active is active , it sends data to the network , passive is passive , it does not send data to the network . that's all . i have some friends in some law enforcement agencies and i know of several products . i dont want to name them on public mailing lists or over the internet to cause everybody problems but these companies work internationally and only by permission of the governments . illegal smuggeling of these equipment is always translates as act of espionage and all the intelligence services will react to this . people talk about these things based on their imagination and of course the effect of hollywood . reality is much different
one of the internet based companies who sells this crap is Shoghi , based in India . the other is Komlabs , also in india . i know that none of these companies are actually indians Shoghi sells Active but market it as semi-active and claiming its not detectable which is a lie . Komlabs offer passive system and its for real . these are already public and on the internet . none of these companies would sell anything to you or any other company or average citizen for any amount of money . go on and try it :) On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Bmc Hit <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi PQ, > > Which are the companies selling the active and passive systems. I am only > aware of Comstrac. After reading your entry I realised that they are also > only semi-active. Why is semi-active bad, what do you mean with commercial > crap? > > Bye, > > Zee > > ------------------------------ > *From:* p q <[email protected]> > > *To:* a51 <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sat, January 2, 2010 5:16:12 PM > *Subject:* Re: [A51] Passive vs. semi-active > > the term "semi-active" is a commercial crap that companies like Shoghi has > built to sell their old products to government with a different name and > false hope . > let me explain what is this about . Active attacks send BCCH . the operator > has the GPS fix and BCCH information of all its Valid BTSs . so , they can > find out if there is an active attack going on , if they want . but this > usually does not happen because local law enforcements always do that > locally and there is no easy way knowing which one is local which is evil > semi-active interception systems are trying not emulate all the > BTS functionaries to avoid some chances of detection , but its still > detectable . > an active system needs low level access to both MS and BTS side of the > communication it also offer man in the middle functionaries like filtering > SMSs or modification of data on the fly > > Passive System is receive only and it only has RX for both uplink and > downlink . it needs an attack method . there are various attack methods TMTO > or rainbow tables among them , along side with correlation attacks or > guess-and-determine attacks . > > Active and Passive systems are not usually comparable . why ? they offer > different attack vectors . Active systems are tactical and can modify data . > so law enforcement can change your out going calls to their own phones and > set you up . Passive systems are good for stationed and cross boarder usage > , not for tactical operations . > > Passive systems are always more expensive not because of the technology > because of their features . in reality , building an Active system is much > much harder than a passive system . reason is the Close nature of GSM > society , difficulaties to have access to L1 layer of MS and BTS without > paying millions and dollars and signing NDA . there are currently only 2 > different GSM active system on the market . but there are a couple of > Passive systems available . all only sell to government . to buy , you need > a letter of introduction from your embassy in the target country that > confirms you work for the government . of course these things always get > smuggled out of government for illegal usages but generally they are > controlled and trackable > > > > > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) <[email protected]> >> Date: Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 8:33 PM >> Subject: [A51] Passive vs. semi-active >> To: a51 <[email protected]> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> am i wrong or the semi-active interception is much more 'easy' than >> the passive one? >> >> I mean, it appears like 'less hidden' (so detectable in case of real- >> world-attack-usage) but much simpler in terms of 'requirements'. >> >> Does semi-active approach is simpler and does not require huge rainbow >> tables? >> >> Fabio >> _______________________________________________ >> A51 mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.lists.reflextor.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a51 >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ A51 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lists.reflextor.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a51
