Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!olivea!bu.edu!telecom-request From: gutierre@noc2.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Michael Gutierrez) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Message-ID: Date: 9 Mar 91 06:10:01 GMT Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center Lines: 63 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 189, Message 9 of 9 fmsys!macy@usenet.ins.cwru.edu (Macy Hallock) writes: > In article is written: > > The Moderator claims that 1-900-STOPPER is worthless because any trace > > need merely trace through their system; this adds one step, it doesn't > > stop anyone. [...] > I use Litel's (a regional carrier) 950-XXXX access number. ANI is not > passed on most Feature Group B trunks. Very true. FGB trunks were strictly access, hence no need to forward ANI to the termination point (the IXC in this case). If the IXC was providing access via a BOC tandem, then the tandem location was passed via the usual in-band MF signaling for the IXC's benifit only (ie: called-from location for the billing computers). When I worked for MCI and did call searches, this was all but too true for calling card calls, so we never had an originating number to 'trace' the call back to, but we did have the 'trunk-type' (the incoming T-1 line, usually) if the BOC really needed to know how it came in, then they would search all of their call records to see where the 950-XXXX attempt came from. > Of course, the call will show > on the credit card bill, and the originating point of presence will be > idenitfied for billing purposes, but the number I called from will not > show ... and there is really no way to scan all the possible carriers > for a near random FG B call, I think. That's right. But if they know which carrier it came through on, I can have that call searched in ... oh ... five minutes at the most. > This is considerably safer than a 1+ or 0+ call because the telco > never captures the digits once the 950-XXXX is dialed. Therefore, the > telco cannot be the means of determination. Oh yes the 'telco' captures the 950-XXXX access! They just don't pass it on to the IXC. I can't speak for CDR tapes on an 4/5ESS, but I know d**n well that a DMS-250 captures *every* attempt, and if the software is configured properly, will write every attempt to the master CDR tape. If not, then the call is still available on the switch's hard disks until it's overwritten (usually after a CDR dump), usually for about four to twelve hours. > I've also been known to use a PBX DISA local number for the same > thing, with much the same effect ... although I suspect the FG B is > more secure. I'd agree for lawful means, it would be better to use FGB access, but for fraudulent means of calling, DISA's are just one of many means of keeping your number from being traced, but that's outside of this topic ... > Of course, no phone call is really secure ... random use of payphones > is always the safest way to protect your security/anonminity. Very true. Still, it depends who you're protecting your identity from. Robert Gutierrez NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center