I didn't realize you can now connect to another company without ordering the route-set from a third party. How does this work ? I feel old !
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:40 PM Kidd Filby <[email protected]> wrote: > Very well said Mike. > > Back In The Day... Interconnection between 2 companies had to occur via a > 3rd party, like Illuminet. Their had to be SS7 gateway providers and > that's all they were allowed to do. Route SS7 traffic between > LEC/ILEC/CLEC networks. Oh... do I remember the pains... > Gateway-Screened... CNAM database corruption, LIDB services not > provided.... Still makes my head hurt. > > Kidd > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> It seems to me that this SS7 vulnerability issue is just the latest >> result of all of the de-regulation that’s been going on for the past… two >> decades or so. There was a time that you could not buy commercial access >> to the SS7 network; to get that access you had to be a real carrier. Also, >> back at that time, inter-company SS7 signalling could only occur on >> established, ordered signaling routes where both parties placed an order to >> open the route between them. Therefore, this would not have been possible >> back then because the carrier would not have ordered a route to the >> hacker’s point code(s) and it therefore would not exist. >> >> >> >> If I am a US local carrier in 2001, I have no need to order a signaling >> route to a German carrier either so even the hacker having full access to a >> German carrier’s network would not compromise my network. (in response to >> the nation-state issue) To get a call to Germany, I signal to the access >> tandem or IXC switch I’ve chosen to interconnect with in the US and that >> switch signals upstream, etc. >> >> >> >> If we were not on this path of de-regulation where whatever makes >> commercial sense for one company can open up the whole SS7 network to >> un-trusted parties, we likely wouldn’t be here. At some point, a decision >> was made somewhere to allow this loosy-goosy inter-company signaling over >> the SS7 network between two point codes that would not, under the original >> implementation of SS7, be able to talk to each other in the first place. >> >> >> >> If the drumbeat of “solve everything with IP!” continues, I hope that at >> least it gets solved by establishing something close to what the VPF was >> supposed to be, and not just a general dumping of all voice traffic across >> the internet between carriers. That certainly wouldn’t bode well for >> reliability or security. >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE >> >> Astro Companies, LLC >> >> 11523 Palm Brush Trail #401 >> >> Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202 >> >> DIRECT: call or text 941 600-0207 >> >> http://www.astrocompanies.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* VoiceOps [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Dan >> York >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:45 PM >> *To:* Kidd Filby <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 >> >> >> >> This is generally true if the calls are *unencrypted* on VoIP... >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Kidd Filby <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Also folks, don't forget, the same outcome of recording someone's call is >> MUCH easier to accomplish once it is VoIP. IMHO, of course. ;-) >> >> >> >> ... BUT... what's fascinating is the recent rise in end-to-end (e2e) >> encryption among IP-based communications platforms that include voice. >> >> >> >> WhatsApp, for instance, just completed the rollout of e2e encryption on >> April 5, and not just for messaging, but also for voice and video calls as >> well as file transfers ( >> https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000618/end-to-end-encryption ). Just >> yesterday the team behind Viber announced that they will soon have e2e >> encryption for all clients. The app Wire ( http://wire.com ) also does >> e2e encryption for voice, video and group chats. >> >> >> >> In a US Congress hearing this week, a Congressman asked a Dept of >> Homeland Security representative if e2e encryption available in apps would >> have prevented this interception that happened via SS7. The DHS answer was >> that it would mitigate the interception of the content, although the >> location meta-data would still be available. (You can view the exchange >> via the link in this tweet: >> https://twitter.com/csoghoian/status/722854012567969794 ) >> >> >> >> The end result is that we're definitely moving to a space where the >> communication over IP-based solutions will wind up being far more secure >> than what we had before. >> >> >> >> Interesting times, >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Dan York >> >> [email protected] +1-802-735-1624 Skype:danyork >> >> My writing -> http://www.danyork.me/ >> >> http://www.danyork.com/ >> >> http://twitter.com/danyork >> >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> >> > > > -- > Kidd Filby > 661.557.5640 (C) > http://www.linkedin.com/in/kiddfilby > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
