The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998 / hackers_encyclopedia.iso / zines / phrack1 / phrack29.009 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 21.0 KB | 371 lines

==Phrack Inc.== Volume Three, Issue 29, File #9 of 12 \`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\ \`\ \`\ \`\ BLOCKING OF LONG-DISTANCE CALLS... REVISITED \`\ \`\ by Jim Schmickley \`\ \`\ \`\ \`\ Hawkeye PC, Cedar Rapids, Iowa \`\ \`\ \`\ \`\ Previosly Seen in Pirate Magazine \`\ \`\ \`\ \`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\`\ This file is a continuation of "Block Of Long-Distance Calls" that was seen in Phrack Inc. Issue 21, file 8. Although the material has already been released (perhaps on a limited basis) in Pirate Magazine, we felt the information was important enough to re-present (on a larger scale), especially considering it was an issue that we had previously detailed. -- Phrack Inc. Staff The following article begins where the previous article left off: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - November 17, 1988 Customer Service Teleconnect P.O. Box 3013 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-9101 Dear Persons: I am writing in response to my October Teleconnect bill, due November 13, for $120.76. As you can see, it has not yet been paid, and I would hope to delay payment until we can come to some equitable table resolution of what appears to be a dispute. The records should show that I have paid previous bills responsibly. Hence, this is neither an attempt to delay nor avoid payment. My account number is: 01-xxxx-xxxxxx. My user phone is: 815-xxx-xxxx. The phone of record (under which the account is registered) is: 815-xxx-xxxx. If possible, you might "flag" my bill so I will not begin receiving dunning notices until we resolve the problem. I have several complaints. One is the bill itself, the other is the service. I feel my bill has been inflated because of the poor quality of the service you provide to certain areas of the country. These lines are computer lines, and those over which the dispute occurs are 2400 baud lines. Dropping down to 1200 baud does not help much. As you can see from my bill, there are numerous repeat calls made to the same location within a short period of time. The primary problems occured to the following locations: 1. Highland, CA 714-864-4592 2. Montgomery, AL 205-279-6549 3. Fairbanks, AK 907-479-7215 4. Lubbock, TX 806-794-4362 5. Perrine, FL 305-235-1645 6. Jacksonville, FL 904-721-1166 7. San Marcos, TX 512-754-8182 8. Birmingham, AL 205-979-8409 9. N. Phoenix, AZ 602-789-9269 <-- (The Dark Side BBS by The Dictator) The problem is simply that, to these destinations, Teleconnect can simply not hold a line. AT&T can. Although some of these destinations were held for a few minutes, generally, I cannot depend on TC service, and have more recently begun using AT&T instead. Even though it may appear from the records that I maintained some contact for several minutes, this time was useless, because I cold not complete my business, and the time was wasted. An equitable resolution would be to strike these charges from my bill. I would also hope that the calls I place through AT&T to these destinations will be discounted, rather than pay the full cost. I have enclosed my latest AT&T bill, which includes calls that I made through them because of either blocking or lack of quality service. If I read it correctly, no discount was taken off. Is this correct? As you can see from the above list of numbers, there is a pattern in the poor quality service: The problem seems to lie in Western states and in the deep south. I have no problem with the midwest or with numbers in the east. I have been told that I should call a service representative when I have problems. This, however, is not an answer for several reasons. First, I have no time to continue to call for service in the middle of a project. The calls tend to be late at night, and time is precious. Second, on those times I have called, I either could not get through, or was put on hold for an indeterminable time. Fourth, judging from comments I have received in several calls to Teleconnect's service representatives, these seem to be problems for which there is no immediate solution, thus making repeated calls simply a waste of time. Finally, the number of calls on which I would be required to seek assistance would be excessive. The inability to hold a line does not seem to be an occasional anomaly, but a systematic pattern that suggests that the service to these areas is, indeed, inadequate. A second problem concerns the Teleconnect policy of blocking certain numbers. Blocking is unacceptable. When calling a blocked number, all one receives is a recorded message that "this is a local call." Although I have complained about this once I learned of the intentional blocking, the message remained the same. I was told that one number (301-843-5052) would be unblocked, and for several hours it was. Then the blocking resumed. A public utility simply does not have the right to determine who its customers may or may not call. This constitutes a form of censorship. You should candidly tell your customers that you must approve of their calls or you will not place them. You also have the obligation to provide your customers with a list of those numbers you will not service so that they will not waste their time attempting to call. You might also change the message that indicates a blocked call by saying something "we don't approve of who you're calling, and won't let you call." I appreciate the need to protect your customers. However, blocking numbers is not appropriate. It is not clear how blocking aids your investigation, or how blocking will eliminate whatever problems impelled the action. I request the following: 1. Unblock the numbers currently blocked. 2. Provide me with a complete list of the numbers you are blocking. 3. End the policy of blocking. I feel Teleconnect has been less than honest with its customers, and is a bit precipitous in trampling on rights, even in a worthy attempt to protect them from abuses of telephone cheats. However, the poor quality of line service, combined with the apparrent violation of Constitutional rights, cannot be tolerated. Those with whom I have spoken about this matter are polite, but the bottom line is that they do not respond to the problem. I would prefer to pay my bill only after we resolve this. Cheerfully, (Name removed by request) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /*/ ST*ZMAG SPECIAL REPORT - by Jerry Cross /*/ (reprinted from Vol. #28, 7 July, 1989) =============================================== TELECONNECT CALL BLOCKING UPDATE Ctsy (Genesee Atari Group) Background ~~~~~~~~~~ At the beginning of last year one of my bbs users uploaded a file he found on another bbs that he thought I would be interested in. It detailed the story of an Iowa bbs operator who discovered that Teleconnect, a long distance carrier, was blocking incoming calls to his bbs without his or the callers knowledge. As an employee of Michigan Bell I was very interested. I could not understand how a company could interfere with the transmissions of telephone calls, something that was completely unheard of with either AT&T or Michigan Bell in the past. The calls were being blocked, according to Teleconnect public relations officials, because large amounts of fraudulent calls were being placed through their system. Rather than attempting to discover who was placing these calls, Teleconnect decided to take the easy (and cheap) way out by simply block access to the number they were calling. But the main point was that a long distance company was intercepting phone calls. I was very concerned. I did some investigating around the Michigan area to see what the long distance carriers were doing, and if they, too, were intercepting or blocking phone calls. I also discovered that Teleconnect was just in the process of setting up shop to serve Michigan. Remember, too, that many of the former AT&T customers who did not specify which long distance carrier they wanted at the time of the AT&T breakup were placed into a pool, and divided up by the competing long distance companies. There are a number of Michigan users who are using certain long distance carriers not of their choice. My investigation discovered that Michigan Bell and AT&T have a solid, computer backed security system that makes it unnecessary for them to block calls. MCI, Sprint, and a few other companies would not comment or kept passing me around to other departments, or refused to comment about security measures. I also discussed this with Michigan Bell Security and was informed that any long distance company that needed help investigating call fraud would not only receive help, but MBT would actually prepare the case and appear in court for prosecution! My calls to Teleconnect were simply ignored. Letters to the public service commission, FCC, and other government departments were also ignored. I did, however, get some cooperation from our U.S. Representative Dale Kildee, who filed a complaint in my name to the FCC and the Interstate Commerce Commission. What follows is their summary of an FCC investigation to Mr. Kildee's office. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dear Congressman Kildee: This is in further response to your October 18, 1988 memorandum enclosing correspondence from Mr. Gerald R. Cross, President of the Genesee Atari Group in Flint, Michigan concerning a reported incidence of blocking calls from access to Curt Kyhl's Stock Exchange Bulletin Board System in Waterloo, Iowa by Teleconnect, a long distance carrier. Mr. Cross, who also operates a bulletin board system (bbs), attaches information indicating that Teleconnect blocked callers from access via its network to Mr. Kyhl's BBS number in an effort to prevent unauthorized use of its customers' long distance calling authorization codes by computer "hackers." Mr. Cross is concerned that this type of blocking may be occurring in Michigan and that such practice could easily spread nationwide, thereby preventing access to BBSs by legitimate computer users. On November 7, 1988, the Informal Complaints Branch of the Common Carrier Bureau directed Teleconnect to investigate Mr. Cross' concerns and report the results of its investigation to this Commission. Enclosed, for your information, is a copy of Teleconnect's December 7, 1988 report and its response to a similar complaint filed with this Commission by Mr. James Schmickley. In accordance with the commission's rules, the carrier should have forwarded a copy of its December 7, 1988 report to Mr. Cross at the same time this report was filed with the Commission. I apologize for the delay in reporting the results of our investigation to your office. Teleconnect's report states that it is subject to fraudulent use of its network by individuals who use BBSs in order to unlawfully obtain personal authorization codes of consumers. Teleconnect also states that computer "hackers" employ a series of calling patterns to access a carrier's network in order to steal long distance services. The report further states that Teleconnect monitors calling patterns on a 24 hour basis in an effort to control, and eliminate when possible, code abuse. As a result of this monitoring, Teleconnect advises that its internal security staff detected repeated attempts to access the BBS numbers in question using multiple seven-digit access codes of legitimate Teleconnect customers. These calling patterns, according to Teleconnect, clearly indicated that theft of telecommunications services was occurring. The report states that Teleconnect makes a decision to block calls when the estimated loss of revenue reaches at least $500. Teleconnect notes that blocking is only initiated when signs of "hacking" and other unauthorized usage are present, when local calls are attempted over its long distance network or when a customer or other carrier has requested blocking of a certain number. Teleconnect maintains that blocking is in compliance with the provisions of Section A.20.a.04 of Teleconnect's Tariff FCC No. #3 which provides that service may be refused or disconnected without prior notice by Teleconnect for fraudulent unauthorized use. The report also states that Teleconnect customers whose authorizations codes have been fraudulently used are immediately notified of such unauthorized use and are issued new access codes. Teleconnect further states that while an investigation is pending, customers are given instructions on how to utilize an alternative carrier's network by using "10XXX" carrier codes to access interstate or intrastate communications until blocking can be safely lifted. Teleconnect maintains that although its tariff does not require prior notice to the number targeted to be blocked, it does, in the case of a BBS, attempt to identify and contact the Systems Operator (SysOp), since the SysOp will often be able to assist in the apprehension of an unauthorized user. The report states that with regard to Mr. Kyle's Iowa BBS, Teleconnect was unable to identify Mr. Kyle as the owner of the targeted number because the number was unlisted and Mr. Kyhl's local carrier was not authorized to and did not release any information to Teleconnect by which identification could be made. The report also states that Teleconnect attempted to directly access the BBS to determine the identity of the owner but was unable to do so because its software was incompatible with the BBS. Teleconnect states that its actions are not discriminatory to BBSs and states that it currently provides access to literally hundreds of BBSs around the country. The report also states that Teleconnect's policy to block when unauthorized use is detected is employed whether or not such use involves a BBS. Teleconnect advises that when an investigation is concluded or when a complaint is received concerning the blocking, the blocking will be lifted, as in the case of the Iowa BBS. However, Teleconnect notes that blocking will be reinstated if illegal "hacking" recurs. Teleconnect advises that it currently has no ongoing investigations within the State of Michigan and therefore, is not presently blocking any BBSs in Michigan. However, Teleconnect states that it is honoring the request of other carriers and customers to block access to certain numbers. The Branch has reviewed the file on this case. In accordance with the Commission's rules for informal complaints it appears that the carrier's report is responsive to our Notice. Therefore, the Branch, on its own motion, is not prepared to recommend that the Commission take further action regarding this matter. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This letter leaves me with a ton of questions. First, let's be fair to Teleconnect. Long distance carriers are being robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually by "hackers" and must do something to prevent it. However, call blocking is NOT going to stop it. The "hacker" still has access to the carrier network and will simply start calling other numbers until that number, too, is blocked, then go on to the next. The answer is to identify the "hacker" and put him out of business. Teleconnect is taking a cheap, quick fix approach that does nothing to solve the problem, and hurts the phone users as a whole. They claim that their customers are able to use other networks to complete their calls if the number is being blocked. What if other networks decide to use Teleconnect's approach? You would be forced to not only keep an index of those numbers you call, but also the long distance carrier that will let you call it! Maybe everyone will block that number, then what will you do? What if AT&T decided to block calls? Do they have this right too? And how do you find out if the number is being blocked? In the case of Mr. Kyhl's BBS, callers were given a recording that stated the number was not in service. It made NO mention that the call was blocked, and the caller would assume the service was disconnect. While trying to investigate why his calls were not going through, Mr. James Schmickley placed several calls to Teleconnect before they finally admitted the calls were being blocked! Only after repeated calls to Teleconnect was the blocking lifted. It should also be noted that Mr. Kyhl's bbs is not a pirate bbs, and has been listed in a major computer magazine as one of the best bbs's in the country. As mentioned before, MBT will work with the long distance carriers to find these "hackers." I assume that the other local carriers would do the same. I do not understand why Teleconnect could not get help in obtaining Mr. Kyhl's address. It is true the phone company will not give out this information, but WILL contact the customer to inform him that someone needs to contact him about possible fraud involving his phone line. If this policy is not being used, maybe the FCC should look into it. Call blocking is not restricted to BBSs, according to Teleconnect. They will block any number that reaches a $500 fraud loss. Let's say you ran a computer mail order business and didn't want to invest in a WATS line. Why should an honest businessman be penalized because someone else is breaking the law? It could cost him far more the $500 from loss of sales because of Teleconnect's blocking policy. Teleconnect also claims that "they are honoring the request of other carriers and customers to block access to certain numbers." Again, MBT also has these rules. But they pertain to blocking numbers to "certain numbers" such as dial-a-porn services, and many 900-numbers. What customer would ever request that Teleconnect block incoming calls to his phone? And it is an insult to my intelligence for Teleconnect to claim they could not log on to Mr. Kyhl's BBS. Do they mean to say that with hundreds of thousands of dollars in computer equipment, well trained technicians, and easy access to phone lines, that they can't log on to a simple IBM bbs? Meanwhile, here I sit with a $50 Atari 800xl and $30 Atari modem and I have no problem at all accessing Mr. Kyhl's bbs! What's worse, the FCC (the agency in charge of regulating data transmission equipment), bought this line too! Incredible!!! And finally, I must admit I don't have the faintest idea what Section A.20.a.04 of Teleconnect's Tariff FCC No. 3 states, walk into your local library and ask for this information and you get a blank look from the librarian. I know, I tried! However, MBT also has similar rules in their tariffs. Teleconnect claims that the FCC tariff claims that "service may be refused or disconnected without prior notice by Teleconnect for fraudulent, unauthorized use". This rule, as applied to MBT, pertains ONLY to the subscriber. If an MBT customer were caught illegally using their phone system then MBT has the right to disconnect their service. If a Teleconnect user wishes to call a blocked number, and does so legally, how can Teleconnect refuse use to give them service? This appears to violate the very same tarriff they claim gives them the right to block calls! I have a few simple answers to these questions. I plan, once again, to send out letters to the appropriate agencies and government representatives, but I doubt they will go anywhere without a mass letter writing campaign from all of you. First, order that long distance companies may not block calls without the consent of the customer being blocked. Every chance should be given to him to assist in identifying the "hacker," and he should not be penalized for other people's crimes. There should also be an agency designated to handle appeals if call blocking is set up on their line. Currently, there is no agency, public service commission, or government office (except the FCC) that you can complain to, and from my experience trying to get information on call blocking I seriously doubt that they will assist the customer. Next, order the local phone carriers to fully assist and give information to the long distance companies that will help identify illegal users of their systems. Finally, order the Secret Service to investigate illegal use of long distance access codes in the same manner that they investigate credit card theft. These two crimes go hand in hand. Stiff fines and penalties should be made mandatory for those caught stealing long distance services. If you would like further information, or just want to discuss this, I am available on Genie (G.Cross) and CompuServe (75046,267). Also, you can reach me on my bbs (FACTS, 313-736-4544). Only with your help can we put a stop to call blocking before it gets too far out of hand. >--------=====END=====--------<