From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Dec 8 13:54:17 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iB8IsGo12338; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:54:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:54:17 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412081854.iB8IsGo12338@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #585 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:54:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 585 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Digital PhishNet (Monty Solomon) Cingular Cell Sites in Shopping Malls (Monty Solomon) NMS vs. Aculab (Danny Chan) FCC Head Urges Congress to Free Up E-Rate Funds (Lisa Minter) Experts Push for More Computer Security Efforts (Lisa Minter) WTB: Rackmount Firewall System ([e]num) Re: Connecting VoIP Device to Home Wiring (Ringo Langly) Re: Connecting VoIP Device to Home Wiring (William Warren) Re: Connecting VoIP Device to Home Wiring (Rick Merrill) Re: How to Call from A to B to C? Please Help (Carl Navarro) Re: Lingo Voip Isn't Really Cheap (DevilsPGD) Re: R2 Signalling (William Moss) Re: Western Electric and Al Capone (Ernie B.) Re: For $999, a Lifetime of Internet Phone Calls (Scott Dorsey) CallerID Name was Re: Countering the "Lingo Sucks" Thread (No Spam) Re: Dropping SBC For a VoIP Solution -- Vonage or Packet8 (Rick Merrill) Re: Will Radar Detectors be Regulated Out of Existence? (Rick Merrill) Re: Lycos Pulls Anti-Spam 'Vigilante' Campaign (Rick Merrill) Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:53:16 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital PhishNet Industry, Law Enforcement Team To Launch Digital PhishNet - Dec 8, 2004 09:01 AM (PR Newswire) International Public-Private Initiative To Expedite Arrests, Convictions Against 'Phishers' REDMOND, Wash., Dec. 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Representatives from a number of industries and international law enforcement agencies today announced the establishment of Digital PhishNet, a collaborative enforcement operation that unites industry leaders in technology, banking, financial services and online auctioneering with law enforcement to tackle "phishing," a destructive and growing form of online identity theft. Digital PhishNet establishes a single, unified line of communication between industry and law enforcement, so critical data to fight phishing can be compiled and provided to law enforcement in real time. Phishing is the particularly harmful and deceptive emerging online threat that involves directing consumers to phony Web sites, usually through forged or "spoofed" spam e-mails, to input personal financial information such as credit card numbers and passcodes. While other industry groups have focused on identifying phishing Web sites and sharing best practices and case information, Digital PhishNet is the first group of its kind to focus on aiding criminal law enforcement and assisting in apprehending and prosecuting those responsible for committing crimes against consumers through phishing. Digital PhishNet brings together industry leaders from nine of the top 10 U.S. banks and financial services providers, four of the top five Internet service providers and five digital commerce and technology companies, and works with top federal and international law enforcement agencies. Developing supporters of Digital PhishNet include America Online Inc., Digital River Inc., EarthLink Inc., Lycos Inc., Microsoft Corp., Network Solutions, VeriSign Inc., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS). More information can be found at http://www.digitalphishnet.org/ . - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=45490058 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:59:41 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cingular Cell Sites in Shopping Malls Cingular 'Raises the Bar' With Greater Coverage in Shopping Malls Construction program enhances ability to make calls in mall areas ST. LOUIS, Dec. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Cingular Wireless, the nation's largest wireless provider, is putting the finishing touches on an aggressive plan to help shoppers stay in touch this holiday season -- and beyond -- even in shopping malls. Cingular is using a system of unobtrusive cell sites located within mall buildings linked to small antennas no larger than smoke detectors located above ceiling tiles to distribute the wireless signal throughout the mall. The result is better signal strength and the ability of more customers to use their Cingular wireless phones. The build-out program is part of an announced $58 million construction program for 2004, which has added more than 200 new cell sites in Missouri and Kansas. Below is a list of the malls that have benefited from increased coverage: * St. Louis -- Four malls in St. Louis are benefiting from the increased shopping mall coverage: Chesterfield, Mid-Rivers, South County and West County. * Springfield -- Battlefield Mall and Bass Pro Shop. * Kansas City -- Independence Mall. * Wichita, KS -- Towne West Mall. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=45479780 ------------------------------ From: Danny Chan Subject: NMS vs. Aculab Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 00:50:13 +0800 Organization: Pacific Supernet Limited Can anyone tell me which one is better? I am going to buy a E1/T1 digital truck / PSTN telephony card for my school project; however I am new to each of these. Your help appreciated. Danny [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Danny, if you would please tell us a little about your school project, perhaps some of the guys here will be able to tell you about using these devices. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 12:21:55 EST From: Lisa Minter Subject: FCC Head Urges Congress to Free Up E-Rate Funds Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell urged Congress to approve legislation easing accounting rules that forced the agency to freeze funds from the so-called E-Rate program earlier this year. "I hope that Congress is able to pass this legislation before adjourning," Powell said in a statement. The E-rate program, administered by the Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC), is used to subsidize Internet and other communications in schools, as well as rural health care programs. It is funded by companies that offer long-distance telephone service, like AT&T Corp. and Verizon Communications which typically pass on those charges to customers. Without the accounting changes, Powell said, the agency could be forced to seek more money from carriers to raise fees for the program. In August the USAC was forced to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in funds for the E-rate program in order to comply with accounting standards that govern the program. Lawmakers in Congress have agreed to temporary changes in the accounting rules as part of a package of telecommunications laws that passed the House, but it's hung up in the Senate. Although popular, the E-Rate program has also been dogged by allegations of waste, fraud and abuse, prompting investigations by federal prosecutors, the FCC and Congress. [NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . New articles daily.] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance Reuters News Service. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:42:44 EST From: Lisa Minter Subject: Experts Push for More Computer Security Efforts The Bush administration should spend more on computer-security research, share threat information with private-sector security vendors, and set up an emergency computer network that would remain functional during Internet blackouts, a computer-security trade group said. The Homeland Security Department should also give more authority to the official who oversees cybersecurity, members of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance said. The Homeland Security Department, which was not immediately available for comment, opposes such a move. "There's certainty across the cybersecurity community that we are still vulnerable and we need to do more," said Amit Yoran, who served as Homeland Security's point man on cybersecurity until he abruptly resigned in October amid reports that he was frustrated with his lack of authority. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, experts warned that power plants and other vital parts of the nation's infrastructure could be compromised through online hacking. Business and home computer users, meanwhile, have struggled with a flood of viruses, spam and other plagues that have evolved in the past year into coordinated criminal attempts to steal bank account numbers and other sensitive information. The Bush administration developed a plan to improve security that relies heavily on industry cooperation and charged the Homeland Security Department with implementing it. Over the past 18 months, Yoran and other Homeland Security officials have worked to increase coordination between law-enforcement officials and security vendors like Symantec Corp. and RSA Security Inc. The government has also struggled to upgrade the security of its own systems, which consistently get failing grades from congressional investigators. Security experts said the government's efforts haven't been nenough. "I think we've raised the profile, but I don't think we got the support within the administration that we should have," said Art Coviello, the chief executive at RSA Security. The government should try to estimate the damages caused by online attacks, secure online control systems for water-treatment plants and other critical infrastructure, and urge the Senate to ratify an international cybercrime treaty, Coviello and other security experts said at a press conference. One especially important move, they said, would be to elevate Yoran's successor to the assistant-secretary level within the Homeland Security Department. House of Representatives lawmakers had included that provision within the massive intelligence reorganization bill, but Homeland Security officials convinced the Senate to leave it out. [NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . New articles daily.] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, Reuters News Service. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: [e]num Subject: Wanted to Buy: Rackmount Firewall System Date: 7 Dec 2004 21:24:33 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am looking for a firewall system that will fit into a 19" rack. I am on a budget of about $350 for this particular piece of hardware. For obvious reasons used even older hardware is acceptable as long as it is operational. Previous research has led me to devices such as Cicso PIX, although these devices are far out of my range. Something similiar is preferred. - [e]num ------------------------------ From: Ringo Langly Subject: Re: Connecting VoIP Device to Home Wiring Date: 8 Dec 2004 06:11:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Ringo Langly wrote: > Hi all, > I'm a subscriber of Packet8, and on their VoIP box it says not to > connect it to the home wiring in my home. I'm assuming they get > folks who connect it without unplugging the Ma Bell line and this > blows the box. If I disconnect the outside lines (no voltage on > phonelines) is there any reason not to connect the VoIP box to make > all my phones hot? I only have three phones throughout the house, > and I've been told such a box like this should put out enough > voltage to carry such a load. Just curious -- Thanks, > Ringo > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as you *disconnect everything* > pertaining to Bell first, you should be okay. PAT] Hi Pat, That's what I figured, but I thought I'd ask just to be safe. Thanks. Ringo ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Connecting VoIP Device to Home Wiring From: William Warren Organization: Church of the Infinite Possibility Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:14:53 GMT On 7 Dec 2004 11:24:11 -0800, Ringo Langly wrote: > Hi all, > I'm a subscriber of Packet8, and on their VoIP box it says not to > connect it to the home wiring in my home. I'm assuming they get folks > who connect it without unplugging the Ma Bell line and this blows the > box. If I disconnect the outside lines (no voltage on phonelines) is > there any reason not to connect the VoIP box to make all my phones > hot? I only have three phones throughout the house, and I've been > told such a box like this should put out enough voltage to carry such > a load. Just curious -- Thanks, > Ringo > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as you *disconnect everything* > pertaining to Bell first, you should be okay. PAT] Ringo, Make sure you _really_ disconnect EVERYTHING: there may be old transformers on the wires from a Princess phone. You'll also need to check if your burglar alarm and/or utility meter is hooked to the line: they'll need to be reprogrammed if your dialing pattern is different. And _please_ take the time to update the E911 records. The life you save may be your own! FWIW. William (Filter noise from my address for direct replies) ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Connecting VoIP Device to Home Wiring Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:25:51 GMT Ringo Langly wrote: > Hi all, > I'm a subscriber of Packet8, and on their VoIP box it says not to > connect it to the home wiring in my home. I'm assuming they get folks > who connect it without unplugging the Ma Bell line and this blows the > box. If I disconnect the outside lines (no voltage on phonelines) is > there any reason not to connect the VoIP box to make all my phones > hot? I only have three phones throughout the house, and I've been > told such a box like this should put out enough voltage to carry such > a load. Just curious -- Thanks, > Ringo > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as you *disconnect everything* > pertaining to Bell first, you should be okay. PAT] The other caveat is to make sure that NO ONE ELSE can accidently re-connect! i.e. tape off and lable any lines you disconnect. - RM ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: How to Call from A to B to C? Please Help Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:14:06 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 00:13:22 GMT, M. Henri wrote: > Hi, > I'm currently working on a venture possibility in my small town that > is an hour away from a major City. > Placing call to that major city(town A) is a long distance from my > town (town B). But a town in between (town C) is not a long distance > for both ends. > People would call from town A to town C and reach town B without any > additional charge besides the monthly charge from the services of my > own company. > That software would have to accept 2 set of entry from the clients > touch tone phone: first entry would be some unique client code and the > second entry would be the 10 digits phone number to town B. In the days of 5 cents per minute or less for long distance and VOIP, have you tried www.packet8.net to see if the major city is listed for service? $20/month with unlimited calling to the major city is a lot less than any remote call forwarding solution ... if you have broadband access. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Lingo Voip Isn't Really Cheap Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 04:00:33 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In message John Levine wrote: >> LINGO may suck but in my opinion, VERIZON SUCKS WORSE. Any idea why >> Verizon would charge me $68/mth (including taxes) for local service >> when I can get more features from Lingo. > Probably because Lingo only works if you already have a $40/mo > broadband connection. I don't understand why people think that > something they pay for every month is "free". > I have a Vonage phone and like it OK, but I'm under no illusion that > Vonage+broadband is cheaper than POTS. Then you're mistaken. I already have internet connectivity, Vonage charges me $19.95/months for my first line, and $14.95/month for each of my two additional lines, the telco would charge ~$35/month for the features we use (Call display, call waiting and voicemail) Since I don't pay extra for the broadband connection, the actual cost for those additional lines is $19.95+ 2x$14.95. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have said this myself on a few occassions. If you otherwise have broadband connectivity you use for other reasons, it is unfair to dump the entire cost of same onto your VOIP phone bill. PAT] ------------------------------ From: William Moss Subject: Re: R2 Signalling Date: 8 Dec 2004 08:40:48 -0500 Organization: Nortel In article , mara wrote: > Hi, > I have a question. Where are transmitted the multifrequency signals? > (Time slot 16 uses four status bits for signaling purposes -- > Supervisory Signals). Interregister Signalling -- I don't know. Time > slot 16 in frame 0 is used for Super Frame alignment. Maybe in the > next frames (1 through 15)? MF signals are always inband. The Supervisory signals ("hook state") are carried in TS 16. William Moss ------------------------------ From: Ernie B. Subject: Re: Western Electric and Al Capone Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:04:07 -0500 Organization: MV Communications, Inc. Reply-To: ernie@withheld on request Having lived in the shadow of the Hawthorne works in Cicero, IL in my youth, this book intrigues me. I have been in search of photographs of the interior and exterior of this fabled manufacturing facility. Can you tell me if this book contains any pictures? The web has produced only one vintage photograph of the plant as viewed from 22nd st. I recall that at one time I read that the huge neon sign on the Cermak Road (22nd st.) facade was once the largest neon sign in the world. I could see it's glow from my bedroom at night. I also remember that every Christmas, the tower of the building, located at the corner of Cicero Ave. and Cermak Road was festooned with colored lights from top to bottom. Anyone who knows of a source of photographs of this behemoth plant please contact me at: beeaybay "at" yahoo "dot" com. These pictures would only be used for non-commercial personal purposes. Thanks in advance, Ernie P.S. Pat, please delete the e-mail address that this message originates from. Thank you. Jim Haynes wrote: > I'm currently reading a book, "Manufacturing the Future - a History of > Western Electric" by Stephen B. Adams and Orville R. Butler. > Al Capone had a couple of casinos across Cicero Avenue from the > Western Electric Hawthorne Works. Joseph Juran was a statistics > expert in quality control at Western. After spending some time in > Capone's establishment after hours, Juran noticed that one roulette > wheel operator worked "like a robot", making the operation of his > wheel amenable to statistical analysis and prediction. His expertise > enabled him to win $100, which at the time was several weeks' pay. > (Compare with the much later activities of some college students > documented in the book, "Eudaemonic Pie". They used computers in > briefcases and radios in their shoes in a successful scheme to predict > the behavior of a roulette wheel.) > jhhaynes at earthlink dot net ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: For $999, a Lifetime of Internet Phone Calls Date: 8 Dec 2004 09:34:47 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Tim Keating wrote: > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:56:25 -0500, Lisa Minter >> For $999, a lifetime of Internet phone calls > Then kiss your money good by. You're betting that this Startup will > still be a viable company in four to five years. Odds are at least > to 5 to 1 against. You'll get better odds in Vegas, playing black > jack. No, you're betting that the startup will still be a viable company in as long as it takes for you to break even. If you're currently spending a hundred bucks a month on LD service, the company can collapse in a year and you will still be ahead. My question is how long it will be before the VoIP stuff transitions over to an "internet phone" model, where your phone talks directly to the other phone over the net when you make a call, with no intermediary needed? As long as both phones are on the net and you don't need a gateway to the POTS service, why should you spend anything over the cost of your connectivity? --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:00:29 -0500 From: No Spam Subject: CallerID Name was Re: Countering the "Lingo Sucks" Thread > Dan Lanciani wrote: >> tkoppel@adelphia.net (Ted Koppel) wrote: >>> If you're going to complain about Lingo, at least do it >>> for real reasons: >>> - still not sending callerID *name* (although they are sending number) >>> on outgoing calls >> So what does it mean to send callerID name on outgoing calls? I was >> under the (mis?)impression that calling name presentation was normally >> implemented by the terminating switch doing a database dip using the >> SS7-passed calling number. I heard some talk of an end-to-end >> version, but I thought it wasn't generally supported. >> Dan Lanciani >> ddl@danlan.*com > Exactly. If the name on caller ID is not coming up, it's not the > sending telco's fault, it's the receiving telco's fault. Actually, it might not be. Fault can be relative. In KC, Verizon and SBC were mutually refusing to pay each other for database lookups, so neither were displaying name. I suppose it's possible that in this case receiving telco is refusing to pay Verizon's exorbitant rate, but that all depends on the rates in that MSA. The 'sending' of name is usually in exended data elements that are not universally used in the US, which is why you sometimes see it on Avaya-to-Avaya PSTN calls, but not usually between different vendor equipment. I also thought I read somewhere that there was an FCC/PUC kind of requirement. Sending of name does work in Canada, from what I'm told. Joshua (My opinions are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer, but sometimes we agree.) ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Dropping SBC For a VoIP Solution -- Vonage or Packet8 ?? Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:24:07 GMT Ringo Langly wrote: > Hi ... it might be the Google Groups screwing-up, not sure but I did > post a review last week yet it's not showing-up in the thread. Either > way here's another quick review after using the phone for a week. > Setting-up the Packet8 VoIP box was cake, and it was ready to go after > maybe 10 minutes. My first delimma was I had to enable DHCP on my > router, which I generally keep turned off. After checking online > there is no way to assign a static IP to the VoIP device they sent me. > Anyway, my first call went well, but there is a noticeable delay when > calling a landline -- and the more traffic going over your broadband > the more the delay. My roommate was running Bittorrent downloads, and > it wasn't until after I disconnected her computer that the delay was > low enough to actually carry on a conversation. > But with the broadband line opened-up (no downloads) it worked great! > The sound quality was excellent and though the delay was maybe 1/4-1/2 > second at times it worked well. I even called the technical support, > which I got right through in like 2 rings, but they couldn't do > anything for the delay. I had update the firmware in the box before > calling them too. > One feature I tried that didn't work well was the call forwarding. I > forwarded the line to my work number, called my house, and within a > couple of rings my work phone rang. The delay was (no kidding) 2-3 > seconds. Total pipe-organ effect, which makes this feature useless > for me. You wired it up wrong, and I'll try to say why. It should be Modem<>TelephoneAdapter<>Router<>PC Then the TA does "QOS"(quality of service) to reduce the through put so that voice quality is maintained (downloads via the router are slowed). Also, it means that you do not have to enable DHCP on the router unless you want it. The TA has a unique MAC address and picks up an IP from your ISP's DHCP. In theory this means you can take your TA with you and call from anywhere there is a broadband connection. - RM ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Will Radar Detectors be Regulated Out of Existence? Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:27:38 GMT Bitu wrote: > RADAR DETECTORS WILL BE BANNED SOONER THAN WE WOULD LIKE. Anyways it > does not matter. Radar detectors do not protect you against speed > cameras, red light cameras or automated traffic enforcement equipment. > Police officer operated speed traps are being replaced by cameras at > an alarming rate. > If is as advertised this product called PHOTO BLOCKER SPRAY is our > salvation. They claim that it was tested by the media on their website > www.phantomplate.com On the videos it shows the police saying that it > really works by making your license plate invisible to traffic > cameras. Can anybody tell me if this is true? www.photoblocker.com > please let me know what you think. The spray wears off quickly, but when fresh it creates a reflection that (generally) obscures the camera. The counter to this is to use flashless cameras. It's a back and forth battle. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We talked about this very subject here > in the Digest a couple months ago. Perhaps some of the partipants in > that conversation will tell you what our group consensus was regards > the images the police use. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Lycos Pulls Anti-Spam 'Vigilante' Campaign Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:31:00 GMT Lisa Minter wrote: > Just days after Lycos Europe's launch of an anti-spam DDoS tool raised > eyebrows in the security space, the company appears to have scrapped > the campaign. > Early last week, the company released a downloadable screensaver > programmed to launch distributed denial-of-service attacks against > known spam sites, but the move sparked a shooting war with spammers > and attracted condemnation from security researchers. > On Friday, Lycos Europe gave up the ghost, posting a "Stay Tuned" note > on the MakeLoveNotSpam.com Web site it was using to distribute the > screensaver. The Lycos Europe home page, which heavily promoted the > screensaver all week, was also scrubbed clean of any references to the > screensaver. > Company officials did not respond to requests for comment, but > security experts were not mincing words. > "I find the anti-spam downloadable DDoS tool to be without a doubt > irresponsible, possibly illegal, Illegal? Right, and enforced by the international "internet police"? > the wrong impression to users, and possibly the dumbest thing I have > heard of this week," said Adrien de Beaupre, an incident handler with > the SANS Internet Storm Center (ISC). As if that frenchie has a better idea?! > "I can summarize my thoughts into a single word. Dumb. With a capital > 'D,'" de Beaupre told eWEEK.com. > Dan Goldberg, a senior security analyst with MADJiC Consulting Inc., > described the Lycos Europe move as "vigilantism" and said the use of > questionable tactics to deal with a security risk created more > problems that it solved. Looks like Lycos just got ethics! > "In this case, it only causes traffic saturation. It's a noble gesture > to fight back against spammers, but when you try to take down a spam > site, a lot of innocent people get caught in the crossfire. As a big > company, Lycos has to be more responsible than that," Goldberg > said. True, unfortunately. > Evidence of a shooting war in cyberspace was uncovered by anti-virus > vendor F-Secure. The company reported that one of the spam sites under > attack by the Lycos screensaver simply added a Meta Refresh tag that > redirected all incoming traffic back to Lycos. For every force ... > "As an end result, depending on how the Lycos client works, the screen > savers downloaded from MakeLoveNotSpam.com might be attacking the > download site itself," F-Secure said in a notice. > Although the Lycos site is no longer offering the screensaver, MADJiC > Consulting's Goldberg says it's likely the DDoS attacks against the > spammers will continue for some time. > "The software is out there. People have downloaded it and shared it > with their friends and family. It's being used and will continue to be > used," he said. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #585 ******************************