Slashdot Mirror


Your Phone Number Is All a Hacker Needs To Read Texts, Listen To Calls and Track You (theguardian.com)

Samuel Gibbs, reporting for The Guardian: Hackers have again demonstrated that no matter how many security precautions someone takes, all a hacker needs to track their location and snoop on their phone calls and texts is their phone number. The hack, first demonstrated by German security researcher Karsten Nohl in 2014 at a hacker convention in Hamburg, has been shown to still be active by Nohl over a year later for CBS's 60 Minutes. The hack uses the network interchange service called Signalling System No. 7 (SS7), also known as C7 in the UK or CCSS7 in the US, which acts as a broker between mobile phone networks. When calls or text messages are made across networks SS7 handles details such as number translation, SMS transfer, billing and other back-end duties that connect one network or caller to another. By hacking into or otherwise gaining access to the SS7 system, an attacker can track a person's location based on mobile phone mast triangulation, read their sent and received text messages, and log, record and listen into their phone calls, simply by using their phone number as an identifier.Also from the report, "60 Minutes contacted the cellular phone trade association to ask about attacks on the SS7 network. They acknowledged there have been reports of security breaches abroad, but assured us that all U.S. cellphone networks were secure." Update: 04/18 16:51 GMT by M :Reader blottsie writes: U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Cali.) on Monday called for a full congressional investigation into the aforementioned widespread flaw in global phone networks.

98 comments

  1. Soooo.... by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All they need is your phone number and access to the SS7 system.

    --

    Long signatures suck.
    1. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...which you can get from a number of websites for a buck...

    2. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But GP's point is well taken. A hacker who is tapped into SS7 can eavesdrop on any conversation or texting. The "Your Phone Number" part is a minor point.

    3. Re:Soooo.... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Which the government already has. Go back to sleep we're here for your protection.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re:Soooo.... by phishybongwaters · · Score: 1

      I know. This really irritates me. With your phone number they can hack you read your texts and listen to your calls! Well, your phone number and unfettered direct access into the SS7 system. So what's next? All a hacker needs to due some identity theft on me in my SIN, bank card and pin, birth date, address, copy of my id, copy of my birth certificate.

    5. Re:Soooo.... by mi · · Score: 1

      Which the government already has.

      And has had almost immediately after the invention of telephones.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Soooo.... by konohitowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Karsten Nohl and his team were legally granted access to SS7 by several international cellphone carriers. In exchange, the carriers wanted Nohl to test the network's vulnerability to attack. That's because criminals have proven they can get into SS7.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-hacking-your-phone/

      But yeah, totally available from a number of websites for a buck. It was just easier to get the carriers to give him access since he didn't actually have a dollar handy.

    7. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And call yourself a hacker. Otherwise it won't work.

    8. Re:Soooo.... by Verdatum · · Score: 1
      Wow, the first comment on /. is actually the RIGHT one for a change! This place is slowly getting better!

      I used to write software for MSCs, an important part of mobile SS7 networks. And, yeah, big surprise, if you hack the thing that handles transporting messages that use an antiquated half-assed standard like SMS, then you can see unencrypted stuff. SHOCK. And yes, you would likely be able to access billing messages, but that doesn't mean Credit Card numbers. Billing messages means, "your account has made a 35 minute call using billing-plan-A", which in this day and age almost always means unlimited minutes, so who cares?"

    9. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2

      All they need is your phone number and access to the SS7 system.

      Getting access to SS7 isn't particularly difficult.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    10. Re:Soooo.... by Verdatum · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I haven't been in the telecom world for a little while, but, IIRC, this is a tricky thing to do on 3G, and nearly impossible on 4G. You need to get access to the user's private key, which, if the system is coding correctly, you shouldn't have access to without cracking another box. 2G is insecure as Hell, but everyone knows that.

      And yeah, they don't even need your phone number, if you get access to the user's local network, figuring their phone number out is a breeze.

    11. Re:Soooo.... by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the government has most likely told the Cellphone operators to *make it easy* for this work. After all, be it a "terrist" or a citizen, both must be tracked and surveilled upon in-case one becomes the other.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    12. Re:Soooo.... by zarr · · Score: 1

      A few weeks back, Telenor's network in Norway was down for hours, affecting about a million customers. They blamed it on an "unusual" SS7 package received from another network, which trtriggered a harware bug. Apparently that other network were doing som kind of security testing. I wonder if this was the same episode.

    13. Re:Soooo.... by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it was LEGALLY easier to get the carriers to give them permission, otherwise they would be subject to arrest with they published their findings.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    14. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why the fuck do they need those stingray devices? It sounds to me like a hacker can do everything the stingray device can, but without the actual stingray device. If the FBI/cops/whoever would just get a warrant, then they wouldn't... nvm, I think I just answered my own question.

    15. Re:Soooo.... by ls671 · · Score: 2

      Also, phone number seems to imply "cell phone number". I only have landline.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    16. Re:Soooo.... by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      ... so who cares?"

      The media. So they can scare you, make you read ads, and profit. And politicians, so they can scare you, make you vote for them, and profit.

    17. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Apparently that other network were doing som kind of security testing.

      Yeah; penetration testing on their neighbours. But the payload wasn't well tested and crashed some machines it was just supposed to reflash.

      Sleep well!

    18. Re: Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or..... just maybe he didn't want to go to jail for doing something illegal?

    19. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they need is your phone number and access to the SS7 system.

      Yup. It's just like saying: "OMG, all a hacker needs is your IP address and access to your ISP's network and they can see your packets!"

    20. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they need is your phone number and access to the SS7 system.

      Getting access to SS7 isn't particularly difficult.

      Uh, that's like saying that 'getting access to the BGP system isn't difficult'. It's not hard, all you need is an ASN and some IP space.

      The tough part is not joining the system, it's convincing whoever is sourcing the calls that they should route calls to you. In order to "tap" someone's call, you would either have to know in advance what number they are calling, and convince their telco that you own the destination, or else convince the telco to route ALL their traffic through you, which is going to cause some rather immediate and widespread service problems.

    21. Re:Soooo.... by Junta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point being that the access to SS7 is the story, *not* something about the phone device itself or something inherent to your phone number. The headline put out there in the media is focusing attention in the wrong direction.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    22. Re:Soooo.... by penguin74 · · Score: 1

      So all they need is to hack your phone company lol. That's like saying, hackers can steal your money! All they need is to hack your bank!

    23. Re: Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took me a while to parse this, and I think the phrase you want is "has done," or maybe "has been doing." "Has had" in that context would mean "has possessed" which comes across as a non sequitur.

    24. Re: Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is "has possessed" a non-sequitur?

      I think the awkward phrasing comes from "after." It should be "since."

    25. Re: Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stingray don't need you number, can snoop on everyone in range simultaneously. And doesn't fuck with the network, leaves no evidence.

    26. Re: Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Denial of service attacks on this could be lightweight and very nasty. Just send the message that means "customer downloaded 3 TB on data plan x" which is almost never unlimited.

    27. Re:Soooo.... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      No, I disagree. They're focusing attention on the _correct_ thing... in that someone, EXTERNAL TO YOUR PHONE, can "read texts, listen to calls [sic missing Oxford comma] and track you".

      Yes, they need access to SS7, but it's more surprising (IMHO) than the usual "anyone with physical access to your device could do anything" warnings, since they don't have physical access to your device.

    28. Re:Soooo.... by Junta · · Score: 1

      I think that would be better written as the phone networks themselves have risks. The current writing is vague about who to worry about here. People concerned may complain to Google, Apple, the handset makers, et. al, but they *all* should be complaining to their service provider.

      Stories are out there saying that if you get within miles of a hacker, they can eavesdrop on your phone. It still sounds like they are describing some sort of attack against your device. They make it worse by saying there are these exotic 'secure phones', simultaneously mentioning that strategies to harden against weak infrastructure do exist, but making it sound so mystical and out of reach... They effectively paint things to the common consumer as 'your phones are hopelessly weak and there's nothing you can economically do about it because the fix comes only in the form of prohibitively expensive devices'.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    29. Re:Soooo.... by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      That's not even a secret. It's called CALEA.

    30. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > who cares?

      Your ex-husband's PI is ostensibly trying to collect an heirloom you kept after the divorce. He passes on every datum he collects though, for a small bonus fee, and your ex really just wants this errata to know when and where and who you're calling, all the time, because he's a stalker and has violent vengeance fantasies involving you and your child.

      Your government doesn't like your politics.

      You're in the government and some people don't like your politics.

      Etc.

  2. May as well walk around naked by kheldan · · Score: 0

    Day by day it seems more and more clear that what I keep hearing is true, and that functionally there is no such thing as 'privacy' anymore. If random hackers can do this, then governments sure as hell have been doing it, too. How much longer do you think before you can't even take a dump in your own home without someone watching you do it? We may as well just all walk around naked, with our bank account numbers, credit card numbers, ID numbers, and all our other very personal information tattooed on our backs for the world to see.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:May as well walk around naked by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      There exists sewage analysis for drug use identification. What the best resolution is, I don't know (neighborhood, block, building, etc).

    2. Re:May as well walk around naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By living in the United States, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the Government. You may from other people or parties.

    3. Re:May as well walk around naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    4. Re:May as well walk around naked by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Funny

      May as well walk around naked

      Please don't

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:May as well walk around naked by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      ... with our bank account numbers, credit card numbers, ID numbers, and all our other very personal information tattooed on our backs for the world to see.

      If you may as well, you'd be doing it, but you don't, because you know it's not the same.

      Great argument.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:May as well walk around naked by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Oh, shut up. Pedantic, literal types like you make living more of a pain than is necessary.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:May as well walk around naked by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the person. Some people are fine walking around naked, others (most) should be fully clothed at all times.

    8. Re: May as well walk around naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your dicpix are belong to us

    9. Re:May as well walk around naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe *everyone* looks good naked, don't you know? Must be for lack of shaving.

  3. Uh duh by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you have access to the cell phone companies network, you can do what the cell phone companies do. Next on 60 Minutes: if a thief steals your car, he can drive it anywhere he wants to! Tune in at 11 for more SHOCKING details.

    1. Re:Uh duh by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      All they need is your VIN!

    2. Re:Uh duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the VIN is a security point. It's not visible unless you open the bonnet, and it's used as a "shared secret" by the vehicle licensing agency to confirm you have the vehicle you claim to have if all the paperwork is lost. It's a wonder that more garages don't steal VINs and use them to transfer ownership of cars, because they totally could.

      The joke should be all they need is your license plate number (and your keys).

    3. Re:Uh duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the us, its always visible through the windshield.

    4. Re:Uh duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do have access to SS7, but I'm not supposed to be able to query the whereabouts of your phone, which isn't even on my network. Neither am I supposed to play man-in-the-middle for your communication. The poblem is, SS7 is being done by such a small group of people around the globe, security never got the attention it actually required...

    5. Re:Uh duh by laughingskeptic · · Score: 1

      Automobile manufactures won't come out and give you a car if you call them and complain everyday, but cell phone companies will give you a femtocell for your house if you call them and complain every day. With the femtocell and sk1lz you have access to the cell phone network.

  4. No need to panic, the US is safe. by gsslay · · Score: 4, Funny

    "They acknowledged there have been reports of security breaches abroad, but assured us that all U.S. cellphone networks were secure."

    Oh, so that's alright then.

    1. Re:No need to panic, the US is safe. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      att is hardwired to the NSA.

    2. Re:No need to panic, the US is safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because NSA never, ever listens to the phones of the US subjects. Pinky promise.

    3. Re:No need to panic, the US is safe. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      "...but assured us that all U.S. cellphone networks were secure."

      Best joke I've heard all day. Right up there with, "Don't worry, it's unloaded!" or "I'm sure he'll stop for us, we have the right of way!"

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:No need to panic, the US is safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke:

      When a distinguished but elderly computer scientist states that something is not secure he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is secure, he is very probably wrong.

    5. Re:No need to panic, the US is safe. by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      I see this post was modded up as "Funny" but I think it should be "Insightful." Really, should treat cell networks as unsecured just treating all guns as loaded. There's some stuff you should never never put on a phone. Just like some stuff never never put on a computer that is connected to the internet. Yes, PITA. Usabilty vs. Security.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    6. Re:No need to panic, the US is safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the NSA [very slightly?] more trustworthy than AT&T? What happened to priorities?

    7. Re:No need to panic, the US is safe. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      The NSA can put in a jail and trail with no jury no due process and limited attorneys rights.

    8. Re:No need to panic, the US is safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and "hey Jimbob, hold my beer".

    9. Re:No need to panic, the US is safe. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      There's some stuff you should never never put on a phone. Just like some stuff never never put on a computer that is connected to the internet.

      Agreed 100%. I don't keep anything sensitive on my phone, period. For example, I don't do any banking from my phone. I don't use it for anything that could have what I think could might result in negative consequences to my finances or deeper personal data. Home address? Nope. Automated logins or stored passwords? Nope.

      Most of the photos I take with it get transferred to a desktop PC and don't live on the phone. Not all, but most. The ones that remain are pretty innocuous. The police could search my phone top to bottom and wouldn't find anything terribly interesting.

      The few passwords I keep on it are stored in an open text file, but mixed up and obfuscated. Hell, even I have trouble remembering which service they're for and whether they're reversed or written in "off-by-one" notation.

      -

      Yes, PITA. Usabilty vs. Security.

      Yup, it's a trade-off. The thing is that I consider my phone to be a landmine waiting to be stepped on if it falls into the wrong hands, so nothing of any value is ever kept on it. If I lose it, oh well. There is a "Reward For This Phone" contact in there with a number people could call to return it, but I'd probably just go buy another one, I wouldn't count on it ever being returned to me.

      I'd love to have a under-the-skin memory chip implanted in my arm that would link to my phone, but so far no one is offering such a thing. Just a gigabyte or two to hold the key stuff, that's all I'd need.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  5. dumb phones might be the smarter choice by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    it seems insecure is the default setting on all our gadgets.

    1. Re:dumb phones might be the smarter choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does dumb/smart phone have to do with all of this? Oh, I suppose it eliminates the Track You part of the "Read Texts, Listen To Calls and Track You".

      Sounds good. They can read my texts and listen in all they want but fuck them if I am going to let them know where I am on top of that.

      Where's my old flip-phone?

    2. Re:dumb phones might be the smarter choice by hvm2hvm · · Score: 2

      The tracking method doesn't use the phone's location service, it's done by triangulating the signal so a dumb phone won't help in any way.

      --
      ics
    3. Re:dumb phones might be the smarter choice by Junta · · Score: 1

      In this case, the network referenced is the one used by dumb phones. In fact, it's strictly the subset of things that a dumb phone can do (e.g. a smart phone doing IP traffic using appropriately secure TLS would be better protection than SMS and voice calls over a cell phone).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:dumb phones might be the smarter choice by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

      that is a great tag line

  6. Normalcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We haven't been burned yet, so it must be secure."

  7. Phone calls. Heh. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Phone calls. I remember those! Good times.

  8. Wasn't SS7 used by the phreaks? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    The original phone hackers used the "whistling" tones to hack into SS7. There was a blind phreak/hacker who was exceptionally good at this. They used band pass filters to keep the "signal" data from "voice" in analog transmission. Though the whistles and signal data was filtered out for the consumer's receiving end, it was not filtered by the exchange on the voice line from the customer. That is how they added spurious signals and avoided billing. Mostly got free phone calls.

    Surprised they are still using such a system in modern day SMS and cell phones. I remember reading about separating the command-control stream from the data stream. So it is quite surprising such a hole exists in a modern telcom system.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Wasn't SS7 used by the phreaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blue box and redbox for cell phones time? Will it let make premium rate txts for free?

    2. Re:Wasn't SS7 used by the phreaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      SS7 was the telco's efforts to block MFers using the "blue box"; Switching from in-band signalling to out-of-band signalling.

      SS7, however, provides some inter-carrier connectivity to enable roaming between carriers; With an IMSI, the visited network can ask the home network "can I give this IMSI service?"... and a deactivation from the home carrier's network to the visited carrier's switches can turn the phone off (used to suppress roaming fraud).

    3. Re:Wasn't SS7 used by the phreaks? by raind · · Score: 1

      Captain Crunch - 2600

      --
      Get up!
  9. Ftp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is also the horrible reason something like FTP is around. A separation between control and data planes.

  10. What nonsense! by bogaboga · · Score: 0

    They acknowledged there have been reports of security breaches abroad, but assured us that all U.S. cellphone networks were secure."

    That statement should have read:

    They acknowledged there have been reports of security breaches abroad, but assured us that all U.S. cellphone networks were secure to the degree the NSA wants them to be secure."

  11. Cell phones are not private, by design. by Kenja · · Score: 1

    Not sure why this is shocking to anyone. The only way cellphones work is be broadcasting who they are to everyone listening.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  12. not really a service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SS7 is a series of standard protocols. It's like TCP/IP except for phone networks.

    1. Re:not really a service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SS7 is a series of standard protocols. It's like TCP/IP except for phone networks.

      It would be more accurate to compare it to BGP.

  13. Article title is a lie and fear mongering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your Phone Number Is All a Hacker Needs To Read Texts, Listen To Calls and Track You "

    Yeah, that, and privileged access to the telephone network. The title makes it sound like your phone number should suddenly become a secret, and any idiot can simply start reading your texts with just your cell phone. Bullshit.

    I'm willing to believe that there's terrible security problems with the phone system. There have been for a LONG TIME. Hackers/Phreakers breaking into these networks via something as simple as Social Engineering has happened for 40 years.

  14. Ya Hey... by XMadtowner · · Score: 1

    Saw the broadcast. It's old news for those of us in the biz but new for all the sheep using the mobile networks thinking they in any way are safe from unwanted attention. A good scare for those joined at the hip with their mobile. Assume you are being watched and listened to... because you probably are. C'mon this is 2016... privacy... really!!! Hack wise though this is like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of a top hat stuff though... move along Douglass.

  15. Reminds me by Quzak · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of Baghdad Bob. "Our network is secure, the hackers are committing suicide at our firewall!"

    --
    Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
  16. Oldschool phone phreaking by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SS7...wow, that takes me back. I thought it had gone out with the landline. Yeah, SS7 has to know your number, that's kind of the whole point of the system, to be able to set up and tear down the call, and to bill correctly. Out-of-band signalling was the death of the oldschool phone phreak, who depended on being able to send tones down the line to control the call. Good ol' Phrack. And idiotic Phrack writers who didn't know what they were talking about. It's a good thing they didn't have comment sections back then, only a periodic publication. Erik Bloodaxe, Voyager, Sirsyko, and when Mudge wasn't an establishment tool. Netta Gilboa. RBOCs. Dumpster diving behind the phone company's central offices. Good times.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Oldschool phone phreaking by DaveMikulec · · Score: 1

      Dumpster diving. Man, I used to get the coolest hardware from the old school computer stores back in the late 80s and 90s. The stuff they threw away still amazes me.

      --
      "Shall we play a game?" -W.O.P.R.
    2. Re:Oldschool phone phreaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero Cool aka Crash Override, Acid Burn, The Phantom Phreak, The Plague, Cereal Killer, Lord Nikon. These are the real hackers.

  17. Total bullsh*t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mobile networks use two different SS7 networks, one for TCAP communication which includes SMS but not voice and one for ISUP which includes no voice and no SMS (it is a Signalling System). Voice has moved over to SIP from ISUP and the majority of all voice calls never leave the Mobile Switching Center(MSC) and thus there is nothing to tap. Additionally the Mobile Directory Number is not the key used for communication, the IMSI is.

    Basically, if you know a Mobile Directory Number and you could insert yourself into the SS7 network you could find out where the phone is but only the city and state, assuming the city was big enough, you only get the MSC. You could also send SMS messages to the phone but you can do that already can't you?

    1. Re:Total bullsh*t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Using the MSISDN you can get the IMSI from HLR using the right MAP operation, using the IMSI you could activate call forwarding unconditional for incoming calls loop it through your listening device and start listening to incoming calls, I am not sure how you would be able to listen in on outgoing calls. I am also not sure how the looking at text messages would work without having access to communication at the right place.

  18. Does it work on other phone systems? by kamaaina · · Score: 1

    I watched the 60 minutes episode, it was Interesting.

    Does it work for POTS or VOIP as well? How about T-Mobiles IP calling feature?

    1. Re:Does it work on other phone systems? by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Between the network switches it's all SS7. If you have access to that, you have access to all telephony. It's a bit like BGP in the IP world.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Does it work on other phone systems? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      SS7 was pretty much designed for POTS aka PSTN in the mid 70's. It's been extended over the years obviously. The attack is not generally not successful 100% of the time previous ones were saying 70% or so. A lot depends on where the attacker has access to the SS7 system.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  19. While you were reminiscing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to tell those yunguns to get off your lawn.

  20. No, encryption is between the phone and cell base by mimino · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, the encryption is between the phone and base station, not inside SS7 network.

  21. I know everyone's phone number by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 4, Funny

    not only that, I have them all memorized. Don't believe me? Here's one. (301)437-5529. Here's another.(207)844-627. And yet know even more. (902)887-8535. I even know your phone number. Doesn't matter what country or where you live. I know them all.

    1. Re:I know everyone's phone number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you know Jenny's number? Just in case you don't it is 867-5309.

    2. Re:I know everyone's phone number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wonder who scribbled her number on the wall in Duke Nukem 3D. Must have been a spurned lover.

    3. Re:I know everyone's phone number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres also this secret book that contains everybodys phone number and address. A secret agent used to dead drop a pile of them outside my building every year.

  22. So it's NOT all you need, then by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Your Phone Number Is All a Hacker Needs To Read Texts, Listen To Calls and Track You

    Really? That's all a hacker needs?

    By hacking into or otherwise gaining access to the SS7 system...

    Oh. So "no" then.

    Hey, did you know that all a hacker needs to read your emails is your email address? Oh, and the ability to hack into the server that hosts your mail and bypass all its security.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  23. dog bites man by epine · · Score: 2

    As it happens, I read Exploding the Phone by Phil Lapsley about a week ago, and it's still on my desk. It's a great book. If you like this kind of stuff (I know I do) this book contains as much material on the subject as can reasonably fit in under 400 pages. If you like this stuff, read it.

    The pertinent chapter for this thread is titled "A Little Bit Stupid" in which John Draper exploits recently automated [*] "busy verification" to eavesdrop on a primary line of the San Francisco FBI. How do you like them apples, with the roles reversed? (Hint: not very much, not very much at all.)

    [*] It had become a little bit too automated in certain large American cities, which additionally qualifies this material for the Boy Scout merit badge "Stolid and Stupider", though that's a much harder-to-tell story about design incompetence internal to greed-addled AT&T.

    Even though Draper bragged to a turncoat, he was still protected by the FBI's nearly impenetrable internal aura of "impossible things can't happen to us" until Draper demonstrated the technique while his turncoat buddy made a tape recording.

    "All hell broke loose," recalls an anonymous source familiar with the investigation. " ... Headquarters wanted this case solved, fast," the source remembers. "In thirty years, it's the most freedom I've ever seen special agents given in a case. All they had to do was sneeze and say, 'I need a Lincoln Continental' and there would be one parked out in front of the building. Headquarters wanted it solved, whatever it would take, and there were no questions asked.

    Why so much fuss? To protect the rectitude of lovable Uncle Sam? Probably not so much. Because tight-assed officialdom in positions of power say a great many things they definitely don't wish to defend against the harsh light of day? You be the judge.

    Really, I don't know how Lapsley managed to write this entire book and not intrude more into the obvious. Perhaps two hundred pages of draft manuscript hit the floor in the editing process. (I know every third sentence in my first draft would have contained judgmental invective.)

    Here's another thing that freaked out the FBI. The hackers weren't even savvy enough to try to market their incredible capability to the highest bidder (Sold!—to the secret undercover double-agent Flim Colby) and they weren't actually taking any money! or drugs! or prostitutes! so you can't even release the scent hounds.

    Alfred Hitchcock

    We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there.

    Action is where your crepuscular adversary has taped your intimate moments of conspiratorial graft and offered it up to the highest bidder. The FBI loves action.

    Suspense is where your glazed-doughnut adversary has recorded your intimate moments of conspiratorial graft, and doesn't even give a shit, so pretty soon compromising cassette tapes are bouncing around on the dashboard of some horrible mid-seventies beater or tossed randomly into a shoe box of bad Country and Western ($2 obo) at someone's yard sale. The FBI hates suspense.

    You see? I'm terribly prone to editorialising.

    Anyway, my point about the SS7 hack is pretty much "dog bites man". This kind of thing has been ubiquitous since the first long-hair envious AT&T engineer included "observability" in his desiderata concerning globally distributed systems undergoing a Groundhog Day–esque eternal-September late pubescent growth spurt.

  24. My friend is currently being stalked/harassed by werld · · Score: 2

    So my non-tech friend who happens to be way too nice of a person crossed paths with a sociopath female who has been monitoring all his texts, calls and tracking him at different locations (and showing up) and then calling his ex girlfriends (or current ones) to let them know where he's at, who hes with and what's being said.. Being somewhat a tech person myself, we set up all new passwords, factory reset, two way authentication, changed his phone number, etc, etc... Now since I am not around him at all times I cannot vouch that he isn't making a mistake which somewhat compromises his accounts but I am pretty confident its outside of our control.. When researching this issue, we have been hearing rumors that people can go into Mexico and can easily get software that can access possibly this 'SS7' hack. The local police have been no help and the FBI has not responded to our claim which basically just leaves my friend having to deal with this psycho. He has also gotten a restraining order against her but she lives in and out of Tijuana and San Diego and we live in San Diego (45 mins apart) and so far it hasn't helped at all. Jokingly I suggested he should just marry her to stop the harassment but maybe y'all have some ideas. So I ask my fellow slashdotters: Anything else we can do to end this 3 year run and possibly get charges to stick against her? Sarcastic replies in 3.. 2 ..1 ..

    1. Re:My friend is currently being stalked/harassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simplest solution is to tell your fried to go down to the border. There are people down there that for $50 will take care of "problems" for you. For $50 you could get rid of your problem....

    2. Re:My friend is currently being stalked/harassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote Trump; she won't get back into the country.

  25. PSSSST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't hear you if you whisper.

  26. Jenny! by antdude · · Score: 1

    I know her number is 867-5309! ;)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  27. Best hacker ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you require ethical and unethical hacking services?,I've worked with leehacks92@gmail.com a couple of times and he's the best I've worked with so far,contact him and tell him Joel sent you..he's very discreet and reliable!