Re: NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-20 Thread Allen Ethridge
>[Moderator's note: I was under the impression most base stations did >the crypto in hardware, so the answer would be "no, no performance >gain" for such equipment. Besides, the main concern would be open >channels, not CPU load. Anyone know better? --Perry] It's my understanding that functions l

Re: NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-19 Thread Damien Miller
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Greg Rose wrote: > There is one very simple reason why they might have wanted the encryption > switched off. Wiretapping at the base station requires a wiretap order, > whereas sniffing the airwaves in a matter of national security is something > the NSA is allowed to do (

Re: NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-17 Thread Paul Crowley
Peter Fairbrother <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Incidently, even the A5/1 algorithm is supposedly not very secure against eg > LEAs, Corporations, or perhaps even a very dedicated amateur, though I have > no exact details to hand. A normal PC with several hundred gigabytes of disk space and two w

Re: NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-16 Thread Greg Rose
At 01:53 AM 9/17/2001 +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote: >It is possible that damage to basestations or volume of traffic may have >caused this failure. Possibly, the telco switched it off to maintain >service. Equally, the FBI/NSA etc may have switched it off, but I don't know >why they would bother

Re: NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-16 Thread Peter Fairbrother
> Angelos D. Keromytis wrote: [...] > Most of the day I was around 116 Street (Columbia U. campus), but at around > 7pm I went to West 4 Street (they hadn't closed that part off yet), and the > problem persisted. > > Just to clarify -- the phone was working, but the encryption was off (I > suppos

Re: NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-16 Thread Greg Rose
At 06:56 PM 9/16/2001 -0400, t byfield wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thu 09/13/01 at 02:57 PM -0700): > > > > An interesting bit of information: on Tuesday afternoon, to the extend > > > that cellphones operated, GSM encryption was turned off throughout > > > Manhattan. My GSM phone would repeatedly

Re: NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-16 Thread Angelos D. Keromytis
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, t byfield writes: > >i don't think the relationship was so clear. > >however, a very limited sample did suggest that single-band (i.e., >domestic) phones were working while, side by side, 'world' phones >weren't. The phone I was using is an Ericsson T39 ("world"

Re: NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-16 Thread t byfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thu 09/13/01 at 02:57 PM -0700): > > An interesting bit of information: on Tuesday afternoon, to the extend > > that cellphones operated, GSM encryption was turned off throughout > > Manhattan. My GSM phone would repeatedly warn me of this on every call I > > made (or tried to

Re: NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-15 Thread Bill Stewart
At 07:59 AM 09/13/2001 -0400, Angelos D. Keromytis wrote: >An interesting bit of information: on Tuesday afternoon, to the extend that >cellphones operated, GSM encryption was turned off throughout Manhattan. My >GSM phone would repeatedly warn me of this on every call I made (or tried >to make).

NYC events and cell phones

2001-09-13 Thread Angelos D. Keromytis
An interesting bit of information: on Tuesday afternoon, to the extend that cellphones operated, GSM encryption was turned off throughout Manhattan. My GSM phone would repeatedly warn me of this on every call I made (or tried to make). As of Wednesday morning, things were back to normal. Does an