bcrscahh198987

Any point to phreaking?

31 posts in this topic

Oh and before you guys flame me for the C5 thing, there are a few countries left in the world that still use it as a backbone and it requires very little effort to find them

Don't worry, this generally isn't a place where people get flamed :) . Anyway, though, I found a list, courtesy of Sprint, and decided to scan it out with a few friends a year or two back. Micronesia and Belize are both C5, but there's another, I forget which, on that list that uses in-band signaling. These all vary by carrier, though, so if you could find a list from this century with AT&T or some other carrier's country directs, we could find even more. I *believe* AT&T's Belize country direct runs over some form of out of band signaling, though.

Also, if you're in Canada, the same thing applies; the Canadian Belize country direct uses C5, but it's not reachable from the US. I'm not sure about any of the other ones, though.

<a href="http://www.sprint.com/business/resources/S...aling_Guide.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.sprint.com/business/resources/S...aling_Guide.pdf</a>

EDIT: On a more serious note, I'd like to ask everybody not to use this for fraud. While I'm pretty sure that the forum is in fact not monitored by Sprint's security division, there's a reason why I never bothered to post this until now. Sure, it's all well and good to use this to reach numbers that don't go through, or even a few numbers that supervise for the fun of seeing call routings and other cool things, you can bet that Sprint will get pretty pissed off when someone starts using it to place 300 minute calls to the PLA bridge or wherever.

Edited by ThoughtPhreaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well what do you get from studying anything? i like to study phones and networks because they are both things used by people every day. having knowledge of things that others dont have is one of the greatest thrills you can experience. i study phones because its something interesting to me and thats it.

theres no real benefit other than knowledge. but what other benefits do you need?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*snort* hmm? Wha'? Oh, right, VoIP is dull, and softswitches suck.

In all seriousness, though, the TDM network is and always will be my playground, and it has nothing to do with either seizing trunks, boxing, or free calls of any sort -- I have unlimited to both the US and Canada, and that's free enough for me. Sure, seeing something old that still works is always cool, but there's new things within the same network that are discovered almost every week. Remember -- there is plenty of activity that goes on outside the world of binrev. As for VoIP, though, it seems to be what's getting all the attention; whether it's services that play recordings to you, spoof identification fields, there's plenty of weird services that're been developed even as we speak.

I apologize for not including that many supporting details, but I'm trying to stock up content for a project in progress right now. Remember, though; as we move closer to a VoIP network, what was once a completely unique network will be nothing more then a bunch of servers little different from the computer you're running right now on a network that's just another adjunct of the internet.

I might as well say it now, fooling a modern, fully digital CO switch into letting you do something out of the ordinary is by no means a stretch of the imagination. I know I'm just going to end up sounding like a complete idiot and a compulsive liar, but I'll leave demonstrations of that as something for another time.

EDIT: Hell with it, I may as well mention my points now. No point in keeping them to myself.

Right, so as I was saying, though, you really have to wonder if we're taking a step back in the world of telecom. Over the average VoIP connection, you'll be getting about a 9600 baud connection to a modem, where even over a rarely maintained analog microwave link, I've seen a modem push 14400 baud. Keep in mind, this is all before even T-carrier was released. Also, is there anything that the future network can do that the modern network can't? My first thought would be the other way around -- the modern network is stuck using uLaw over a bunch of T-carrier trunks, so in that sense, it's quite limited. But no, instead we see people compressing it to shittier and shittier sounding codecs, like GSM and G.729. We seem to get more and more bandwidth every single day, but we can't even support a simple IP-based telephone call with a decent codec using it, and when we do, we get ridiculous amounts of packet loss.

I think we can all agree that a system that's supposed to replace something should at least do as well as the system before it. So wake me when we see a softswitch that supports at least 24 simultaneous uLaw connections over IP with *no* audible packet loss whatsoever, and reliability so stiflingly high, you won't see it fail in at least fifteen years.

For me, though, call quality isn't the only thing I hate about softswitches. As the name implies, you get what you pay for -- an ATA with no cool test numbers, no interesting recordings, or anything like that. You might be saying, though, won't you still get cool recordings and the like with CO-operated softswitches? I've personally picked up pay phones on a softswitch in both Nebraska and New Jersey, two completely seperate states, and tried as hard as I could to get at least one recording from them. Not happening. Even calling from the outside, you get a battery drop and dumped to your permanent signal recording or local reorder, depending on how your office works. Of course, though, that can always be changed, but I still invite someone to show me a CO-based packet switch you find in the PSTN that has at least one recording. Also, what happens to all the fun and silly differences you get when you move from a hardware-based switch to a packet switch? That's all debateble, but I think they'll go away.

Anyway, sorry, I just had to let that out, it's been on my back for a while :) .

I would find it difficult to agree with ThoughtPhreaker to a greater degree. As far as VoIP bashing, I would state that one of the primary problems with VoIP is that it integrates computers and telephones directly. Previously, with modems, the two technological entities remained separate but integrated-in my opinion, matters should have remained like that. With VoIP, the flaws (security, quality, and otherwise) of both computers and telephones are prevalent. It also angers me somewhat that people finally developed a high-quality, efficent, and cheap telecomunications network (the PTSN), only to abandon it merely for "high-tech" alternatives such as digital cellular and VoIP. Let's face it, the quality on the latter options is not even close to that of the modern PTSN. I am not anti-technology, of course-I merely wish that the energy and resources that went toward developing these "new" technologies would have gone into improving upon the PTSN and updating it to high technological standards. Numerous programmers spent literally hundreds of hours developing the operating systems for digital switches-it is ridiculous to scrap that for VoIP; a far more sensical alternative would be that of the building onto the existing system. IP packets were also never designed to carry voice-the unreliability of IP is well-known and documented! VoIP is merely a noble experiment-at least I hope so. With that said, however, softswitches are wonderous not for independent use, but rather for use in conjunction with the existing PTSN, as is VoIP. Backspoofing has become reliable and inevitably popular-it is made rather simple by VoIP and softswitch technology. Digital cellular is also fantastic for scanning and experimenting with VMBs. These phenomena, I believe, truly capture and convey the spirit of old school phreaking (yes, I have ceased to employ quotation marks), in reference to the practice of using modern concepts and technology to explore an aged system, the likes of which many of us yearn for either due to our absence on the planet at the time that it was being developed, or our fondness for a system that we have come to know and love over many years.

As for phreaking as a general engagement, I would state that one of its postiive aspects lies in the relative accessibility and ubiquitous nature of the telephone network, as well as the tendency of phreaking adventures to be very extended, powerful, and built upon the last action. Yes, I have actually engaged in such things such as the following. Example: You are somewhere, and you see a courtesy phone/beiged line/payphone/PBX to which you have access. There may be a dial lock on the phone. In this instance, you depress the switchhook rapidly, causing dial pulses to be sent. On a payphone, use an influx of magnetism on a strip of videotape rubbed lightly with graphite to get on operator on the line, or succeed in attaining ACTS and red box. In any case, you pick up the phone, dial out, dial the Google 411 account that you have craftily cheated (courtesy of PhreakerD7), dial another PBX, op-divert twice, dial a voice mail system though a CENTREX or other backdoor that you located while scanning, scan the messenges, explore the system, dial out, call the secret CN/A number that has come into your possession with your cell phone in your free hand, record the information, hang up the cell, dial *67 to block your number, dial a switchboard operator at the CO, play orange box tones to spoof the CID for social engineering purposes, establish a ruse, ask for the number to the TEST channel on the 5ESS, control the switch remotely and experiment with it, dial out, dial an entity's phone number, briefly scan extensions, find the P.A. access number, decode the DTMF digits as they go by with your homemade DTMF decoder, state a brief greeting message to the students/customers of said institution, hang up, dial out, dial your Phonehog account, enter your pin, dial a payphone that accepts incoming calls, speak briefly to the answering party, ask them to remain on the line, flash the hook, and end up in an elevator phone. I realize that this scenario is unrealistic and not likely to last this long-my purpose here is to demonstrate the sheer power of phreaking-the network is literally at your fingertips and simple to navigate. This is similar to computer hacking, another wonderous persuit, assuming that you have a laptop and a cracked wi-fi access point or access to a network. :)

By the way, my schedule is EXTREMELY busy. Being a polymath and a dedicated scholar of nearly every academic field, I am devoid of time-yet, I still manage to find time for phreaking and hacking. It is a valuable persuit, for you will encounter interesting things regardless of the goals that you harbor. How much time do you believe the previous example would take? It varies, but the shortest amount of time would be approximately seven to ten minutes. This further demonstrates the incredible power of the persuit.

Edited by The Philosopher
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was stating that VoIP is a mere experiment with a flawed premise. I hope that it will never escalate to be more than that. It is useful, though, for the aforementioned reasons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now