I get
terrified at just how easy such a scam would be.  Hmmmm, maybe I'll
just go out and buy a pay phone and modify the software ...  NOT!

Maybe one idea to regulate COCOTs without too much difficulty or
paperwork would be to require them to be bonded, just like a home
contractor is.  Since the possibilities are just sitting there, this
would at least help to pay for any fraud that could result.  Or am I
being too paranoid?


Mickey Ferguson -- PhoneMail Development -- ROLMfax and Eclipse

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:37:11 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune


I'm now confused.  I don't always read TELECOM Digest, so I may have
missed something, but I have seen previous posts about INTEGRETEL,
etc., and I always got the impression that people trying to bill you
for 1-800 calls would get your number from their ANI, and send you a
separate bill for whatever they wanted.  I hadn't heard of getting
actual phone charges from calling 1-800.  If I forward calls to some
other number _I_ pay the charges on the resulting call, not the person
who called my first number.  Why would any telephone company agree to
provide billing services to anyone like INTEGRETEL anyway?

The other thing that has always confused me is why alternative
long-distance companies (AOSs?) can charge things to an AT&T calling
card.  I realize that Ma and the Baby Bells have some sort of
agreement to allow charges to each others' calling cards.  And I
gather that this all has something to do with the fact that there is
some standard way to determine if a calling card number is valid.  But
again, why does AT&T agree to provide billing service for these
people?  I can't imagine if Sears suddenly decided to accept payments
by JCPenny credit cards that JCPenny would actually let them collect
on the bills.

Sorry if this is all old hat, but I haven't seen good answers to these
questions here or elsewhere ...


John Sullivan     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:24:24 +1100
From: Liron Lightwood <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune


So, what happens when you call one of these costly 1-800 numbers from
a payphone?  Do the phone company pick up the bill?  Do you get asked
to insert money?  Or do you get a recorded message saying the number
cannot be dialed?

I understand that 1-900 numbers cannot be called from US payphones,
but 1-800 numbers can.  Does this apply for all 1-800 numbers
available in the area where the call is made from?


[Moderator's Note: What happened in the past was that the information
providers resorting to this sleazy tactic (of issuing a bill to the
caller after the caller dialed the 800 number) did attempt to send a
bill to the owner of the payphone ... and of course, the 'owner' of
the payphone (in effect, the subscriber) was telco itself ... telco
would not pay the IP's, and the IP's quickly learned to consult a data
base which lists payphone numbers, then refuse to do business with the
folks calling from them. The IP's still get tripped up occasionally by
COCOTS, (or actually, the COCOT owner gets the bill, he squeals like a
pig and the IP has to eat the charges) so when these numbers get iden-
tified, they also get added to the list of numbers not to be dealt
with. I think the IP's have begun to circulate the 'untouchables' list
among themselves as a mutual protection kind of thing. But in the
early days of the 800-converted-to-900-or-worse racket, it sure was
fun seeing how many charge-backs could be shoved up Mystic Marketing's
corporate waste eliminator at one time. Calls went through to those
astrologers, Tarot practitioners and 'counseling services' from every
payphone in Chicago, I suspect, and probably from other cities as
well. So how come the astrologers could not detect this little
shortcoming in their scam from the beginning?  :)    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Curtis Sanford)
Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:36:11 GMT
Organization: Ascend Communications, Alameda CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Udi
Manber) writes:

> If you always thought that 1-800 numbers (in the US) are toll free,
> think again. With new technology and the lack of regulations, people
> are finding new ways to make money.

> It is possible, and apparently perfectly legal, to set an 800 number
> such that when you call you hear a recording that tells you that there
> will be charges for the call.

Typically 800 numbers are not blocked from pay phones.  What happens
if you call such a number from a pay phone?  Is this a way to have
sweet revenge on the COCOT industry?


[Moderator's Note: See my comments in an earlier message in this
issue. The IP's have begun keeping a data base of payphones, and they
refused to service callers from those places.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune

Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:20:19 GMT


I think that the public, or at least, the readers of this Digest, can
help correct this problem ... for every non-toll-free 800 number you
can find, share it with as many friends as you can.  Then, whenever
you have some time to kill and you're near a public telephone, place
lots of calls to these numbers.  When the telco or other public
telephone provider starts getting these bills, they'll probably use
their clout with regulatory agencies to suppress such use of the 800
service access code.

Any thoughts on this?


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: And you also are invited to read my comments on
this in an earlier message in this issue. It just won't work any
longer; the astrologers and Tarot practitioners don't want any more BS
 from the deadbeats of the world (like all good TELECOM Digest
Moderators) ... Mystic Marketing says cut it out, now!  To be sure you
do, they've got the number of the payphones at the local 7/11 or bus
station, or wherever you are when you get the urge.  :)  By all means
though, keep trying; let's be sure they get their data base as complete
as possible.  :)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 13:20 EST
Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune


Pat:

With reference to a recent article in comp.dcom.telecom, I wonder if
you could refer me to (or send me a copy of) a telecom discussion
detailing just how calls to 800 numbers are charged for and end up on
someone's bill.  I'm having a hard time understanding it.  Thanks for
any help.


Lou Taff, AT&T Bell Laboratories
185 Monmouth Parkway   West Long Branch, NJ 07764
[phone]    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I'll do better than that, Lou. I'll print another
whole issue on the topic -- you are reading it now. Perhaps some of
the people who have raised the topic in the past will share their
wisdom with you.   PAT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993  19:02:51 EST
Subject: 1-800-RIP-OFFS (Was Calling 1-800 Can Cost a Fortune)


In TELECOM Digest Vol 13 #12, Udi Manber <[e-mail]>
suggested:

> You can get an 800 number that is one digit away from
> a widely used 800 number and rip off anyone who makes
> a mistake...You can put ads for information on how to
> make $10 a minute - just call 1-800-747-6337.  That's
> 1-800-Rip-Offs...

 From a Government Centrex number in Maryland that is authorized to
dial 1-800 numbers, I got the message:

  "Recording C2.  We're sorry, the number you've dialed is not
authorized from this location.  C2."

And this repeats several times.  So it looks like some of us are
protected from RIP-OFFS!  :)


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]
"If I or anyone else is caught making opinions, the Secretary will
disavow any knowledge of our actions..."

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

From: [e-mail] (Troy Frericks)
Subject: Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:16:28 GMT


> A similar scam has been going on in New York City. A messenger will
> show up at a company with a package, and when no one there seems to
> match the addressee, he asks to use the phone.  Calls a "540" exchange
> (one of the extra charge numbers; the others are 550, 970, 976, and
> another about to be announced) and the company gets billed for $50 or
> so.

Please explain.  I thought that 1-976-xxx-xxxx and 1-900-xxx-xxxx were
the only way for the called party to gain $$$ from the call.  What
other ways are there?  Do the above reference calls area code 212:
1-212-540-xxxx, 550-xxxx, 970-xxxx, and 976-xxxx?  If so, how am I
going to know that an extra charge applies (being from Iowa)?


Troy Frericks                      Internet: [e-mail]
Microware Systems Corporation          UUCP: uunet!mcrware!troyf
1900 NW 114th St                      Phone: [phone]
Des Moines, IA 50325-7077               Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Being from Iowa you don't have to worry about it,
as your telco will not connect you to a 212-540/550/etc number. In
that sense, they (540 numbers) are like 976; since the host telco has
no way to legitimatly collect for these numbers from interstate
callers (one could question the legitimacy of the whole concept, but
that is another issue), telcos simply do not put them through to each
other.  In the case of 900, specific tariffs apply for interstate
calls; for 976 and its kin, they do not. Many of the IP's from a few
years ago can tell you how they begged and pleaded with telco to not
allow calls to their 976 numbers from out of state: callers from
Chicago and elsewhere would dial into (as an example) 415-976-GAYS --
a gay bridge operating in SFCA at 13 cents per minute interstate night
rates -- and tie up all the ports so none of the locals could get
through at two dollar or more per minute rates. If you are not in NY
Tel's territory, you will not connect with 212-540 et al; if you are
not in Illinois Bell's territory you will not connect with 312-976.
Ditto PacTel and their premium lines. That's why whenever I see these
'urgent memos' from security personnel at various corporations warning
their employees against 'a scam originating in New York where they
call your beeper number and you call back, getting charged X dollars'
I always get a big laugh. It WILL NOT work (to the benefit of the
scammer) unless the victim is in the 212/718/914/516 area codes.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:18:02 PST


I have an idea that would make us more secure against this type of
fraud.  I wonder if any of the telcos would be willing to implement
it.

What I'd like to do is get my phone blocked so that direct-dialed
calls to a 900, 976, ... number won't go through, but calling-card
calls will.  That way if I really want to try one of these services, I
can get through, but a visitor can't (unless he uses his own card, and
then he pays).


John David Galt

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Onn - OpCom Staff)
Subject: Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto
Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:28:32 GMT


On Wed, 06 Jan 93 00:56:39 EST, Tony Harminc <[e-mail]> said:

> This past November, a company I consult for had three
> unauthorized calls to [phone] made on one of its lines.

[...]

> Bell Canada has agreed to remove the charges, but will not tell
> us the name of the owner of this number.

In Toronto, you can call the Bell Canada Customer Listing Bureau at
[phone], between 1100 and 1400 EST, and if you give them the
phone number, the operator will tell you who the number is registered
to.  The rules for 976 numbers may be different, however.  The process
works for most "normal" numbers.  Give it a try.


Brian Onn.                  Internet : [e-mail]
Operation Commitment,            Uucp : uunet!sun!suncan!brian
Product Support Specialist.    Voice : [phone].


[Moderator's Note: I just now tried it for 312-976-WAKE, our local

wake-up service (if their bill doesn't cause you to jump out of bed, I
don't know what would).  IBT-CNA (312-796-9600) would only say it is a
"Public Announcement Service"; no record as to owner, etc.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:59:39 GMT


> 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!

Denied.  (You're welcome!)

Bank card passwords are stored in encrypted form (one way encryption
using the DES algorithm on a combination of the account number, user
selected PIN and a few other things) which allows for local
verification of passwords but only by your own bank.  There are two
different standards by which this is done, but each has a
bank-specific encryption key (often refered to as the Pin Verification
Key, or PVK).  This key is kept highly confidential -- anyone with the
key could generate the hashed pin for each possible password (only
10,000 in the typical four digit password) , compare each to the
hashed value on the card, and decode the PIN that way.

Your own back can verify the password within the ATM; other bank's ATM's
must query your bank via the network.


rob boudrie

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 14:08:00 PST
From: Anthony E. Siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: Stanford University


> [Moderator's Note: I think the banks here which give money on trust
> when the network is down do have something called a 'negative listing'
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of cards which should not be honored in that way. Here in the Chicago

   I believe another more generic term for this kind of list, made
available in any form, is "derog list" (with obvious interpretation).

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Oliveri)
Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:00:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Levine) writes:

> Citibank machines in New York City at least used to have a similar
> feature.  For a long time, over a year, someone who clearly had inside
> information was using an old invalid Citicard to make $100 withdrawals
> from machines all over the city when the machines were offline while
> their network nodes were down for maintenance.  The maintenance
> schedule was deliberately erratic and quite secret.  Had the guy used
> the card even once in an on-line machine the card would have been
> eaten and that would have been that.  I never heard whether they
> managed to catch him.  I'd think that it would have been
> straightforward to set up a sting to catch him in the act.

Are you sure this was Citibank?  Every Citibank ATM I've seen CANNOT
eat a card since the card is dipped into the card reader, never
leaving the user's fingers.


Ed Oliveri, [e-mail]     OR     att!cbnewsb!eo


[Moderator's Note: The Citibank ATM's in Chicago eat the card for a
minute and spit it out when finished with it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ben Cox)
Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ...
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ben Cox)
Organization: Ancient Illuminated Sears of Bavaria
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:05:40 GMT


[e-mail] (Kenneth Crudup) writes:

> winding pulses to compensate for the increased requirements. This
> period of additional supply registers in the cores of the transformers
> as a slight "bleep", and a bunch of them together produce the "music"
> you hear. I used to troubleshoot Sun-2's aurally as well.

If you don't configure the device driver for the /dev/audio device on
a SPARCstation 10, you can hear interesting music on SpeakerBox,
too ... :-)


Ben Cox   [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993  22:32:27 EST
Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ...


[e-mail] writes in TELECOM Digest 13 #14 about how
someone programmed the IBM 1130 to generate tones on an AM radio.

I've got one better than that.  I was in the computer center at Orange
Coast College in Costa Mesa, Ca., when someone got the *line printer*
to play the five tones from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"!

I was there, I heard it.  Slick; it used exactly ONE piece of paper to
do this.  Do not ask me how.

Try *that*, Hewlett Packard!


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind)
Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ...
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:50:24 GMT


[e-mail] (Ken Stox) writes:

> Back in the "old" days, we used to leave an AM radio next to an IBM
> 1130, you could actually pick up the CPU activity. One clever
> programmer started writing some very interesting compositions. Of
> course, with the advent of modern synthesizers, it would be totally
> unimpressive.

Radio Shack actually sold several tunes that played on the TRS-80 and
made noise on a radio held near. This was late '70s


Regards,

Barry Mishkind     [e-mail]   FidoNet 1:300/11.3

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #20
*****************************