0800/0500 numbers
TMsm464339
Does there exist anywhere an exhaustive directory of 0800/0500 numbers in the
UK, and what those numbers are used for?
If there does not, would there be any value to starting one?
Shiva
--
"Information is Knowledge, Knowledge is Power, Power is Dangerous"
"Information Overload... I've a thousand pages on it..."
"Play with fire - burn your fingers"
Chris Heley
Just an Idea but why don't we all group together in here and do a large
scan of 0800 0500 or other free phone numbers. Each of us could sacn a
set range of numbers then we would have a lot of information about a lot
of free phone numbers. It's just a thought if u are interseted post a
reply.
Tracer
Regarding previous meassages here are some i have already scaned
0800 89**** - Overseas calls
0800 89893* - some woman saying call can not be completed as
dialed please try again (pops up alot)
0800 898887 - Internet No.
0800 890008 - Ditto
0800 898989 - Fax Macine
These are the only ones of interest that i have found so far.
Tra委r!
http://members.tripod.com/~WaReZ303Chris Heley wrote:
Chris Heley
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------A39A4FE491835FD57A974427
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> This file contains all of the 0800-890-*** numbers i have scaned. I
> have scaned from 0800-890-000 to 0800-890-999
Hope this helps u all. Any info on any other scans will be greatly
received. I will post more scans as I have completed them.
--------------A39A4FE491835FD57A974427
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="0800890.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="0800890.txt"
0800890XXX Scan 000-105
scaned on 6/12/97
0800777555 - VMB Toyota passcode is box number
0800890002 - Noted
0800890003 - Foreign crap
0800890005 - VMB
0800890008 - Carrier (Noted)
0800890010 - asks for card No.
0800890011 - AT & T
0800890013 - asks for pin no.
0800890016 - canada
0800890028 - foreign
0800890031 - may be boxible
0800890032 - may be boxible
0800890033 - french telecome
0800890034 - spanish
0800890035 - busy
0800890036 - voice
0800890037 - asks for pin no.
0800890038 - voice
0800890039 - italian telecom
0800890041 - swiss telecome
0800890042 - some foreign tele
0800890043 - german
0800890044 - Carrier (Noted)
0800890045 - denmarc telecome
0800890046 - foreign telco
0800890047 - foreign
0800890048 - picked up
0800890049 - foreign telco
0800890051 - may be boxible
0800890052 - may be boxible
0800890053 - Carrier (Noted)
0800890055 - foriegn
0800890056 - may be boxible
0800890059 - may be boxible
0800890060 - foriegn
0800890061 - telstra astralia
0800890062 - may be boxible
0800890063 - asksfornocalling
0800890064 - nz tellecom calling card No
0800890065 - singapore telco
0800890066 - foriegn
0800890068 - asks for pin
0800890070 - funy beeps
0800890072 - AT & T
0800890078 - Fax
0800890080 - foreign operator
0800890081 - japan direct
0800890082 - foriegn
0800890084 - foriegn telco
0800890085 - callingcard Hong Kong
0800890088 - foriegn
0800890089 - Carrier (Noted)
0800890095 - funy beeps
0800890098 - french telecom
0800890101 - funy beeps
0800890105 - asks for pin no
-------------------------------------------------
0800890XXX Scan 105-300
scaned 7/12/97
0800890106 - foriegn
0800890111 - Fax
0800890112 - Carrier (Noted)
0800890115 - Carrier (Noted)
0800890116 - may be boxible
0800890117 - AT & T
0800890120 - AT & T
0800890122 - AT & T
0800890123 - faint voice
0800890130 - VMB
0800890131 - VMB
0800890132 - voice
0800890134 - AT & T
0800890135 - May be boxible
0800890136 - Honk Kong Telecom
0800890139 - busy
0800890140 - AT & T
0800890141 - AT & T
0800890142 - AT & T
0800890143 - AT & T
0800890144 - AT & T
0800890145 - MCI
0800890146 - MCI
0800890147 - MCI
0800890148 - MCI
0800890149 - AT & T
0800890150 - funy beeps
0800890154 - VMB
0800890155 - funy beeps
0800890161 - Carrier (Noted)
0800890162 - AT & T
0800890163 - AT & T
0800890164 - AT & T
0800890165 - AT & T
0800890166 - AT & T
0800890167 - AT & T
0800890168 - AT & T
0800890169 - AT & T
0800890175 - AT & T
0800890176 - AT & T
0800890178 - VOICE
0800890179 - AT & T
0800890180 - AT & T
0800890181 - ASKS FOR CC No
0800890182 - Karea Telecom
0800890183 - AT & T
0800890187 - AT & T
0800890188 - Foreign
0800890191 - AT & T
0800890192 - AT & T
0800890195 - AT & T
0800890204 - funy beeps
0800890210 - calling Card No
0800890211 - AT & T
0800890212 - voice
0800890214 - foriegn voice
0800890216 - AT & T canada
0800890220 - country direct No
0800890222 - MCI
0800890230 - foreign voice
0800890233 - foriegn voice
0800890234 - foreign voice
0800890235 - foriegn voice
0800890237 - foreign voice
0800890238 - foreign
0800890239 - italian telecom
0800890240 - foriegn voice
0800890256 - foreign
0800890256 - foreign voice
-------------------------------------------------
0800890XXX 300-999
Sacned 8/12/97
0800890320 - french recording
0800890330 - ansswer phone
0800890333 - irealand direct
0800890339 - Italian Telecom
0800890351 - vmb
0800890352 - foreign voice
0800890353 - Ireland direct
0800890354 - may be boxible
0800890356 - may be boxible
0800890357 - no responece ????
0800890358 - foreign voice
0800890360 - huchinsen calling card
0800890361 - foreign recording
0800890410 - Hotelreservations
0800890411 - Hotelreservations
0800890443 - Japan Telecom
0800890456 - voice
0800890500 - AT & T
0800890502 - may be boxible
0800890526 - Jamaca Direct
0800890562 - foreign recording
0800890595 - may be boxible
0800890598 - foreign recording
0800890611 - card No & pin
0800890622 - may be boxible
0800890631 - card No
0800890633 - voice
0800890640 - clear card Op
0800890641 - Martel Card No
0800890650 - Card No
0800890651 - Singapore Telecom
0800890662 - silent no responc
0800890673 - voice
0800890679 - foriegn telecom
0800890700 - May be boxible
0800890701 - may be boxible
0800890750 - voice
0800890810 - forign voice
0800890820 - foreign recording
0800890822 - karea telecom CNo
0800890852 - Hong Kong Telecom
0800890853 - may be boxible
0800890860 - Card No
0800890861 - may be boxible
0800890877 - Sprint
0800890886 - foriegn voice
0800890890 - asks for pin No
0800890905 - asks for Pin No
0800890909 - bt private circuits
0800890910 - VMB
0800890917 - America
0800890927 - VMB
0800890928 - bell south
0800890971 - Itisilat calling card
0800890972 - foreign voice
0800890981 - No answer
0800890984 - Baxtor video conf
0800890988 - foriegn recording
--------------A39A4FE491835FD57A974427--
Tracer
I am going to catalouge the numbers 0800 891*** if someone has already
done these please email me i shall post my results here soon
TMsm464339
That correlates fairly closely with the idea I had. If people are willing to
post on the NG/send me numbers, and associated data, I'm prepared to catalogue
them, and make available the catalogue freely (obviously). My thought is that
if a scheme can be organised, then there is no need for a rigid system of
organisation, people can use the database to, say, look up a particular number,
search for numbers fitting a certain specification, or choose carriers at
random from, etc. I can write a simple database program for Windows .x, and the
database and perhaps someone else could write a database program for other
platforms. The database could be based on text to maximise portability. I'll
outline my thoughts below, in case anyone considers them worthy of discussion:
Project "Freephone Map"
The ultimate aim being to maintain an exhaustive catalogue of UK freephone
numbers, with information associated with each number. The database to be
maintained dynamically - by people sending in data on numbers not contained in
the database.
I appreciate that there are 2 million numbers, but I believe that with a
suitable data storage format, the data file need'nt grow _too_ large. I think
that several databases might be a better idea, with possible ones being:
-a database of carriers, with reasonable information, if known.
-an overall data base, of _all_ numbers, with only a small amount of
information stored on each number.
-a possible division made between 0800/0500 numbers, meaning more
databases, but more manageable file sizes.
While it might be difficult to arrange a set scan of numbers, if people were to
send in numbers every so often, of their own free will, to add to those
present. Eventually all numbers would be represented, the key being that people
would, over the course of perhaps a year or two, research every number. If a
person dialled a number no information was known about, then in the normal way
of things they could send in data on it, if they dialled a number that was
already known about, but found that the number had changed, then they could
send in updated information so that the database could be updated.
Some people may have numbers that they wished to keep to themselves, or would
feel that it would be irresponsible to put in the catalogue, a long as this did
not include _all_ the numbers they found there would be no problem.
I don't know what the enthusiasm levels for the project would be, in any.
Enough people to realistically have data on all numbers by the year 2000 would
be a good number. Too much enthusiasm could result in any central source's
mailbox getting full too often, if this were the case this a less centralised
system could be maintained, whereby several people would build mini-databases
to be sent into the central source, whereby they could be combined into the
primary databases.
A proposed sample of the data to be stored on the numbers:
(General database)
Number: 0800 xxx xxx
Date last checked: xx.xx.xx
Owner (if known): Big Comp. LTD
Nationality of owner (if known): UK/etc.
Misc. notes: -as applicable
(Carrier database)
Number: 0800 xxx xxx
Date last checked: xx.xx.xx
Owner(if known): Big Corp. LTD
Nationality of owner (if known): UK/etc
System running (if known): -system
Notes: Probable purpose of number, miscellaneous data, more in depth data than
for the general database.
As for the space required, my thoughts off the top of my head are:
1 bit for 0800/0500, 20 bits to store the numeric component, 5 bits for the day
information, 4 bits for the month data, 7 bits for the year data, Nationality
of owner can be 7 bits, with 127 countries, and an <other>, specified in the
notes. Variable length fields include owner and the miscellaneous notes.
Suppose that the notes are usually omitted, and on average use 64 bits, and the
owner on average 80 bits. Total bit length of a record, on average, becomes 188
bits. For the million # databases, 1000000 * 188 = 188000000. Expressed in
bytes, 23500000 bytes, or in Mbytes, the databases would each be 23500000 / (2
^ 20) = 22.4 MB. This sounds pretty large, but for transfer it can be
compressed, and the information stored as text, ie Owner and notes, could be
compressed considerably in the storage format if a subset of ASCII is taken
allowing, say 32 characters, so it would be feasible, especially if distributed
as 'mini-databases'. (I can't be bothered to recalculate the size based on an
ASCII subset at the moment, since I don't know if there is any enthusiasm for
the idea).
Anyway, these are my extended thoughts on the matter, I apologise if I'm
totally out of touch, but it's just an idea, which I believe offers some
advantages, as well as some disadvantages. So now, every one can flame me,
ignore me, discuss the idea, etc...
Shiva
PS If this is to start, there needs to be general agreement, and to be started
on arranged signal, to prepare for the incoming data... (if any) (and I'm sorry
I started by saying the database could be based on text, I only realised later
how inefficient that would be. But source code for the database program, and
the format of the database could also be freely available to aid the porting to
other platforms.)
Paul Hughes
Here's one. 0800 321999 BT Security. Use if if you dare, but if you do
expect a visit. A buddy of mine screwed around and lived to regret it.
TMsm464339 wrote in message
<19971209013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>Just an Idea but why don't we all group together in here and do a large
>>scan of 0800 0500 or other free phone numbers. Each of us could sacn a
>>set range of numbers then we would have a lot of information about a lot
>>of free phone numbers. It's just a thought if u are interseted post a
>>reply.
>
>Number: 0800 xxx xxx
>Date last checked: xx.xx.xx
>Owner (if known): Big Comp. LTD
>Nationality of owner (if known): UK/etc.
>Misc. notes: -as applicable
>
>(Carrier database)
>Number: 0800 xxx xxx
>Date last checked: xx.xx.xx
>Owner(if known): Big Corp. LTD
>Nationality of owner (if known): UK/etc
>System running (if known): -system
>Notes: Probable purpose of number, miscellaneous data, more in depth data
than
>for the general database.
>
Chris Heley
I think that compiling a central database of 0800 numbers and 0500
numbers would be a good idea. It just needs the backing of people who
read this news group. I am willing to contribute. As my earlyer post
shows. I should have finished a 0800-892-*** scan by the weekend and
will post them on saterday hopefuly.
Steve Trewick
Tracer <Tra...@mindless.com> wrote in article
<348C40...@mindless.com>...
Boys, boys, boys. When Adrian and Steve from BT security read your posts,
what do you think will happen ? No one knows yet if scanning is illegal,
as no test case has ever been brought, but having read the relevant portion
of the computer misuse act (it's in the FAQ), and having studied law at
school (at least it was good for something), I can confidently tell you
that the fact you have a computer's number listed there qualifies as a
breach of the act in principal, if not in fact.
_ANY_ attempt to gain access to a computer system on which you are not an
authorized user is now a criminal offence.
The difficult issue is proving intent, as ever, but be careful what you
post.
0800/0500 scans _are_ useful, but hey, if people are that desperate, they
can always do their own (which I would recommend, if that's your thing, as
the fuckers are always changing).
Good info, but watch your backs.
Just another one of them thoughts.
Steve ]-)
Stu
In article <01bd0505$e09553e0$a7dfe49d@s_trewick_home.sund.ac.uk>, Steve
Trewick <ca4...@isis.sund.ac.uk> writes
Lets just clear a few things up shall we
>Boys, boys, boys. When Adrian and Steve from BT security read your posts,
>what do you think will happen ?
>No one knows yet if scanning is illegal,
Ohhhh yes it is, but only in the form of sequential scanning
>as no test case has ever been brought, but having read the relevant portion
>of the computer misuse act (it's in the FAQ),
and please.........dont preach about knowing the Misuse Act. The Act is
for Computer Missue, i think yor thinking of the Telecommunications Act.
Just read the Telecom Act and yel die wen ye see sum of the charges B.T
can stick on ya. The one that made me laugh related to "USING B.T's
ELECTRICITY to comit an offence" - B.T are off ther phucking heaDs.
>and having studied law at
>school (at least it was good for something), I can confidently tell you
no u cant ! lets be honest, u dont know shit about the ACTS.
>that the fact you have a computer's number listed there qualifies as a
>breach of the act in principal, if not in fact.
errrr NO !.
The computer Missue Act is, as ive stated above, for computer Missue, if
u want to break it down it goes as follow.
Note: All 3 Parts of section 1 have to apply in order to be
found guilty.
a, You cause the host computer to perform an electronic function.
b, The access u aquired is unauthorized and
c, you know at the time that the access you gained was
unauthorized.
this all boils down to the following....
a, You use any sys at all does not matter how the access is,
telnet / http / ftp / Dialup...etc...etc
then yor using ther equipment to perform a function. FUCKED.
b, If the Company says u shud not be ther then YOR HALF FUCKED.
c, The hole is between b and c, they must prove at the time of yor
access that u knew what the fuck u was doing and u shud not bee
ther.
>
>_ANY_ attempt to gain access to a computer system on which you are not an
>authorized user is now a criminal offence.
>The difficult issue is proving intent, as ever, but be careful what you
>post.
The big question is !!!!!!!
How do they prove Intent, well in the old true blueboxing days all the
peeps BUSTED used to say "Well thers no warning on access telling me to
bog off so how the hell do i know i shunt be in ther"
This is very true - but does not work anymore, B.T + the Local Police
who the company have reported the unathorized access too get ther act
together, and may monitor yor line even advising the company to keep
giving u access thus building up a case.
Over a spree of 3 months, if u r an experienced hacker/phreaker u will
be at it all night till early hrs in the morning. B.T stick a monolog
printer to your exchange ( after a trace of course ), and ther u go....
....thousands of scanned 0800 numbers, BOXIN CODEZ,
answer machine hackings, dialup numbers the WHOLE SHOW.
and of course sum of us use the old 141 phone blocking crap, dont
use this, thats the first question the plod will ask ya "why did u
use the phone BLOCKING facility if u had nothing to hide".
this monolog printout has everything outgoing on yor line....
they can even detect different frequency modulation like yor BREAK-TONE
been blasted down the line + the delay.
All this indepth shit and the printout also logs the time of the call
plus duration which combined to the access time on the sys ( give or
take a few minutes ) links u to the login / out time on the sys.
yor pooter equipment will be taken off ya and stuck up someones ass
in the B.T investigation department wer dey play all ya games and
eventually get the crap off thats related.
Once they have all this shit on u they will prove that these are the
normal funtions of an hacker / phreaker, and they will provide other
test cases that have simular evidence relating to yors to prove youve
been a baden.
U ARE THEN MY FRIEND GUILTY !
Please also note that the Computer Missue Act is made up of many
different Sections. Section 1 as i have explained above is the least
bollocking section of the whole act.
upto £60000 fine ( yeah ok ) or a 3months sentence...
All the other Sections are much more serious and are applied for
malicious Hackers - e.g Deleting of data
The CPS has prosecuted hundreds of peeps under Section 1, but not that
many under the other SECTIONS - much more difficult to prove.
and lets face it, at the end of the day if yor a young lad a criminal
record with a conviction of this nature looks good on ya C.V.
It did on mine and still does after 4yrs.
If u are an enthusiastic hacker ( not elite ) and are at it everyday
( not just sex ) then u are favourite for a BUST.
at the end of the day if u are caught then thers 2 ways to handle it.
if u are an honest person then u tell the plod everything yov done
and u are not a real hacker just a small town newbie.....you probably
just get a small court fine say £300 and it will be over and done with
at yor first hearing.
u can lie yor teeth off and the case will probably drag for a year or so
with loads a B.T witnesses saying "the printer worked fine when they
installed it on yor line..etc......
u will probably still lose as have all the other peeps who have been
caught and u will still have probably the same fine to pay.
its up to u....
Remember B.T only assist the Police if its a Commercial Company thats
reported the criminal offence.
B.T will ripp ya alive if they take ya to coart for dirty phone calls
malicious shit + fraudlant phone calls. and they dont just stick 1
charge at ya, its fucking 5 or 6 BASTARDS.
Well after all this boring shit ( if u read this far ) u may or may not
think im telling the truth....i dont really care.....i know i am cos
ive been der, and the other peeps who have been through simular shit
will know exactly what im talking about.
I dont describe myself as a good hacker/Phreaker or i wudnt have been
BUSTED.
THE ELITE NEVER GET CAUGHT...
Everyday we get a little bit closer to Delirium ( its called life )
--
Stu
Prae
I would be willing to help and put it all together into a file if needed
either dos or windows or anything
Prae
Steve Trewick
Stu <s...@roxbox.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<sKjs+NA1...@roxbox.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bd0505$e09553e0$a7dfe49d@s_trewick_home.sund.ac.uk>, Steve
> Trewick <ca4...@isis.sund.ac.uk> writes
>
>
> Lets just clear a few things up shall we
>
> >Boys, boys, boys. When Adrian and Steve from BT security read your
posts,
> >what do you think will happen ?
>
>
> >No one knows yet if scanning is illegal,
> Ohhhh yes it is, but only in the form of sequential scanning
>
>
Name a case.
> >as no test case has ever been brought, but having read the relevant
portion
> >of the computer misuse act (it's in the FAQ),
> and please.........dont preach about knowing the Misuse Act. The Act is
> for Computer Missue, i think yor thinking of the Telecommunications Act.
>
No, I wasn't
<SNIP>
> >that the fact you have a computer's number listed there qualifies as a
> >breach of the act in principal, if not in fact.
> errrr NO !.
>
er, yes!
> The computer Missue Act is, as ive stated above, for computer Missue, if
> u want to break it down it goes as follow.
>
Yes, well spotted, that would be why it's called the _computer_ misuse
act, I guess
> Note: All 3 Parts of section 1 have to apply in order to be
> found guilty.
>
> a, You cause the host computer to perform an electronic function.
>
> b, The access u aquired is unauthorized and
>
> c, you know at the time that the access you gained was
> unauthorized.
>
>
No, that's wrong. See quote from the act below.
> this all boils down to the following....
>
> a, You use any sys at all does not matter how the access is,
> telnet / http / ftp / Dialup...etc...etc
>
> then yor using ther equipment to perform a function. FUCKED.
>
>
> b, If the Company says u shud not be ther then YOR HALF FUCKED.
>
>
> c, The hole is between b and c, they must prove at the time of yor
> access that u knew what the fuck u was doing and u shud not bee
> ther.
>
Sorry, I dont follow you there.
> >
> >_ANY_ attempt to gain access to a computer system on which you are not
an
> >authorized user is now a criminal offence.
> >The difficult issue is proving intent, as ever, but be careful what you
> >post.
>
<SNIP>
> this monolog printout has everything outgoing on yor line....
> they can even detect different frequency modulation like yor BREAK-TONE
> been blasted down the line + the delay.
>
> All this indepth shit and the printout also logs the time of the call
> plus duration which combined to the access time on the sys ( give or
> take a few minutes ) links u to the login / out time on the sys.
>
Yes, I know that too.
> yor pooter equipment will be taken off ya and stuck up someones ass
> in the B.T investigation department wer dey play all ya games and
> eventually get the crap off thats related.
>
I find that particularly unlikely
>
>
> Once they have all this shit on u they will prove that these are the
> normal funtions of an hacker / phreaker, and they will provide other
> test cases that have simular evidence relating to yors to prove youve
> been a baden.
>
>
> U ARE THEN MY FRIEND GUILTY !
>
>
No, _I_ am not, I wasn't talking about myself.
> Please also note that the Computer Missue Act is made up of many
> different Sections.
Yes, as are all Acts Of Parliament (legislation), if you really want to
know the whole process, I can tell you all that as well, like I said, I
studied Law, not, like for a few days, for three years.
<snip>
> Well after all this boring shit ( if u read this far ) u may or may not
> think im telling the truth....i dont really care.....i know i am cos
> ive been der, and the other peeps who have been through simular shit
> will know exactly what im talking about.
>
So have I, thanks, so I don't need you to tell me what it's like.
> I dont describe myself as a good hacker/Phreaker or i wudnt have been
> BUSTED.
>
Thats right.
<snip>
> --
> Stu
>
If anyone else has misunderstood this, I was aluding to the fact that _ANY_
(yes Stu _ANY_) unauthorised access you make to a computer system is
illegal under the computer misuse act.
Quote from the Computer Misuse Act (1990) Section 1:
1(1) A person is guilty of an offence if
a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to
secure access to any program or data held in a computer
b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised
or
c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform
the function that this is the case.
1(2) The intent a person has to commit an offence under this
section need not be directed at
a) any particular program or data
b) a program or data of any particular kind
or
c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
1(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be
liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the
standard scale or both.
Note Section 1, paragraph 1, subsections a and b.
Only a and b need to be proved before a case can be brought.
It is the magistrate's/judge's interpretation of these two sections that
you have to watch out for, simply accessing a logon sequence can fulfil
both a and b, depending on how you define the terms.
If I had wanted to talk about the Telecommunications act, I would have made
it explicitly clear. As it happens, I have no desire to start ploughing
through that tangled legal mess.
I don't want to cause any offence to you Stu, cos I assume that this is
simply a misunderstanding, but I would appreciate it if you would check
your facts a bit more carefully.
I was always an A student in Law, something of which I am very proud, as I
was crap at everything else.
One more thing, don't call me a young man, because I'm not, and please
don't hurl accusations.
Steve.
TMsm464339
It seems that there is at least *some* enthusiasm, so I will commence putting
together the catalogue. I'll post the current status of the project every so
often, and see about sorting out some web space to distribute on.
And in the spirit of sharing (I'm afraid some of the data is someone not being
sure exactly what's being observed):
Number: 0800 144 144
Date: 05.12.97
Result: BT ChargeCard Service, enter account number and then
PIN.
Notes: A human operator comes on after 3 attempts.
Number: 0800 890 054
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Foreign voice, maybe Spanish?
Notes:
Number: 0800 891 073
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Female voice, some Corporation.
Notes:
Number: 0800 891 208
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Human female, unknown nationality.
Notes: Not a company line? Not an advertised line?
Number: 0800 891 209
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Gorkom? Mail box system.
Notes: Recorded American female voice, clear. Menu system, then wants
extension/name.
Number: 0800 891 210
Date: 05.12.97
Result: AMD Voicemail system.
Notes: Recorded female American. Prompts for extension and password.
Number: 0800 891 211
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Not modem, allocated.
Number: 0800 891 212
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Not known, tested 2 rings.
Notes: Number allocated.
Number: 0800 891 213
Date: 05.12.97
Result: "Sorry, there is a fault. Please try again."
Notes: Female recorded voice. Sounds like BT recording?
Number: 0800 891 214
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Possible carrier.
Notes: CONNECT 9600, prompts "@UserID", then "Password?"
Number: 0800 891 215
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Not modem, allocated?
Number: 0800 891 216
Date: 05.12.97
Result: "Welcome to Insite Pharmaceuticals..."
Notes: Recorded American female voice, gives menu, directs to voice
numbers?
Number: 0800 891 217
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Not modem, allocated?
Number: 0800 891 218
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Not known, tested 2 rings.
Notes: Number allocated.
Number: 0800 891 219
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Not modem, allocated?
Number: 0800 891 220
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Not known, tested 2 rings
Notes: Number allocated.
Number: 0800 891 221
Date: 05.12.97
Result: "You have dialled a number that is not available from
your calling area 111T"
Notes: Read by recorded woman, American accent. Bad line.
Number: 0800 891 222
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Possible carrier tone.
Notes: Modem failed to connect - probably not modem device?
Number: 0800 891 223
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Not known, tested 2 rings.
Notes: Number allocated.
Number: 0800 891 224
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Already known to be a carrier.
Notes: SCO UNIX Open Server Release 5
Number: 0800 891 225
Date: 05.12.97
Result: "You have dialled a number that is not available from
your calling area 111T"
Notes: Read by recorded woman, American accent. Bad line.
Number: 0800 891 226
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Not known, tested 2 rings.
Notes: Number allocated.
Number: 0800 891 227
Date: 05.12.97
Result: "The number you have dialled cannot be reached from
your calling area."
Notes: Recorded person. Line quality moderate.
Number: 0800 891 228
Date: 05.12.97
Result: "Your call cannot be completed as dialled. Please check
the number and dial again."
Notes: Recorded woman. Line quality moderate.
Number: 0800 891 229
Date: 05.12.97
Result: "Welcome to VoiceCom. Please enter your ID number."
Notes: Could be a voicemail system? American accent. Three attempts
given to enter ID.
Number: 0800 891 300
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Not modem, allocated?
Number: 0800 891 301
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Voice - human answered.
Notes: American male answered, gave company name.
Number: 0800 892 804
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Already known to be a carrier.
Notes: US goverment FAMNET Communication Network.
Number: 0800 892 805
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Tested to 1 ring (long)
Notes:
Number: 0800 893 145
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Number allocated?
Number: 0800 893 146
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Number allocated?
Number: 0800 893 147
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Tested to 1 and a bit rings.
Notes: Number allocated.
Number: 0800 893 148
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Number allocated?
Number: 0800 893 149
Date: 05.12.97
Result: "Your call cannot be completed as dialled. Please,
check the number and dial again."
Notes: Recorded female voice. Line quality good.
Number: 0800 893 150
Date: 05.12.97
Result: "Your call cannot be completed as dialled. Please,
check the number and dial again."
Notes: Recorded female voice. Line quality good.
Number: 0800 896 450
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Tested to 1 ring(long)
Notes:
Number: 0800 891 572
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Tested to 2 rings.
Notes:
Number: 0800 897 106
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Tested to 1 ring.
Notes:
Number: 0800 899 735
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Number allocated?
Number: 0800 899 804
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Human foreign voice, followed by sharp peep.
Notes: Maybe BT allocates external country numbers with countries in
zones?
Number: 0800 905 324
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Number allocated?
Number: 0800 906 365
Date: 05.12.97
Result: Engaged.
Notes: Number allocated? Once out of the 89x zone - calls connect much
faster...
When people design mini-databases, please can they bear in mind the format for
a larger database in them (shouldn't be a problem, given the tiny amount of
data being stored on each number). I foresee a thorough mapping of the
080089xxxx, but perhaps not so much enthusiasm for the other ones... Well, one
has to start somewhere. With scans that only return carriers, it would be good
if it was known that the a certain _range_ of numbers was tested, so that the
numbers in that range can at least have the information 'Not a carrier' stored
on them if they were not a carrier.
Shiva
Chris Heley
Fair enough but what u arguing about??? From what I can gether if u r
scaning u don't know what is on the other end right? or whats the point
of scaning. So if u find a carrier whats illegal about that? For one u
didn't it was there, secondly it would only be ilegal if u actualy loged
into the computer on the other end of the phone line without permision??
right, so actualy u r not bracking any laws as far as I can tell by
scaning.
.:DRiP:.
Steve Trewick wrote in message
<01bd0505$e09553e0$a7dfe49d@s_trewick_home.sund.ac.uk>...
>
>
>Tracer <Tra...@mindless.com> wrote in article
><348C40...@mindless.com>...
>> Regarding previous meassages here are some i have already scaned
>>
>> 0800 89**** - Overseas calls
>>
>> 0800 89893* - some woman saying call can not be completed as
>> dialed please try again (pops up alot)
>> 0800 898887 - Internet No.
>> 0800 890008 - Ditto
>> 0800 898989 - Fax Macine
>>
>> These are the only ones of interest that i have found so far.
>>
>> Tra委r!
>> http://members.tripod.com/~WaReZ303Chris Heley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
>what do you think will happen ? No one knows yet if scanning is illegal,
>school (at least it was good for something), I can confidently tell you
>breach of the act in principal, if not in fact.
>
>authorized user is now a criminal offence.
>
>The difficult issue is proving intent, as ever, but be careful what you
>post.
>
>can always do their own (which I would recommend, if that's your thing, as
>the fuckers are always changing).
>
>Good info, but watch your backs.
>
>Just another one of them thoughts.
>
>
>Steve ]-)
>
Maybe it was these guys who posted the request! ;)
.:DRiP:.
-=Magic=-
is there any way to get toneloc to dail more than 16 or so thousand numbers?
please dont tell me to manually enter numbers after each scan as the puters
are gonna be alone without human help for over 3weeks.
0800 0XX-XXX scan any good?
-=Magic=-
Violator
In article <348D8DFE...@diamond.co.uk>, chris...@diamond.co.uk
says...
>
>I think that compiling a central database of 0800 numbers and 0500
>numbers would be a good idea.
if anyone want the original 0800 scan done by apocalypse in 1994/5
email me its never been beaten and contains just about every prefix from
0800890 to 0800999 but like i said its a bit old..
cheers
violator
Joe K
In message <01bd0582$4b42d380$a7dfe49d@s_trewick_home.sund.ac.uk>
"Steve Trewick" <ca4...@isis.sund.ac.uk> wrote:
> Quote from the Computer Misuse Act (1990) Section 1:
>
> 1(1) A person is guilty of an offence if
> a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to
> secure access to any program or data held in a computer
> b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised
> or
> c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform
> the function that this is the case.
> [...]
> It is the magistrate's/judge's interpretation of these two sections that
> you have to watch out for, simply accessing a logon sequence can fulfil
> both a and b, depending on how you define the terms.
I would have though that this would be unlikely, as it's possible to argue
that because some 0800 systems are public/general use systems, you don't
know you've accessed anything unauthorized until you've already done it.
Unfortunately, if you didn't get away with this, the thing about the access
not being directed at any particular computer might be unhelpful to you,
as you would be committing a crime simply by looking for a carrier.
Some states in the US have made laws against scanning by specifying you
must have 'intention to communicate' in all phone calls, or that you
must know who you are phoning when you dial a telephone number. AFAIK
there's nothing like this in British law, although BT obviously aren't
too keen on scanning. The main problem BT have with scanning is that
double glazing salesmen sometimes do it, which is why they have at least
some means of detecting it, so I'm told.
--
Joe
Misc
In article <01bd0582$4b42d380$a7dfe49d@s_trewick_home.sund.ac.uk>, Steve
Trewick <ca4...@isis.sund.ac.uk> writes
>Quote from the Computer Misuse Act (1990) Section 1:
>
>1(1) A person is guilty of an offence if
>a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to
> secure access to any program or data held in a computer
>b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised
does this mean that if you secure access to unauthorised data
ACCIDENTALLY, you're okay?
I can think of this happening feasibly if you stumbled across an
"illegal" back door, for example.
> or
>c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform
> the function that this is the case.
I read b and c as the same!
b: if you intend to secure unauthorised access
->if you intend to secure access that you know is unauthorised
c: if you know that the access you are securing is unauthorised
->if you ARE securing access that you know is unathorised
The only difference I can see is tense; b before you secure, c after,
and in the case of b, how can it be proven that someone intends to
secure access to something when they havent actually secured it?
>1(2) The intent a person has to commit an offence under this
> section need not be directed at
>a) any particular program or data
>b) a program or data of any particular kind
> or
>c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
>1(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be
> liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not
> exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the
> standard scale or both.
>
>Note Section 1, paragraph 1, subsections a and b.
>
>Only a and b need to be proved before a case can be brought.
>
>It is the magistrate's/judge's interpretation of these two sections that
>you have to watch out for, simply accessing a logon sequence can fulfil
>both a and b, depending on how you define the terms.
dodgy, but an easy situation to avoid if you can cast doubt that
particular logon sequence was accessed by you.
>If I had wanted to talk about the Telecommunications act, I would have made
>it explicitly clear.
why dont you? :)
>As it happens, I have no desire to start ploughing
>through that tangled legal mess.
Hah I see...
>
>I don't want to cause any offence to you Stu, cos I assume that this is
>simply a misunderstanding, but I would appreciate it if you would check
>your facts a bit more carefully.
>
It seems that he was talking from experience. Is there a similar act
that goes as he said? Or an ammended one that was like that 4 years ago?
>I was always an A student in Law, something of which I am very proud, as I
>was crap at everything else.
>
>One more thing, don't call me a young man, because I'm not, and please
>don't hurl accusations.
I didnt see any accusations...
...maybe it's a case of how you interpret it :)
>Steve.
--
+-=Ben Isaacs=-+-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| UIN: 2346778 | #724 | http://www.sleepi.demon.co.uk | __|`|SHoX_ _ |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ (_-< `\ _\ ' /|
| "Oh Wintermute, what beautiful ICE you have..." |(___/_|_(_)_,_\|
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=AFTeRSHoX/gNs=+
Misc
In article <348F1D5E...@diamond.co.uk>, Chris Heley
<chris...@diamond.co.uk> writes
>Fair enough but what u arguing about??? From what I can gether if u r
>scaning u don't know what is on the other end right? or whats the point
>of scaning. So if u find a carrier whats illegal about that? For one u
>didn't it was there,
>secondly it would only be ilegal if u actualy loged
>into the computer on the other end of the phone line without permision??
nope.
Causing the computer to spew out a logon sequence CAN be classified as
"getting the computer to perform a function", and if the company says
"noone is allowed to dial the number" then both criteria are filled.
Why discriminate logon sequences from any other fucntion...
>right, so actualy u r not bracking any laws as far as I can tell by
>scaning.
Still safer to hide your identity than risk getting prosecuted under
petty, twisted, misconstrued, misconveyed, misunderstood, malformed,
misinformed, badly worded laws.
Misc
In article <sKjs+NA1...@roxbox.demon.co.uk>, Stu
<s...@roxbox.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <01bd0505$e09553e0$a7dfe49d@s_trewick_home.sund.ac.uk>, Steve
>Trewick <ca4...@isis.sund.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>Lets just clear a few things up shall we
>
>>Boys, boys, boys. When Adrian and Steve from BT security read your posts,
>>what do you think will happen ?
>
>
>>No one knows yet if scanning is illegal,
>Ohhhh yes it is, but only in the form of sequential scanning
>
Can you tell us which section of the law, so we can look it up for
ourselves?
>Just read the Telecom Act and yel die wen ye see sum of the charges B.T
>can stick on ya. The one that made me laugh related to "USING B.T's
>ELECTRICITY to comit an offence" - B.T are off ther phucking heaDs.
Heheh - easy to do as well. My friend (says) he has done it. You just
tap the lines and run your unlicensed TV off them or whatever you want
to do to commit an offense.
>>that the fact you have a computer's number listed there qualifies as a
>>breach of the act in principal, if not in fact.
>errrr NO !.
it's probably a breach of the Data Protection act. Even if it isnt, I',
sure someone could still nail you for it anyway.
It PROBABLY! comes under "obtaining information by dishonest means".
>The computer Missue Act is, as ive stated above, for computer Missue, if
>u want to break it down it goes as follow.
>
>Note: All 3 Parts of section 1 have to apply in order to be
> found guilty.
>
>
> a, You cause the host computer to perform an electronic function.
>
> b, The access u aquired is unauthorized and
>
> c, you know at the time that the access you gained was
> unauthorized.
The way you have described it it appears loopholed in the prosecuting
party's favour; if you bring up a telnet and it says on the screen "YOU
ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT" and them do it again, you break the law.
Technically, anyway.
Dumb....
>this all boils down to the following....
>
> a, You use any sys at all does not matter how the access is,
> telnet / http / ftp / Dialup...etc...etc
>
> then yor using ther equipment to perform a function. FUCKED.
However you are probably fine under section B because any
http/ftp/telnet which anyone can log in to at all has obviously been
provided so that anyone can.
And if you aren't, you might be fine under section c because if the
public service turns out to be a badly configured private service, then
you're there because of them not because of you!
But that's still a severely weak argument, i admit.
> b, If the Company says u shud not be ther then YOR HALF FUCKED.
>
>
> c, The hole is between b and c, they must prove at the time of yor
> access that u knew what the fuck u was doing and u shud not bee
> ther.
Fortunately that rules out accidental log in, dialing the wrong number,
pressing the wrong button, etc.
And also it fucks companies with no "Unauthorised Access" notices.
>>_ANY_ attempt to gain access to a computer system on which you are not an
>>authorized user is now a criminal offence.
>>The difficult issue is proving intent, as ever, but be careful what you
>>post.
>The big question is !!!!!!!
>
>How do they prove Intent, well in the old true blueboxing days all the
>peeps BUSTED used to say "Well thers no warning on access telling me to
>bog off so how the hell do i know i shunt be in ther"
>
>This is very true - but does not work anymore, B.T + the Local Police
>who the company have reported the unathorized access too get ther act
>together, and may monitor yor line even advising the company to keep
>giving u access thus building up a case.
So claim entrapment, and if you're VERY lucky get your case thrown out.
If you know that it went on of course...
Naturally this excuse may still work if you didnt see a "unauthorized
access" notice - because they didnt put one there.
>
>Over a spree of 3 months, if u r an experienced hacker/phreaker u will
>be at it all night till early hrs in the morning. B.T stick a monolog
>printer to your exchange ( after a trace of course ), and ther u go....
>
The trick is to use a boxed line/call box/someone elses number(s).
That way they can't identify who you are so easily, but more importantly
they cant monolog you as evidence, because they'd have to trace you each
time, and different numbers with no monolog proves nothing.
>....thousands of scanned 0800 numbers,
scanning is best done randomly, from a call box :) Obviously this isnt
ideal...
But they cant prosecute you for it from your home, as long as they cant
prove you hackied it because you hacked it from a call box, or whatever.
>BOXIN CODEZ,
hehehe
> answer machine hackings, dialup numbers the WHOLE SHOW.
>
>and of course sum of us use the old 141 phone blocking crap, dont
...
[snip]
all of this is if you were stupid enough to hack from your own number or
get caught hacking from another one!! They cant monolog you if they dont
know where you are - so the evidence is way down!!
..
>plus duration which combined to the access time on the sys ( give or
>take a few minutes ) links u to the login / out time on the sys.
>
ideally you'd set up a computer to perform your hacks remotely - if
they're network based. Dialling up is another matter.
>yor pooter equipment will be taken off ya and stuck up someones ass
>in the B.T investigation department wer dey play all ya games and
>eventually get the crap off thats related.
>
So encrypt your harddisk.
running a business/organisation with sensitive information is a good
excuse.
No proof of anything if they cant get the info, and having an encrypted
Harddisk is suspicious, but not illegal in any way, and proves nothing
because you have a reason!
Of course you could always store you sensitive info on removeable media,
and hide that under the floorboards etc...
>Once they have all this shit on u they will prove that these are the
>normal funtions of an hacker / phreaker, and they will provide other
>test cases that have simular evidence relating to yors to prove youve
>been a baden.
Right.
So what that guy got caught with summarised:
Using his own line.
Box tones.
Having hacker material on his computer.
Log in times.
Acting like he had something to hide.
Scanning from his home.
Being logged/detected at the place of breaking in.
>U ARE THEN MY FRIEND GUILTY !
Not if you:
Use another line/many other lines.
Don't box if you dont have to, or box outside the country.
Encrypt you sensitive info, and if possible keep it PHYSICALLY hidden.
Be somewhere else (with witnesses) while your script does the hacking...
Do everything that is legal like dialling a freephone number - NORMALLY!
Scan randomly outside your house...
Delete all logs you can get at at the hacked end.
That's definitely an incomplete list, but it's just a suggestion.
As you can see, Hacking properly - elitely - is so difficult and time
consuming that it is probably not worth it - BUT IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO
COVER YOUR TRACKS AND NOT GET CAUGHT!
>Please also note that the Computer Missue Act is made up of many
>different Sections. Section 1 as i have explained above is the least
>bollocking section of the whole act.
>
>upto £60000 fine ( yeah ok ) or a 3months sentence...
I'd pay £60000 if it meant I covered my tracks =^)
>All the other Sections are much more serious and are applied for
>malicious Hackers - e.g Deleting of data
Uhuh. That's more of electronic terrorism than hacking.
>The CPS has prosecuted hundreds of peeps under Section 1, but not that
>many under the other SECTIONS - much more difficult to prove.
Because the perps are usually cleverer and hide themselves better, I
assume...?
>and lets face it, at the end of the day if yor a young lad a criminal
>record with a conviction of this nature looks good on ya C.V.
That's sarcasm, right??
[snip]
>
>its up to u....
>
uhuh...
>Remember B.T only assist the Police if its a Commercial Company thats
>reported the criminal offence.
THIS IS WHERE YOU MUST BE ESPECIALLY CAREFUL!!
The majority of commercial companies in the UK - who are hackable - are
also very vindictive, and highly imcompetent:
They are easy to hack, and easy to annoy.
Don't... for your own sake...
>B.T will ripp ya alive if they take ya to coart for dirty phone calls
>malicious shit + fraudlant phone calls.
are you suggesting that they forge evidence against you??
>and they dont just stick 1
>charge at ya, its fucking 5 or 6 BASTARDS.
>Well after all this boring shit ( if u read this far )
:^)
>I dont describe myself as a good hacker/Phreaker or i wudnt have been
>BUSTED.
>
nice to meet you...
>
>THE ELITE NEVER GET CAUGHT...
...and you should always plan for the worst!!!
Commentary by -
Misc
In article <19971209013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, TMsm464339
<tmsm4...@aol.com> writes
>>Just an Idea but why don't we all group together in here and do a large
>>scan of 0800 0500 or other free phone numbers. Each of us could sacn a
>>set range of numbers then we would have a lot of information about a lot
>>of free phone numbers. It's just a thought if u are interseted post a
>>reply.
>
Let's clearly point out a few things:
Scanning MAY be illegal.
Scanning anonymously MAY be illegal but you wont get caught.
Maintaining a database of scanned numbers would NOT be illegal if you
can prove you didnt scan them;
HOWEVER! There may be data protection act issues.
Not that that stops many people; for example host the list in the
US/other offshores hosts.
>That correlates fairly closely with the idea I had. If people are willing to
>post on the NG/send me numbers, and associated data, I'm prepared to catalogue
>them, and make available the catalogue freely (obviously). My thought is that
>if a scheme can be organised, then there is no need for a rigid system of
>organisation, people can use the database to, say, look up a particular number,
>search for numbers fitting a certain specification, or choose carriers at
>random from, etc. I can write a simple database program for Windows .x, and the
>database and perhaps someone else could write a database program for other
>platforms.
a better idea may be to have the database accessed from a
single/multiple hosts by a telnet prot, where you can perform a search
by typing the number you're interested in, and getting a response via
telnet login to a high port.
Follow?
> The database could be based on text to maximise portability.
hehehe.
> I'll
>outline my thoughts below, in case anyone considers them worthy of discussion:
>
>Project "Freephone Map"
>The ultimate aim being to maintain an exhaustive catalogue of UK freephone
>numbers, with information associated with each number. The database to be
>maintained dynamically - by people sending in data on numbers not contained in
>the database.
>
>I appreciate that there are 2 million numbers, but I believe that with a
>suitable data storage format, the data file need'nt grow _too_ large. I think
>that several databases might be a better idea, with possible ones being:
> -a database of carriers, with reasonable information, if known.
> -an overall data base, of _all_ numbers, with only a small amount of
>information stored on each number.
> -a possible division made between 0800/0500 numbers, meaning more
>databases, but more manageable file sizes.
Hmm youd need the database on at least one computer that had a permanent
online connection outside the UK...
>
>While it might be difficult to arrange a set scan of numbers, if people were to
>send in numbers every so often, of their own free will, to add to those
>present.
Telnet interface is ideally suited to this.
>Eventually all numbers would be represented, the key being that people
>would, over the course of perhaps a year or two, research every number. If a
>person dialled a number no information was known about, then in the normal way
>of things they could send in data on it, if they dialled a number that was
>already known about, but found that the number had changed, then they could
>send in updated information so that the database could be updated.
>
>Some people may have numbers that they wished to keep to themselves, or would
>feel that it would be irresponsible to put in the catalogue, a long as this did
>not include _all_ the numbers they found there would be no problem.
>
>I don't know what the enthusiasm levels for the project would be, in any.
>Enough people to realistically have data on all numbers by the year 2000 would
>be a good number. Too much enthusiasm could result in any central source's
>mailbox getting full too often, if this were the case this a less centralised
>system could be maintained,
telnet interface would reduce any need for mail and manual input at
all!!
> whereby several people would build mini-databases
>to be sent into the central source, whereby they could be combined into the
>primary databases.
>
Nooooo.......
>A proposed sample of the data to be stored on the numbers:
>
>(General database)
>Number: 0800 xxx xxx
>Date last checked: xx.xx.xx
>Owner (if known): Big Comp. LTD
>Nationality of owner (if known): UK/etc.
>Misc. notes: -as applicable
>
>(Carrier database)
>Number: 0800 xxx xxx
>Date last checked: xx.xx.xx
>Owner(if known): Big Corp. LTD
>Nationality of owner (if known): UK/etc
>System running (if known): -system
>Notes: Probable purpose of number, miscellaneous data, more in depth data than
>for the general database.
>
Blah. that's just customisation...
>As for the space required, my thoughts off the top of my head are:
>1 bit for 0800/0500,
> 20 bits to store the numeric component,
24 for 6 numbers in BCD (4 bits a number), or 18 if you store 0-7!?
Where'd ya get 24 from??
> 5 bits for the day
>information,
> 4 bits for the month data,
> 7 bits for the year data,
alternatively!
14 bits for the day (up to 16384, obviously). Month is calculated and
year is calculated from a specific date!
> Nationality
>of owner can be 7 bits, with 127 countries,
> and an <other>, specified in the
>notes.
2*8 bits for field lengths = up to 255 characters for owner notes
>Variable length fields include owner and the miscellaneous notes.
>Suppose that the notes are usually omitted, and on average use 64 bits, and the
>owner on average 80 bits.
lets say a "worst" case owner name = Industrial Fakeness Plc. = 24
chars.
using 6bit encoding we get 144 bits
using 5bit (no caps) we get 120 bits
we can then use 3 bits for flags, say
000 = Voice
001 = Carrier
010 = VMB
011 = Fax
100 = Incompletable
101 = Unobtainable
110 = Engaged
111 = undefined
Obviously we could extend to 4 bits ;)
notes can be a special case....
> Total bit length of a record, on average, becomes 188
>bits.
Lets try mine.. :
24+14+2*8+120+3=177 bits per record :)
1,000,000*177/8 = 22175000
-------------------------- = 21606 Kb
1024
about 21 Mb for a FULL database.
Considering that a lot of numbers are disconnected...
let's say the owner was "BT" then the record would be 24+14+16+10+3=67
bits!
> For the million # databases, 1000000 * 188 = 188000000. Expressed in
>bytes, 23500000 bytes, or in Mbytes, the databases would each be 23500000 / (2
>^ 20) = 22.4 MB. This sounds pretty large, but for transfer it can be
>compressed, and the information stored as text, ie Owner and notes, could be
>compressed considerably in the storage format if a subset of ASCII is taken
>allowing, say 32 characters, so it would be feasible, especially if distributed
>as 'mini-databases'. (I can't be bothered to recalculate the size based on an
>ASCII subset at the moment, since I don't know if there is any enthusiasm for
>the idea).
easily done - it's only down to 21Mb by my calc tho...
>Anyway, these are my extended thoughts on the matter, I apologise if I'm
>totally out of touch, but it's just an idea, which I believe offers some
>advantages, as well as some disadvantages. So now, every one can flame me,
>ignore me, discuss the idea, etc...
Lovely idea... ;)
> Shiva
>
>PS If this is to start, there needs to be general agreement, and to be started
>on arranged signal, to prepare for the incoming data... (if any)
It'd be much better as a telnet service. That's all i have to say.
TMsm464339
>Boys, boys, boys. When Adrian and Steve from BT security read your posts,
>what do you think will happen ? No one knows yet if scanning is illegal,
>of the computer misuse act (it's in the FAQ), and having studied law at
>school (at least it was good for something), I can confidently tell you
>breach of the act in principal, if not in fact.
But surely the following assumptions are being made:
-the numbers were in fact scanned, and not posted on a web page, dialled
by accident etc.
-and can having a computer number be a breach if it, say, was on a web
page you accessed, and is stored in the cache of your browser?
-the intent behind the investigation was to carry out an illegal access,
rather than to compile a public database of the numbers.
-that there is no reasonable doubt that intent/perpetration/etc apply.
Besides, there's these wonderful things called payphones...
>0800/0500 scans _are_ useful, but hey, if people are that desperate, they
>can always do their own (which I would recommend, if that's your thing, as
>the fuckers are always changing).
There's no way that anyone can easily scan 2 million numbers. Obviously numbers
will change, but if the database is kept reasonably up-to-date, then there is a
general chance of finding a number, which is much better than scanning. Also,
if the database cuts down the need for scanning, once complete, then is not the
nuisance to companies/BT etc going to be but down, reducing the motivation to
detected scanning? It just seems to me that a reasonably comprehensive map of
the numbers would have value, and should not be unfeasible to maintain, as long
as there is the flow of information.
>Good info, but watch your backs.
And watch your front, your left side, your right side, above you, below you and
inside you.
Shiva
--
TMsm464339
>Maybe it was these guys who posted the request! ;)
If you read the very first post it isn't a direct request - it was a tentative
investigation into whether or not such a database would be a good idea, and
whether or not there would be any support for it.
The legal question certainly merits debate, although I seem to recall that one
of the 'commandments' is not to use one's own phone line.
As for 'Adrian and Steve' at BT security, perhaps they are reading the thread,
but it would make their life easier if the need for scanning was ultimately
reduced, since there would be less off it.
The issue of intent seems to be a strong one in the legal question, so, if you
dial a number at random with the intent of finding out what it is for a
database, is that technically illegal? As opposed to having the intent to find
things to 'play' with. You are not attempting to access a specific item/system
etc, if you get a person, you can communicate with them, hence intent to
communicate. The intent behind dialling the number the first time would not be
to attempt to gain access to a computer system illegally, and you could cause
one to try and connect by mis-dialling another number. If people have the
intent to use the information contained in the number for other purposes once
the number is known, well that's different surely.
And how should they prove who dialled the number? If you used someone else's
phoneline, they would not be charged money for the 0800 call, but could they be
prosecuted for the numbers dialled? If you used a phone box, what then?
Anyway, for the benefit of 'Adrian and Steve' I've not attempted to gain access
to a number illegally, nor have I scanned. But, if I had, would I admit it?
TMsm464339
>a better idea may be to have the database accessed from a
>single/multiple hosts by a telnet prot, where you can perform a search
>by typing the number you're interested in, and getting a response via
>telnet login to a high port.
>
>Follow?
Yeah, I follow. And it did actually occur to me that an online system would be
a lot better. One problem being that I don't have an online machine that could
be used for this. The other problem being that getting enother computer and
trying some Internet 'emulation' is still on my list of things to consider in
the future, so unless someone made the specifications for that area crystal
clear, I could not write the telnet interfacing. No reason that a program could
not be written to perform the database access and retrieval, if someone else
did the telnet interface, although it is such a simple program to write.
>Hmm youd need the database on at least one computer that had a permanent
>online connection outside the UK...
If only the computer with the permanent online connection existed... It may do
one day, but at the moment...
>Telnet interface is ideally suited to this.
There are several ways one can put the database online. After all, if could
also be accessed through cgi scripts, javascript(?), a mailserver, and any
other ways that might exist. I don't have any direct experience with the online
components though, as mentioned.
>telnet interface would reduce any need for mail and manual input at
>all!!
Might need some validation/checks though - if you allowed data to go through
unchecked, you might find people entering wrong data, etc.
>>As for the space required, my thoughts off the top of my head are:
>>1 bit for 0800/0500,
>> 20 bits to store the numeric component,
>
>24 for 6 numbers in BCD (4 bits a number), or 18 if you store 0-7!?
>Where'd ya get 24 from??
Bah, who said I was using BCD? I was just thinking of a conversion of the ASCII
characters of a record into a binary stream, and the binary components sliced
out of this, and converted to their values. So you can get up to 999999 with
20, because 2 ^ 20 = 1048576...
>14 bits for the day (up to 16384, obviously). Month is calculated and
>year is calculated from a specific date!
Yes, you have something there. That's 2 bits saved :) if you have 16384 as the
numbers of days past a certain date. (Every *bit* counts)
>using 6bit encoding we get 144 bits
>
>using 5bit (no caps) we get 120 bits
Ah... 5bit does not _necessarily_ mean no caps. It just means that you need a
5bit code to make the next character a capital, or to switch on capitals,
whichever was thought to be more efficient. Maybe, both:
-letter of the alphabet, lower case, 26 codes used
-punctuation, "." "," -2 codes used
-control codes, CAPS ON, CAPS OFF, CAPS NEXT - 3 codes used
And you still have a code spare, for whatever...
>we can then use 3 bits for flags, say
>
>000 = Voice
>001 = Carrier
>010 = VMB
>011 = Fax
>100 = Incompletable
>101 = Unobtainable
>110 = Engaged
>111 = undefined
Works OK, the notes are there for exceptions to the rule...
>Obviously we could extend to 4 bits ;)
>
>notes can be a special case....
Maybe you need a bit to denote the presence of notes, based on the assumption
that notes will usually be absent, and therefore you don't want a field for
them, even to store the fact that there will be no notes.
>> Total bit length of a record, on average, becomes 188
>>bits.
>
>Lets try mine.. :
>
>24+14+2*8+120+3=177 bits per record :)
>
>1,000,000*177/8 = 22175000
>-------------------------- = 21606 Kb
> 1024
>
> about 21 Mb for a FULL database.
Ah... thought about the date... There is no need to store to the day, and
perhaps more ambiguity would be better, in the hypothetical case where the date
that the number was dialled might be admissible as evidence(?). So storing to
the week, and counting the weeks from a particular date is probably better.
Hell, you could probably get away with to the month, but... 11 bits should be
enough for the date.
So what can this go to... <insert thought processes>
Record format:
1 bit -presence/absence of notes
1 bit -to store 0800/0500 flag (not necessary if seperate databases)
20 bits -to store variable part of number
11 bits -to store weeks past set date
5 bits -store length of owner field
160 bits -to store owner (or less)
3 bits -to store flag for number type
8 bits -store length of notes field (if the first bit is set...)
1275 bits -maximum length of notes field (if the first bit is set)
Now assuming that the notes are discouraged, and do not exist in the typical
record, but that the average name of the company is long, say, 20 chars. This
makes a bit length of:
1 + 1 + 20 + 11 + 5 + 100 + 3 = 141 bits
If this is a typical length record, then 138 * 1000000 = 17625000 bytes
This is 17625000 / (2 ^ 20) = 16.8 MB
>Considering that a lot of numbers are disconnected...
This is a good point. Maintain a seperate database of disconnected numbers,
make sure that the database software uses both databases, and each disconnected
number only takes
1bit -if 0800/0500 flag stored
20 bits -for actual number
or every disconnected number can be stored with a 2 databases that are 125000
bytes, 125K long. Total space to stored every disconnected number would be
250K.
How does that figure? (hehehe)
A file that long will have a million bits, and therefore each number has a flag
storing whether or not it is disconnected. Numbers of unknown status would be
registered as 'connected' until known to be disconnected. (Come to think of it
every so often disconnected numbers would need 'testing' in case they had been
connected.)
Working on the basis that the goal is to map _all_ numbers it can be made more
efficient still, I think <brain boggling>
I'm doing too much thinking as I type, I'd better finish this post, and think,
then type, then post my updated thoughts.
>easily done - it's only down to 21Mb by my calc tho...
Well, let's see what I can come up with.
>It'd be much better as a telnet service. That's all i have to say.
Now, now, you could have said *that* in one line. I refer any reader bored
enough to be interested to the post after this one where I have actually
thought properly. Typical, you design a space optimised database format, and
someone comes and tears it to shreds <insert crocodile tear>. Seriously,
though, thanks for the input.
TMsm464339
Here are my thoughts, having _thought_ instead of 'thought while typing':
Several databases should exist, and the database program should be able to
detect which databases are present, and use the information from them as
available. The databases that should exist:
0500 number connected
0800 number connected
0500 number basic
0800 number basic
0500 number extended
0800 number extended
The distinction between 0800/0500 is made in the filename, by including either
"0800", or "0500" in the filename, recommended filenames being:
0500UNC.DAT
0800UNC.DAT
0500BAS.DAT
0800BAS.DAT
0500EXT.DAT
0800EXT.DAT
Of these databases any or all may be present for operation, data on a number
being extracted as available. The current specification for the format of these
database pairs is:
Unconnected Databases:
-will consist simply of a file 1 million bits long. The access system will
simply be the conversion of the number requested into a byte in the file which
contains the desired bit, and this can then be extracted.
-the size of an unconnected databases will be 125K, so both databases will
come to 250K.
Basic databases:
-will consist of fixed length fields, of basic data, or data which is stored
in a fixed length field, so that the access system can again be the translation
of a number into a bit position, with the relevant bytes extracted.
-to store flag data for number, 3 bits
-to store country owning number, 5 bits
-to store weeks since set date, 11 bits
-This giving each record a total length of 19 bits
-For storage of 1 million numbers, 1000000 * 19 = 2.4MB
-Total for both databases, 4.8 MB
Extended database:
-will consist of non-fixed length records, special notes, etc.
-to store number, 20 bits
-to store length of owner field, 5 bits
-to store owner field, up to 160 bits
-to store length of notes field, 8 bits
-to store notes field, up to 1280 bits
-total record size varying between 33 and 1468 bits
-maximum possible database would be 1468000000 bits = 183.5MB (maximum
information stored on all numbers, an unlikely scenario)
-minimum database size would be 33000000 bits = 4.1 MB
-both of these database sizes apply if data stored on _all_ numbers in the
extended database, an unlikely scenario.
-therefore only an estimate of the size of the extended databases can be
reached:
Assuming 10% of numbers have additional information available, and that 10
characters on average are used to specify the company, and 30 characters for
notes:
0.1 * 1000000 * (20 + 5 + 50 + 150) = 22500000 bits = 2.8MB per database
-total size of both databases is then 5.6 MB
For a total distribution, of _all_ databases, for a total mapping of the
0800/0500 number area the size would probably be of the order of:
0.25 + 4.8 + 5.6 = 10.7MB
So the working database size can easily be reduced to around 10MB or so, and
since the extended database is not really essential to gaining basic
information on a number, then the average user might only need around 5MB of
database.
I use the term 'working database size' purposefully, for distribution the
databases can be reduced still further, if deemed worth the bother. Because a
number down as not connected does not need to be represented in the basic
database, _if_ the connected database is used to reference. This would be too
slow for general use, but would reduce the distribution size, paradoxically
reducing it more as the map became close to being complete (since by default a
number is down as connected, to encourage people to check it). Suppose only 20%
of numbers are not used - the basic database may be reduced by this amount.
However, you'd save less than a MB, and the database would need to be rebuilt
on the user's computer, so I question the value of this, as it would be
negligable at the start when numbers would be down as connected.
This is believe should provide a basis for a speed and space optimised working
model for a database of all 0800/0500 numbers. One problem remains, a minor
one: While the first two database pairs have a set record length, the final
database pair has a variable record length. Obviously to obtain data on a
number in the first two databases, _all_ numbers are already catered for
allowing very fast direct referencing. But in the last database, the only
_easy_ way I can think of to extract data on a number is to cycle through every
number, a slow procedure. Binary split is not viable without data alignment
pointers, and that's too much bother. I personally think that anyone using the
extended database will just have to be prepared to wait a few minutes for their
results.
So... unless I've made a fundamental mistake an basic distribution is down to
5MB, and the maximum probable distribution including extended database is down
to 10MB. Any advance on this, anyone? If I can reduce it this far with a little
thought, there must be someone who actually has a half a brain who can reduce
it by another 50%...
Thanks to the reply 'Just to say that telnet is worth considering' for
prompting the revisal of the storage format.
And as regards telnet, or other online system of dispersal, I do not have the
facilities/abilities at present, if anyone does, and decides to make the
database online, please at least tell me about it :-) Maybe in a few years
I'll have the resources. As for manual updating of numbers I think a good
target is to refresh the map every 2 years or so, which will require some sort
of automation, even if it is only a standard email format, for an automated
program to process. But even if the entire map can't be updated this often, I
don't doubt the interesting bits would be...
Any more thoughts from anyone?
(Come to think of it I've just realised that there's no good reason for
seperating the 'connected' database and the 'basic' database, unless the size
of the 'basic' database is going to be reduced by leaving out numbers that are
not connected. It is inefficient, but the allowance is made for _speed_, if
anyone thinks that a reduction of a MB is a good trade for waiting a few
minutes for a result rather than a fraction of a second...)
Joe K
In message <kIK04JAa...@sleepi.demon.co.uk>
Misc <B...@NOJUNK.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Causing the computer to spew out a logon sequence CAN be classified as
> "getting the computer to perform a function", and if the company says
> "noone is allowed to dial the number" then both criteria are filled.
Has it ever been tested that a company is allowed to make it
'unauthorised' for certain people to dial a number? I would have imagined
they didn't have the right to do this, as they don't own the number and
associated circuity that connects you to the computer, they only own
the computer, the modem and the bit of wire that connects it to the phone
socket. The phone socket itself is the property of BT, and it is this phone
socket that you connect to when you ring it up. What action is taken when
someone does ring it up is the company's problem. I figure I have a right
to dial any number on the PSTN, so long as I don't transmit any false
messages for the purpose of causing annoyance or anything else that the
Telecommunications Act makes illegal.
If a company put its computer on its own PBX, and you dialled their PBX and
then asked for the extenion the computer was on, that would be a different
case entirely though...
--
Joe
Joe K
In message <kIE0YGAi...@sleepi.demon.co.uk>
Misc <B...@NOJUNK.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> does this mean that if you secure access to unauthorised data
> ACCIDENTALLY, you're okay?
>
> I can think of this happening feasibly if you stumbled across an
> "illegal" back door, for example.
In theory, yes. But if, having gained access accidentally, you started
to sniff around the site you'd gained access to, you could be in trouble.
And if you started altering information on the site, you would almost
certainly be in trouble.
--
Joe
ChasM^
WELL SAID!
ChasM^
Are we gunna get this database going or not?? fuck the legal/illegal
aspects!
Someone please mail me with a DECENT reply.
Tra委r
Tra委r
Eh please ignore previous email address it aint mine so dont go fuking
it up cause u dont like me or wot.
Tra委r
_Defiant_
Getting us all to do a scan is a good idea so count me in!!!!!
Michael
If you would like a big list of scans done about a
year ago maybe half a year ago then goto
Digital Mind Stream at www.abel.net.uk/~dms
Have fun.
TMsm464339
>Are we gunna get this database going or not?? fuck the legal/illegal
>aspects!
There seems to be enough support to begin. I shall write the software, and
commence the building of the database in a few days. Every so often I'll post a
status report on the database, to keep everybody updated. Any last ideas?
Comments?
Is it safe, therefore, to declare project "Freephone Map" started?
paul...@hotmail.com
GRAHAM STONE
Coke £ 80
Ket £40 a g
MDMA £40 a g or 3.5g for £100
LSD £10 each 5x£40
XTC £5 each or 10x £40
Mkat - £30 ** NOT IN STOCK
Gina 50mls £40
Tina £ASK check current offer*
Viagra 10x £20
Cialis 10x £40
Sleepers 💤
Zopiclone 7.5mg £20 a blister pack
Xanax 2mg bar 10x£20
Etizolam 1mg 10pills in a blister pack £20
Valium blue 10mg 10x £20
Smokables
🍁🍁 🍁 £ASK
♦Please preorder and stick to it ♦
✓ LIMITED 2CB aka tripsticity £20 each - if these go down well it’ll become a regular thing
Also available Delectable 💉 injectables
10 pins for £5.
I have working hours , Monday to Friday 11 am until 11pm Saturday 11 am until 2 am
Sunday - only by request.
Inside Oxford and locally minimum outcall (I come to you) is £150 + return travel
Outside of Oxford £300 + deposit and driver (ask for details).
All packages put in a smelly proof bag and discreetly sealed in envelope or brown paper bag and sealed once again.
Cash preferred or can do bank transfer.
Discopharmacologist
WhatsApp me 07520627885