GSM insecure, additional encryption necessary
car...@hotmail.com
in the New York
Times it's now "big" news.
The upshot: Don't use GSM phones (2G or 2.5G) to discuss sensitive
topics. They're interceptable
and forgeable over the air.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/business/worldbusiness/30encrypt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"but the widespread availability of wiretapping technology over the
Internet, which has created a growing pool of amateur eavesdroppers."
and they don't mean literally tapping the wires, but sniffing the
conversation out of the air.
Chuck
do not want cell phones or anything else available to the general public to
have strong encryption.
Naturally, it's against the low in the US for the private citizen to possess
a receiver and decryption device for cell phones. (Even though the
government supposedly does not in general regulate the ownership/use of
receivers, other than the laws involving interference.)
<car...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177964098.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
car...@hotmail.com
> I don't know why this should be a shock to anyone. In general, governments
> do not want cell phones or anything else available to the general public to
> have strong encryption.
The other mobile technology widely available in the US doesn't need
any extra encryption.
It was available from the start. As Cingular/ATT Wireless migrates
more areas to W-CDMA this technology
will start to be available to more of their customers.
John Navas
<car...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1178025275.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Apr 30, 8:15 pm, "Chuck" <Chuckk2nos...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I don't know why this should be a shock to anyone. In general, governments
>> do not want cell phones or anything else available to the general public to
>> have strong encryption.
>
>The other mobile technology widely available in the US doesn't need
>any extra encryption.
>It was available from the start.
Other technology actually predated early CDMA-based systems, and they
aren't actually immune to eavesdropping -- it's known that North Korea
operated mobile CDMA-based eavesdropping systems. Complacency is
antithetical to security(c).
>As Cingular/ATT Wireless migrates
>more areas to W-CDMA this technology
>will start to be available to more of their customers.
W-CDMA is actually quite different from cdmaOne and CDMA2000.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
SMS
Yes, eventually as the whole world moves to CDMA (in one form or
another) at least that part of the security issue will be resolved.
For the time being, if you care about privacy, the best option is to use
Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, or whatever other CDMA carrier is available in
your area, though of course this doesn't work in most of Europe.
If CDMA had come along during the current U.S. administration it almost
certainly would not have been permitted to be deployed due to the
privacy it affords.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
John Navas
wrote in <46375338$0$27185$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>car...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 8:15 pm, "Chuck" <Chuckk2nos...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> I don't know why this should be a shock to anyone. In general, governments
>>> do not want cell phones or anything else available to the general public to
>>> have strong encryption.
>>
>> The other mobile technology widely available in the US doesn't need
>> any extra encryption.
>> It was available from the start. As Cingular/ATT Wireless migrates
>> more areas to W-CDMA this technology
>> will start to be available to more of their customers.
>
>Yes, eventually as the whole world moves to CDMA (in one form or
>another) at least that part of the security issue will be resolved.
1. W-CDMA is quite different from cdmaOne and CDMA2000, your repeated
attempts to confuse them notwithstanding.
2. CDMA-type systems are not immune to eavesdropping -- it's known that
North Korea has operated mobile CDMA-based eavesdropping systems.
>For the time being, if you care about privacy, the best option is to use
>Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, or whatever other CDMA carrier is available in
>your area, though of course this doesn't work in most of Europe.
If you really care about privacy then you shouldn't be using _any_
cellular system.
>If CDMA had come along during the current U.S. administration it almost
>certainly would not have been permitted to be deployed due to the
>privacy it affords.
Complacency is antithetical to security.
>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws.
Thereby trashing the attws group with confusing thread fragments.
What you're doing is rude and counterproductive.
>Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>posts to alt.cellular.attws as well.
>The Cingular name is going away,
Not yet.
>and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
>Wireless Service.]
That remains to be seen.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
car...@hotmail.com
> 1. W-CDMA is quite different from cdmaOne and CDMA2000, your repeated
> attempts to confuse them notwithstanding.
Aside from W-CDMA needing 5 MHz where cdma2000 needs 1.25 MHz (and 5
MHz higher chip rates)
what are the RF modulation and channel coding differences?
> 2. CDMA-type systems are not immune to eavesdropping -- it's known that
> North Korea has operated mobile CDMA-based eavesdropping systems.
References? Dates?