Slashdot Log In
Feds Have a High-Speed Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Mar 05, 2008 07:32 PM
from the all-the-better-to-snoop-with dept.
from the all-the-better-to-snoop-with dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An unnamed U.S. wireless carrier maintains an unfiltered, unmonitored DS-3 line from its internal network to a facility in Quantico, Virginia, according to Babak Pasdar, a computer security consultant who did work for the company in 2003. Customer voice calls, billing records, location information and data traffic are all allegedly exposed. A similar claim was leveled against Verizon Wireless in a 2006 lawsuit."
Related Stories
Submission: Whistleblower: Feds Have a High-Speed Backdoor Int by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Politics: Democrats Propose Commission To Investigate Spying 302 comments
metalman writes "Wired has a story on a proposal by House Democrats to 'establish a national commission — similar to the 9/11 Commission... to find out — and publish — what exactly the nation's spies were up to during their five-year warrantless, domestic surveillance program.' The draft bill would also preserve the requirement of court orders and remove 'retroactive immunity for telecom companies.' (We've discussed various government wiretaps, phone companies, and privacy violations before.) But it seems unlikely that such an alternative on phone immunity would pass both the House and Senate, let alone survive a Presidential veto."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
Ghorbaneh Shoma (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
CALEA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Interesting)
NEWS FLASH: EVERY wireline and wireless carrier has facility like this between their central offices and Quantico, Virginia. I can tell you for an absolute fact that a medium-sized cable company operating in the Rocky Mountain region has similar facilities between their main office and the FBI Academy, because I helped install it.
Welcome to the world post-CALEA.
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every single design for a new piece of telecom equipment includes provisions for lawful intercept. That provision working is more important than any other piece of the system. It can ship even if it is rebooting every 24 hours, but it won't ship if lawful intercept isn't working 100%.
Mod Parent Down As Simply Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
No they don't. We don't. None of our peer ILECs or CLECs do. The only case in which this would ever be the norm is if you are an RBOC, very large CLEC or very large wireless carrier and regularly field CALEA requests from the same law enforcement agency. Read that again just to make sure what I'd said registered. Even then it would have be be in excess of 23 simultaneous calls to justify m
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Informative)
Still horsepucky, but it IS part of CALEA as the above posters are mentioning.
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Interesting)
Use the Goog. It's your friend.
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? You're going with that argument?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prove it.
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
You think all those people in Chinese prisons who were arrested for speaking out against the government 'did evil shit'?
Not that we live in China, but thinking that this can't turn against you...
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
You should seriously spend some time learning about the principles this country was founded on, because the concept of monitoring interpersonal communications of American citizens would have been an appalling affront to the people who founded it and gave their blood and lives for it. Frankly I find it shameful that so many Americans are willing (if not overjoyed) to hand over their Constitutional rights.
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to be a dooms-day preacher, saying that we're going to start killing our own citizens for exercising their freedom of speech, but the fact of the matter is, as seen in your circular logic (someone correct me if that's not what it is) in the quote above, that by the time it is a problem, you're not going to be able to fix it by voting.
I feel like I understand your argument; I'm not doing anything wrong in my house, so why do I care if the government puts cameras up and watches everything I do? Honestly, I don't care one bit. Until someone decides to pass a law that makes copying a CD illegal, or being gay (just an example... I'm not) illegal, or decides they don't want to count my vote in the next election because I'm a Democrat (again, just an example), or decides that I should be put in jail where my anti-government ideas can't influence other people. And by then, voting isn't going to do me much good.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an unlikely scenario anyway. Given the typical behaviour of the US, you're far more likely to start killing your own citizens because it's cheaper than figuring out whether they've done anything. That's more or less what's happening in Gitmo to non-citizens already; it is a small step to start doing it to your own citizens as well (while claiming that "of course"
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
Small steps like these make a totalitarian state make.
Do you think our Founders were stupid to abolish domestic spying?
It is people like you who form the remaining 22% support base for Bush & Co.
Perhaps if you are shown on your DVD player all (i mean ALL) that you have said, done and possibly non-being-able-to-do, i guess you will understand...Or probably you would shrug it off when Eva Longoria comes about in Desperate Housewives.
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, while a court order is still legally required, it is no longer technically required. The FBI need only press a button to start wiretapping. Not only is there no one outside of the organization verifying that the FBI has a legitimate need to know, there is no one keeping records of the wiretaps other than the FBI itself. Our American system has been subverted in the name of safety.
Second problem - what the FBI can use, criminals can abuse. And I'm not talking about criminal behaviour by the FBI itself, I mean unauthorized users with the smarts to co-opt the backdoors that the FBI uses. See this paper from the January/February 2008 issue of IEEE Security and Privacy. [crypto.com]
Third problem - what's your definition of "evil shit?" Does it include breaking up with your boyfriend, the federal agent? [informationweek.com]
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think this administration gives a flying fuck whether or not evidence is admissible in court?
Once the government started holding people indefinitely without trial, the whole concept of admissibility went right out the fucking window. Prisoners in Gitmo don't even have the right to know what the evidence against them is at all, much less whether or not it's admissible in a court of law. (Hell, they don't even have access to lawyers to tell them whether or not the evidence is admissible.)
Concern for this sort of infrastructure and its potential for abuse isn't tinfoil-hat paranoia, the abuse can and has happened. (If you haven't been paying attention, google 'warrant less wiretapping' for further information.)
The checks-and-balances part of the Constitution has been slaughtered in the name of 'protecting our citizens from the terrsts' and 'national security'. While the latter is nothing new, the former is a recent development.
Trusting this government (or any likely future one) with this kind of potential for abuse is kind of like putting a junkie in a room with a kilo of heroin and his 'works', and telling him only to shoot up if the withdrawal symptoms become impossible to bear. It doesn't matter IF they abuse the system, the problem is that they ARE the system, and will do whatever they feel is necessary to protect the system, and therefore themselves (and the multinational corporations that pull their strings.) Even when they DO get called on something that's obviously an abuse of the system (if not black-letter-law illegal) they stamp their feet, throw a tantrum, and refuse to do ANYTHING until the multinationals get immunity for their self-serving rape of their customers' privacy rights.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: If you can convince a judge that I'm obviously engaged in illegal activity, wiretap away. Until then, get the fuck off my phone lines. While I understand the need for expedience in an emergency situation, there is no reason for these lines to be active at all until there's a signed warrant. If you think that's too much bureaucracy or an unnecessary burden on law enforcement, go find another country, because this one requires it by Constitutional order. The only way we can avoid a police state (well, a more obvious one) is to not allow this sort of shit to go unquestioned.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." -Cardinal Richelieu [wikipedia.org]
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Informative)
While a DS-3 might not be out of the question to the FBI, depending on the volume of traffic, I have yet to see an "unmonitored" line. Everything I've seen (and set up -- I do this for a living) is an IPSec tunnel from the carrier to the LEA with BER encoded ASN.1 for data and packetized native (to the carrier) encoded voice. And the line works one way only. Carrier --> LEA. The only packets flowing back are stateful connection packets.
In short, I think this story is B.S.
Yes, the FBI probably has a big line with no firewall. That is because the firewall(s) is/are on the carrier end. The carriers do extensive logging as well, so it doesn't surprise me that the FBI-end of the circuit isn't heavily logged. They log their REQUESTS and the carrier logs the connections.
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Informative)
It may appear to be unfiltered to the person making the connection. However, if it is anything like the T1 I hooked up where I worked, only the calls with active warrants are passed down the T1. That being said, the T1 hooks directly into the switch just like any other T1, and is configured to be a CALEA port in the switch itself. A wire-frame guy who isn't doing the programming/translations wouldn't know any better, so I think that's where this "idea" comes from.
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:CALEA (Score:4, Insightful)
" Because the data center was a clearing house for all Verizon Wireless calls, the transmission line provided the Quantico recipient direct access to all content and all information concerning the origin and termination of telephone calls placed on the Verizon Wireless network as well as the actual content of calls.
The transmission line was unprotected by any firewall and would have enabled the recipient on the Quantico end to have unfettered access to Verizon Wireless customer records, data and information. Any customer databases, records and information could be downloaded from this center."
Since the tech was at the telco & not at Quantico, he was referring to security on the telco side. There was no firewall on the telco side.
Parent
Talk is Cheap (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Talk is Cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that, with this administration, any claims of domestic spying are hardly "extraordinary". It's more like "business as usual" - to be assumed unless there's evidence to the contrary.
Parent
Re:Talk is Cheap (Score:4, Funny)
Go to your Verizon Wireless-serviced cell phone, call a friend in a foreign country, and have a normal conversation, but make sure to throw in a few key "red flag" words and phrases here and there. Examples of "red flags" are:
"Bomb"
"Subways"
"Code Green"
"Statue of Liberty"
"Monuments"
"Airplanes"
"Buildings"
"I hate George Bush and think the Justice Department is a corrupt pile of shit"
Say goodbye to your friend once a few or all of these phrases have been sprinkled into your conversation. Then sit back in your favorite Barca lounger, take out your stopwatch, measure how many minutes it takes for one or more black SUVs to park across from your driveway.
Parent
Guess who! (Score:4, Funny)
"Can you hear me now?"
"Yes we can, perfectly clear."
In an unrelated story.... (Score:3, Funny)
Full story at eleven....
Cool (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The NSA and FBI are both hiring in the Tech areas (Score:5, Funny)
And the loyal opposition, the Democrats, will... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want to know why Bushco thinks it's above the law? Because until you fucking cowards grow a goddamn spine and stand up to their evil, corrosive attitude towards the rule of law THEY ARE.
Why is it that in 8 years, I have never, EVER heard of a major Democrat standing up and saying outright, without analogy, subtlety or tact, that thanks to Bush the terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams? That thanks to him, 19 insane religious fanatics have gone from "attacked three buildings and got their organization crushed like a bug for it's trouble" to "shook the rule of law, the foundation of the most powerful country in the world, to it's base?" That thanks to him and the Republican fear machine, bin Laden has changed and hurt American society in ways he never could have dreamed of? That thanks to him, the terrorists have won in every way that matters?
Opposition? You've been deceived... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
But I guess if the only thing that matters to you is "government power", then yes, you might think they're the same, because you're ignoring all the substantial differences.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, one might argue that the main reason the US government has been so bad at making positive change is that there are so many people here who believe, as a matter of principle, that government can't do anything well - and when those people are elected, they use their power to prove themselves right.
Government is really just an alternate way to get things done. Private industry and the free market are excellent at getting things done efficiently, but the other side of that coin is, they don't even try to get anything done that isn't going to be profitable. If you want something done, period, whether or not it's profitable, that's where government is useful. For example, look at phone and electrical service in rural areas: it didn't exist before the government stepped in, because it wasn't profitable to build phone infrastructure where there were only a few potential customers, but We The People decided that infrastructure was important enough that it should be built anyway.
On the other hand, I'd rather have a government that does good things, like make medical care and education available to people who can't afford to pay for it, than one that's stagnant and unable to do anything.
Parent
Re:And the loyal opposition, the Democrats, will.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats are no better than Bush? Then why is it Bush, and the party which routinely condemns "tax-and-spend liberals" and trumpets itself as the bringer of small government and fiscal responsibility, the one which has in 8 years saddled us and our children with more debt than every other president combined, and doubled the size of the federal budget whose cancerous growth he and the Republicans so vehemently denounce?
Neither party is at all better than the other? Since when have the Democrats proclaimed themselves to be the sole beacon of light, Moral Decency, and the Traditional American Family in the smothering night of evil secularism, only for one Democrat after another to turn out to be those gays or adulterers whom they so ardently and stridently insist are going to be the downfall of America?
What Democratic or Republican president before Bush has taken that fabled shining city upon a hill, and desecrated it such that his supporter's defense in a debate is no longer "Because we are better than they are," but "We aren't the worst human rights violator on Earth?"
No, the Democrats have a very long way to go before they are as bad as Bush has been, for both his party and the nation.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To every complex question, there is an answer that is simple, concise, and wrong - paraphrase of H.L. Mencken.
Why are people surprised by this? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't add up (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That wouldn't require anything more than an additional data stream just like a thr
Do the math (Score:4, Informative)
45000Kbps / 5.6Kbps = 8037 simultaneous calls supported on a DS3, assuming 0% overhead, protocol, encryption, and that all calls are half-rate.
VZW and ATTW have subscriber counts in the millions.
Whatever the legality or circumstance of this, a single DS3 is hardly wholesale snooping.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've never seen an OC-24: the more common value in the US is an OC-48 (2.4Gbps). A good rule of thumb for getting the relative size of these pipes is that the number after the OC- represents roughly the number of DS3s which can be carried on the optical path. Of cours
network vcr's (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, so the DS3 is a Very Bad Thing for a tonne of reasons.
BUT ... The linked .doc says that
Note the focus on 'phone' and 'conversations'. Aside from demonstrating ignorance on the difference between 'mass' and masse', this statement *directly contradicts* the linked .pdf, which states that the exposed 'Data network' transports all mobile data service traffic and related business app traffic but *not* the raw traffic of the 'Cell network', which was not examined in the audit.
Anyone else read this similarly?
Which is it? This, plus the lack of detail around the location of the 'network vcrs', which presumably are traffic copy mechanisms, the location of which will determine exactly what data is exposed by this mechanism, gives me less of a warm-and-fuzzy feeling with respect to the allegation's supporting documentation.
I am in no way supporting the existence of this no-ACL, no-logging circuit into what is allegedly a major carrier's mobile support network. The devil is in the details in this dialogue, however, and there is no excuse for direct contradictions and lack of important detail.
Feds need to read the fine print (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:everyones an expert (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think that out of that 1.2 MILLION of mostly geeks many of us don't work in the datacom industry?
And that out of those, many of us see the stupid games the government plays with the second biggest near monopoly/cartel on the planet?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
he should be on his way to prison for breaking his end of the deal
Exactly! That is what the British said about Paul Revere...
Now wait a second! whose side am i on....is this the Empire or USA?
he signed on to a job that had requirements, and he broke those requirements
Wasn't the president asked to mumble something during the oath taking about keeping the constitution sacred and to obey it???
Oh yeah, right, such oaths mean nothing, since its the President.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
US law protects whistle blowers
What law? The one passed in 1970s? That was repealed by Bush last year.
Today no law protects Federal Whistleblowers.
If they squeak, the KGB, sorry FBI, descends on them like rocks.
Either that, or your husband is exposed as a spy, or your son is arrested for dealing in drugs.
Get real man!
We have a president who says we should thank companies for breaking the law!
And who treats the contitution as toilet paper to wipe cheney's a$$.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You have given hours of quality entertainment to the boys here at Langley.
Carry on patriot (and you probably should have that "red thing" looked at by a doctor).