VoIP Mailing List Archives
Mailing list archives for the VoIP community |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stotaro at totarotechn...
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
 |
|
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Alex Balashov
<abalashov@evaristesys.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | Plus you cannot spoof the ANI which is the topic of the thread.
Please stay on topic.
|
It's not off-topic to make analogies, comparisons or correlations
between ANI spoofing and other things that are also possible, and which
together serve to elucidate the genus to which both problems belong in
terms of applicable policy and attitudes toward them.
Dismissing other things that are also judged to be "like" ANI spoofing
that are brought up to clearly illustrate a point about one or both runs
into the danger of narrowmindedness and lack of perspective, and also
limits the creative, discursive and intellectual freedom of the
participants in the discussion.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
|
Telephony and Asterisk are the on topic (for this list, related
business is included). Period.
Thanks,
Steve Totaro
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
abalashov at evaristes...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | Telephony and Asterisk are the on topic (for this list, related
business is included). Period.
|
Correct. And so are germane rhetorical devices employed in the
discussion thereof.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sip at arcdiv.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
Alex Balashov wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | Telephony and Asterisk are the on topic (for this list, related
business is included). Period.
|
Correct. And so are germane rhetorical devices employed in the
discussion thereof.
|
Nonsense. Similes are allowed, but metaphors are right out.
N.
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jra at baylink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 02:35:03PM -0400, SIP wrote:
| Quote: | | Quote: | Correct. And so are germane rhetorical devices employed in the
discussion thereof.
|
Nonsense. Similes are allowed, but metaphors are right out.
|
Could we have an argument about this, please?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joakimsen at gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
The problem with what you posted is it being very broad. The fact that
the general population believes caller id is accurate, "defraud" could
mean simply make them think you are someone, i.e. caller id spoofing
is inheritently fraud. The fact is technology and law historically the
law has never been up-to-date technologically. Look at all the hoopla
surrouding open wifi access points. If you actually look at the low
level processes taking place you'll notice its more akin to knocking
on someone's door and being let inside.
Anyways.... the Florida law excludes
"A telecommunications, broadband, or voice-over-
Internet service provider that is acting solely as an
intermediary for the transmission of telephone service between
the caller and the recipient."
So noone need worry about that, besides I'm sure the law could easily
be repealed if challenged under the guise of "interstate commerce."
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel
<trixter@0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 18:40 -0400, Charles Vance wrote:
| Quote: | each of those scenario's involve either fraud or intent to do harm and
are already prohibited
|
`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person within the United
States, in connection with any telecommunications service or VOIP
service, to cause any caller identification service to transmit
misleading or inaccurate caller identification information, with the
intent to defraud or cause harm.
emphasis on "intent to defraud or cause harm" so even with this law
nothing really changes.
Although this is not the first attempt, its a new bill that is basically
the same as the 2006 one, what passed was the 2007 one introduced Jan
5 2007.
It generally will do nothing, and places no burden on voip providers on
its face, although the courts at a later date may decide that providers
have to take responsibility for their customers. The person also has to
be in the united states, which provides an interesting loop hole for a call
center in say india.
The intent to defraud or cause harm will be assumed for grand jury hearings,
only to be disputed in trial. That is the way with intent more often than not.
It will be difficult to say that people are doing this with intent before they
do anything else, as a result the law wont stop anything, nor will it
help much in terms of getting warrants to search before someone actually
does something, its yet another law to make people feel good about paying
the legislature for doing nothing. Much like the florida law.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
|
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill at cosi.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
Jay R. Ashworth wrote: | Quote: | | Quote: | On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 02:35:03PM -0400, SIP wrote:
| Quote: | | Quote: | Correct. And so are germane rhetorical devices employed in the
discussion thereof.
|
Nonsense. Similes are allowed, but metaphors are right out.
|
Could we have an argument about this, please?
|
|
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bill at cosi.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
SIP wrote: | Quote: | | Quote: | Alex Balashov wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | Telephony and Asterisk are the on topic (for this list, related
business is included). Period.
|
Correct. And so are germane rhetorical devices employed in the
discussion thereof.
|
Nonsense. Similes are allowed, but metaphors are right out.
|
|
I think tautologies are good, too. By their very nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stotaro at totarotechn...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Bill Michaelson <bill@cosi.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
SIP wrote:
Alex Balashov wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
Telephony and Asterisk are the on topic (for this list, related
business is included). Period.
Correct. And so are germane rhetorical devices employed in the
discussion thereof.
Nonsense. Similes are allowed, but metaphors are right out.
I think tautologies are good, too. By their very nature.
|
Epsecially when they are logical tautologies  
Thanks,
Steve T
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2008asterisk05 at shaw...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
Of course they would believe caller id is accurate. It was originally
"sold" to them that way. Same applies to things like "privacy guard"
that depend on caller id.
Andreas van dem Helge wrote:
| Quote: | The problem with what you posted is it being very broad. The fact that
the general population believes caller id is accurate, "defraud" could
mean simply make them think you are someone, i.e. caller id spoofing
is inheritently fraud. The fact is technology and law historically the
law has never been up-to-date technologically. Look at all the hoopla
surrouding open wifi access points. If you actually look at the low
level processes taking place you'll notice its more akin to knocking
on someone's door and being let inside.
Anyways.... the Florida law excludes
"A telecommunications, broadband, or voice-over-
Internet service provider that is acting solely as an
intermediary for the transmission of telephone service between
the caller and the recipient."
So noone need worry about that, besides I'm sure the law could easily
be repealed if challenged under the guise of "interstate commerce."
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel
<trixter@0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 18:40 -0400, Charles Vance wrote:
| Quote: | each of those scenario's involve either fraud or intent to do harm and
are already prohibited
|
`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person within the United
States, in connection with any telecommunications service or VOIP
service, to cause any caller identification service to transmit
misleading or inaccurate caller identification information, with the
intent to defraud or cause harm.
emphasis on "intent to defraud or cause harm" so even with this law
nothing really changes.
Although this is not the first attempt, its a new bill that is basically
the same as the 2006 one, what passed was the 2007 one introduced Jan
5 2007.
It generally will do nothing, and places no burden on voip providers on
its face, although the courts at a later date may decide that providers
have to take responsibility for their customers. The person also has to
be in the united states, which provides an interesting loop hole for a call
center in say india.
The intent to defraud or cause harm will be assumed for grand jury hearings,
only to be disputed in trial. That is the way with intent more often than not.
It will be difficult to say that people are doing this with intent before they
do anything else, as a result the law wont stop anything, nor will it
help much in terms of getting warrants to search before someone actually
does something, its yet another law to make people feel good about paying
the legislature for doing nothing. Much like the florida law.
|
|
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trixter at 0xdecafbad.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 21:15 -0400, voipguy wrote:
| Quote: | Of course they would believe caller id is accurate. It was originally
"sold" to them that way. Same applies to things like "privacy guard"
that depend on caller id.
|
and that may be the bigger problem. The phone network was never
designed to allow anyone and everyone act like a phone network. They
made promises they can only keep when a few "trusted" companies are able
to control what data goes where. The emergence of SS7 firewalls shows
that they dont trust all the data that may be trafficed over the
network, a network that was also never designed to have but a few
"trusted" people on it.
It also wouldnt surprise me in light of FCC fines that have been passed
down for traffic really being interstate but marked intralata, and such
that the carriers arent behind some of the legislative pushes lately.
The fines can run hundreds of millions for that. They are however
cautious to not push for legislation that can harm them such as
verification of customers right to use a specific number, or at least
they should be.
Personally I dont see anything really wrong with the ability to spoof
it, it shouldnt be trusted and even if you pass laws making that illegal
it wont have much effect, the way the laws are written you can only
catch someone with the proposed legislation after some other action that
is already illegal is done (such as pranking e911, scams and avoidance
of do not call lists).
As for "homeland security" something that was brought up at one point as
a potential, they should know more than anyone that its not reliable,
they should also have access (at least some of the homeland security
folk) to the encrypted phone network. I know the NSA has two phones,
one encrypted one not, and if anyone in your group uses the insecure
phone, say to order a pizza they have to declare this to everyone in the
room before picking up the phone and placing a call, this is so
background conversations dont accidentally get picked up and get
broadcast. The risk of tricking them based solely on caller id/ani
should fall to better education of the employees (which applies to all
things not just national security).
I have gotten some calls that I thought were suspicious, people
pretending to be police demanding information, the number did check out
it was the police, however I said that I had to call them back for time
reasons, but did this before giving any information, upon calling back
no one knew of the officer that alledgly called me nor anything about
why anyone would call me to ask for such information. The callback was
just a couple minutes later, and no one at that station (of which only a
couple were there that time of night) even claimed to have made the
call.
The biggest way to defeat this is basic to all types of scams, when
someone calls you on the phone the fact they claim to be someone does
not make it true, any more than someone approaching you on the street
and claiming without proof that they are someone. You cant just believe
everything you hear, but for some reason people all too often do believe
it on the phone, disbelieving in person. For example if someone walked
up to you on the street and told you they were a police officer but
didnt have a badge would you believe them? Would you just tell them
anything they wanted to know? Education is the key here more than
anything else. But its hard to charge extra for a service that you have
to advertise as "may not be reliable".
I guarantee however that if you got most of the ILECs customer service
line and asked them if caller id was reliable they would say yes it is,
and for the vast majority of calls that would be true but the statement
itself that it is reliable isnt true. The media coverage that it can
happen however is to a point a good thing, it lets people know that it
cant be relied upon even if the phone company claims it is.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stotaro at totarotechn...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel
<trixter@0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 21:15 -0400, voipguy wrote:
| Quote: | Of course they would believe caller id is accurate. It was originally
"sold" to them that way. Same applies to things like "privacy guard"
that depend on caller id.
|
and that may be the bigger problem. The phone network was never
designed to allow anyone and everyone act like a phone network. They
made promises they can only keep when a few "trusted" companies are able
to control what data goes where. The emergence of SS7 firewalls shows
that they dont trust all the data that may be trafficed over the
network, a network that was also never designed to have but a few
"trusted" people on it.
|
The same can be said with the internet.
Thanks,
Steve Totaro
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trixter at 0xdecafbad.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 22:46 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel
<trixter@0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
and that may be the bigger problem. The phone network was never
designed to allow anyone and everyone act like a phone network. They
made promises they can only keep when a few "trusted" companies are able
to control what data goes where. The emergence of SS7 firewalls shows
that they dont trust all the data that may be trafficed over the
network, a network that was also never designed to have but a few
"trusted" people on it.
|
The same can be said with the internet.
|
I disagree, I think the internet was designed for more than just a few
trusted nodes on it.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stotaro at totarotechn...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
Originally it was a few trusted nodes and the only real security was
physical, meaning access to a terminal. ARPA/DARPAnet security guards
certainly would not let just anyone access a terminal.
Thanks,
Steve Totaro
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel
<trixter@0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 22:46 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel
<trixter@0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
and that may be the bigger problem. The phone network was never
designed to allow anyone and everyone act like a phone network. They
made promises they can only keep when a few "trusted" companies are able
to control what data goes where. The emergence of SS7 firewalls shows
that they dont trust all the data that may be trafficed over the
network, a network that was also never designed to have but a few
"trusted" people on it.
|
The same can be said with the internet.
|
I disagree, I think the internet was designed for more than just a few
trusted nodes on it.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
|
Originally it was a few trusted nodes and the only real security was
physical, meaning access to a terminal.
ARPA/DARPAnet security guards or military police certainly would not
let just anyone access a terminal. It was designed for the
military/government to be able to communicate after a nuclear (or
similar) strike by self healing with routing around the outage.
That was the original idea but it became more than that after the
potential of a public WWW was recognized, as many Universities started
getting connected, at which point, many of the government systems were
taken offline. Why? Lack of security in the implementation itself.
Thanks,
Steve Totaro
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trixter at 0xdecafbad.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 12:45 am Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 00:15 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | Originally it was a few trusted nodes and the only real security was
physical, meaning access to a terminal. ARPA/DARPAnet security guards
certainly would not let just anyone access a terminal.
|
I do not think that there were DARPA guards at the universities that
designed and built the first parts of the internet. Remember DARPA
funded it but didnt create it, that was by other university folk. In
addition DARPA stopped any oversight in 1975 (a year after the term
"internet" was first notably seen) becuase their job was not to manage
or maintain things such as this network, but it was to fund research and
development. As such, the policy of posting guards when they
acknowledged it wasnt their job to manage or maintain the network seems
questionable.
The initial funding meant that it was non-commercial in nature, this
meant that universities, researchers, and some military was there, but
remember milnet didnt join until 1980, and split it off in 1983
(maintaining gateways but not trafficing over the same links)
Many of the initial users were scientists, librarians, computer experts
and such. Yeah, there was a movement in the 60s in Ohio to computerize
book catalogs that by the 70s was an international effort. This did
eventually join the internet as there was in the US a multi-state effort
to not only have these catalogs but share them.
Spam had its 30th birthday just the other day (email from DEC on May 3
1978), where were the guards? What about for the few hundred that
received the original email and complained their systems costing often
hundreds of thousands of dollars was being used for marketing.
Ok, they gave up oversight in 1975, so that means from 1962 (when DARPA
got a guy from MIT who earlier that year was the first to publicly
propose a global network of computers) to 1975 the guards would have had
to been there at least in some fashion, but there wasnt milnet (joined
in 1980) or really anything classified on the network during those
years, and TCP didnt exist until 1973 (NCP did exist prior though). Why
the first attempt to connect on Oct 29, 1969 crashed at the 3rd
character (G in LOGIN).
So now we have the years 1969-1975 for DARPA to still be in control and
a network actually working. You cant guard someone logging in from a
terminal when the network itself crashes, so its unlikely they were
guarding the terminals prior to the network actually running. But still
during this period nothing classified is trafficing over the network.
It was also envisioned in 1962 by someone to be a global network of
computers all over everywhere. That guy was specifically snatched up by
DARPA to further develop the network concept.
Its seeming less likely, especially since just a few years after that
companies like DEC were there complete with sales people having access
to it (it was a sales guy that sent the original spam message).
Wikipedia states that it wasnt until the 80s that DEC joined, but the
sales guy who sent the first spam was prior to this so wikipedia is
wrong (yet again).
Basically I dont have proof there were no guards (its almost impossible
to prove a negative) but it doesnt look like its that probable given
what was on the network and its state through most of the early years of
it. If you have some reference that states there was DARPA guards that
restricted access to the network I would like to hear about it. I know
by 1979 that wasnt the case, as that was the first year I started using
world wide networks and there were zero guards at any of the many
terminals that I had access to.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stotaro at totarotechn...
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 00:15 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | Originally it was a few trusted nodes and the only real security was
physical, meaning access to a terminal. ARPA/DARPAnet security guards
certainly would not let just anyone access a terminal.
|
I do not think that there were DARPA guards at the universities that
designed and built the first parts of the internet. Remember DARPA
funded it but didnt create it, that was by other university folk. In
addition DARPA stopped any oversight in 1975 (a year after the term
"internet" was first notably seen) becuase their job was not to manage
or maintain things such as this network, but it was to fund research and
development. As such, the policy of posting guards when they
acknowledged it wasnt their job to manage or maintain the network seems
questionable.
The initial funding meant that it was non-commercial in nature, this
meant that universities, researchers, and some military was there, but
remember milnet didnt join until 1980, and split it off in 1983
(maintaining gateways but not trafficing over the same links)
Many of the initial users were scientists, librarians, computer experts
and such. Yeah, there was a movement in the 60s in Ohio to computerize
book catalogs that by the 70s was an international effort. This did
eventually join the internet as there was in the US a multi-state effort
to not only have these catalogs but share them.
Spam had its 30th birthday just the other day (email from DEC on May 3
1978), where were the guards? What about for the few hundred that
received the original email and complained their systems costing often
hundreds of thousands of dollars was being used for marketing.
Ok, they gave up oversight in 1975, so that means from 1962 (when DARPA
got a guy from MIT who earlier that year was the first to publicly
propose a global network of computers) to 1975 the guards would have had
to been there at least in some fashion, but there wasnt milnet (joined
in 1980) or really anything classified on the network during those
years, and TCP didnt exist until 1973 (NCP did exist prior though). Why
the first attempt to connect on Oct 29, 1969 crashed at the 3rd
character (G in LOGIN).
So now we have the years 1969-1975 for DARPA to still be in control and
a network actually working. You cant guard someone logging in from a
terminal when the network itself crashes, so its unlikely they were
guarding the terminals prior to the network actually running. But still
during this period nothing classified is trafficing over the network.
It was also envisioned in 1962 by someone to be a global network of
computers all over everywhere. That guy was specifically snatched up by
DARPA to further develop the network concept.
Its seeming less likely, especially since just a few years after that
companies like DEC were there complete with sales people having access
to it (it was a sales guy that sent the original spam message).
Wikipedia states that it wasnt until the 80s that DEC joined, but the
sales guy who sent the first spam was prior to this so wikipedia is
wrong (yet again).
Basically I dont have proof there were no guards (its almost impossible
to prove a negative) but it doesnt look like its that probable given
what was on the network and its state through most of the early years of
it. If you have some reference that states there was DARPA guards that
restricted access to the network I would like to hear about it. I know
by 1979 that wasnt the case, as that was the first year I started using
world wide networks and there were zero guards at any of the many
terminals that I had access to.
|
I will check with Marty and Mark (co-authors of SNMP and founders of
PSINET). I distinctly remember them mentioning this but I don't have a
link to prove or disprove it yet. I generally trust hearsay from them.
Thanks,
Steve Totaro
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
