Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US 237
Trachman writes: Popular Science magazine recently published an article about a network of cell towers owned not by telecommunication companies but by unknown third parties. Many of them are built around U.S. military bases. "Interceptors vary widely in expense and sophistication – but in a nutshell, they are radio-equipped computers with software that can use arcane cellular network protocols and defeat the onboard encryption. ... Some interceptors are limited, only able to passively listen to either outgoing or incoming calls. But full-featured devices like the VME Dominator, available only to government agencies, can not only capture calls and texts, but even actively control the phone, sending out spoof texts, for example."
They used to be called UHF TV tuners (Score:5, Interesting)
We could listen to AMPS cell phone calls by tuning to the high UHF channels and tuning between channels... Ahhh anyone remember the joy of pressing the outer tuning ring and going back and forth???
Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhh anyone remember the joy of pressing the outer tuning ring and going back and forth???
Worst pick-up line ever.
Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners (Score:5, Funny)
Any pickup line that works is an effective pickup line.
Though in hindsight, using, "Gimme a waitress, hold the dressing," successfully at the IHOP should have set off some warning bells...
Re: (Score:3)
Though in hindsight, using, "Gimme a waitress, hold the dressing," successfully at the IHOP should have set off some warning bells...
Or my personal favorite..."Can I have a side of you with nothing on it?"
Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners (Score:5, Funny)
Picking up phone calls over TV tuners is one thing. Buying and installing a product with a name like "VME Dominator".
One of those can happen by innocent mistake. The other sounds ... well, not so innocent.
Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners (Score:5, Funny)
So it would be ok if they renamed it "VME Fluffy Bunny"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I still have my JRC NRD-525. Man that thing would pick up anything. Cell phones, baby intercoms, cordless phones, military radio, etc etc.
Too bad so much is encrypted now.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what SDR is for!
Re: They used to be called UHF TV tuners (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, that ... it morphed into Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
My buddy in high school had a police scanner and as we were driving around we could ocasionally pick up cellphone calls, but only one half of them. It really sucked when we got the boring half.
"Yep...uh huh...yea...What time?...I'm free tomorrow...yea....uhuh....what?...gotcha..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are owned by the Military? lots of "interesting" things could happen.
Re: (Score:2)
If these towers are not registered with the FCC, then what would happen if one possibly fell over?
Nothing. Like a tree falling in a forest with nobody around to hear it. Besides being factious that FCC no longer does enforcement but probably get attention from OSHA or local planning dept that issues permits.
Re: (Score:2)
I never did that but a long time ago (80s) I did listen to some fascinating conversations broadcast in the clear around 1.7 MHz - just past the AM band - off of a cordless phone somewhere near my neighborhood. I had an old Hallicrafters shortwave radio that weighed nearly as much as I did (even more with the big external speaker). I don't remember the details of the conversations, only that it was mostly stupid stuff as would be expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh anyone remember the joy of pressing the outer tuning ring and going back and forth???
Yup. I do. I'm sorry to say.
Re: (Score:3)
I discovered it wasn't as much fun as listening to the CB in small towns.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe before we had internet access in the home but surely you were on BBSs??
Re: (Score:2)
I was told it was illegal. Whether that was just FCC strong-arming or not, I don't know. I was a teenager when I did that and I figured correctly that there was no harm or consequence to be had. Most of the TV sets, even in the 1980s could not do it.
I think because most TV sets to save components and making alignment easier used a so called intercarrier circuit, where if no video signal carries was present, no audio signal could be demodulated. Newer tv sets had also a mute cicuit that engaged when poor TV signal was present.
Around or on top of millitary bases? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article says ...
What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases.
The summary says ...
Many of them are built around U.S. military bases.
Way to slant the summary to make it look like Chinese towers rather than our towers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd give the US military more credit than that. They wouldn't place their own interceptors directly on their bases, but nearby. Else, how would you have plausible deniability?
It is likely that the military doesn't need deniability. Many FCC rules don't apply to the military. It is quite likely that they they can legal operate their own cell towers. Similar exceptions are made for prisons, which can operate their own cell towers [latimes.com] to keep inmates from making calls from smuggled cell phones.
Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? (Score:4, Informative)
It is likely that the military doesn't need deniability. Many FCC rules don't apply to the military.
military, like other federal agencies are "licensed" and freq coordinated by the NTIA and there databases are not publicly available like FCC general menu reports. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/Gener... [fcc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Try harder. Governmental bodies also need licenses, and that article doesn't in any way claim otherwise. In fact, it refers to jammers being illegal. What's happening is that the prison contractor is working with the local cell companies, who have the licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they are FCC regulated within the US, but you're basically talking about the government regulating itself. Mostly the FCC's concern is going to be interference - not even the Air Force wants to spend a billion dollars on some fancy radar system only to find out that the Navy spent a billion dollars building a fancy communications system that uses the same frequencies/etc. Obviously spread spectrum mitigates many of these issues, but not entirely so.
I can't imagine the FCC is going to tell DHS that t
Re: (Score:3)
This is a good article, as before I had no idea such sophisticated rogue towers were such a threat all over the US.
Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a good article, as before I had no idea such sophisticated rogue towers were such a threat all over the US.
It is common. Where I live, in San Jose, California, our police department was caught illegally monitoring phone calls by operating a Stingray [wikipedia.org], which mimics a cell phone tower. Of course no one was punished or disciplined, and certainly no one lost their badge, because, hey, they are cops, and boys will be boys.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course no one was punished or disciplined, and certainly no one lost their badge, because, hey, they are cops, and boys will be boys.
Why, that is an outrageous accusation. I'm sure somebody was given an extra paid vacation, err, put on temporary suspension, when this hit the press.
Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they indeed are Chinese (or otherwise foreign) spy towers, and so easily detected (the authors of the article didn't seem to have a hard time finding such towers), there's something terribly, terribly wrong with your homeland security.
homeland security (wasRe:Around or on top of mill) (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is news....how? This is the same government which brought the TSA, and they are certainly useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily, they could have been allowed to make it easy to feed them false information.
Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? (Score:4, Interesting)
They are US towers designed to track people who visit military sites. If some potential terrorist visits a few different military sites to do reconnaissance with their phone they can be flagged up in a database somewhere. As a bonus whoever owns those towers gets to monitor all the calls, texts and data going through them. They probably like to keep an eye on military personnel too, in case any of them are traitors.
Re: (Score:2)
If they indeed are Chinese (or otherwise foreign) spy towers, and so easily detected (the authors of the article didn't seem to have a hard time finding such towers), there's something terribly, terribly wrong with your homeland security.
It's just the "Ancient Aliens" neurosis. It's like Chemtrails, or even.........teh evile raynboze! https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Too many stupid people have access to technology. Too many people think that because a tower has a conical cross section that it is a cell phone tower.
But hey, just because they looked up in the sky and saw a condensation trail, or a rainbow, or a tower, doesn't mean that contrails or rainbows or towers around military bases haven't existed for a long long long time.
It o
Re: (Score:2)
(the authors of the article, who make about $3500 a pop selling reflashed phones to paranoid rich guys who do business in Asia, didn't seem to have a hard time finding such towers and making the hasty connection to China),
FTFY. And yes, these are US DoD towers used to prevent leaks of classified info and do other counterespionage monitoring.
Re: (Score:2)
If they indeed are Chinese (or otherwise foreign) spy towers, and so easily detected (the authors of the article didn't seem to have a hard time finding such towers), there's something terribly, terribly wrong with your homeland security.
The problem is that when any little police department is allowed to deploy this sort of thing and it ends up being ubiquitous, how do you even detect when somebody is using one to spy on you.
I mean, if the Chinese (or whoever your favorite boogeyman is) drove a tank up I-95 towards Washington DC, you can bet that somebody would notice and put a stop to it before it could do anything serious. On the other hand, if every police department routinely patrolled the highways with tanks just in case they ran into
Re: (Score:2)
The article says ...
What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases.
The summary says ...
Many of them are built around U.S. military bases.
Way to slant the summary to make it look like Chinese towers rather than our towers.
I do not think those statements mean different things. They could, but from what I know of cell towers all they could really know is that the tower is near the base, not if it was right on it or not. It's not like they were triangulating the signal or anything.
Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"right on top of" is an American English colloquialism meaning "really close by", usually in terms of a pursuit, but sometimes with stationary objects.
Yep but it could also mean, you know, like "actually on top of".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article says ...
What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases.
The summary says ...
Many of them are built around U.S. military bases.
Way to slant the summary to make it look like Chinese towers rather than our towers.
Considering that data exfiltration via 4G networks can be fast and run from nearly anywhere, it's not surprising at all that military installations (probably ones with secrets to keep) use these towers as a way to know exactly what's going in/out of their territory. It sure beats something as on-the-nose as simply using RF interference to block all calls/texts/data. They can catch would-be espionage spies in the act and probably even ID who sent them.
Sponsored post (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a thinly veiled ad for a supposedly "secure" cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like someone could create an app that detects these towers for any Android phone. There are public databases of known towers, or ones could easily be created. Then the phone simply downloads the database and periodically checks if the tower it is connected to is in there. If it isn't you know it is either very new or a fake one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes i would have hoped that the most plausible theories (IMHO) for the cell towers would have been examined closer, but then it turned into a diffuse "china is so bad" speech.
IMHO there are several reasons why such towers could be close to military bases:
a) Some enemy to the US tries to spy on the solidiers phones (trying to uncover their identities etc) - unlikely
b) These cell towers serve to protect the identity of all (or some) phones (by filtering the network protocols, hiding location information) on t
Clearly these towers were designed to find and (Score:5, Funny)
This does not bother me (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that these towers are found next to military bases speaks volumes.
The military needs to there own version of everything to make sure things work in times of national crisis, emergency, or security. They need to have their own infrastructure to insure communications. They need to control their communications around bases and know who is saying or doing what. They need to be able to anticipate attacks. Nobody should have any expectation of privacy on or next to a military base.
Quite frankly, I'm glad to see this.
Re:This does not bother me (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, yeah, but the military can damn well make sure their hardware only interfaces with other military hardware, not your cell phone, and not prioritize your civilian traffic over their 'emergency, auxilary, or military channels'.
This is just more and more slippery goose shit for the sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody should have any expectation of privacy on or next to a military base.
The civilians living next to the military base expect the military to defend their freedom to expect privacy. Otherwise the military is not doing the job that the civilians are paying for. That is how civilized society functions, the military answers to civilian authority.
You are welcome to relocate to a military dictatorship if you want. There are plenty to choose from. Do not bother coming back.
Re:This does not bother me (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that these towers are found next to military bases speaks volumes.
The military needs to there own version of everything to make sure things work in times of national crisis, emergency, or security. They need to have their own infrastructure to insure communications. They need to control their communications around bases and know who is saying or doing what. They need to be able to anticipate attacks. Nobody should have any expectation of privacy on or next to a military base.
Quite frankly, I'm glad to see this.
Last time I checked, my constitutional rights didn't get suspended inside a casino in Las Vegas... did you miss that part? Many were on bases, but not all or even most. If the military wants to control their own communications they are welcome to start their own cellular network, they could even use these towers and then have their staff roam to other networks when they weren't near a base.
The only reason they are doing this is to intercept the calls of us citizens which is both illegal and unconstitutional. Your imaginary safety is not worth my constitutional rights. This sort of surveillance is exactly what the constitution was created to protect us from. It's not some weird esoteric thing the founders could never have anticipated like Machine guns or Abortions. This is the government listening in to the private correspondence of citizens for the sole purpose of security. That's expressly and unarguably forbidden legally, constitutionally and every other way you can think of.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're overreacting to the threat from the government. I'm not worried about military surveillance around military bases, because I don't have to go driving near military bases (and
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you have to drive around a military base depends upon where you are. Here there are several large military installations in and around a densely populated metro area. One of the main roads goes by not one but two of them. There simply isn’t a realistic way to avoid them here. I’d have to drive 50 miles or more out of my way every day to avoid them. Even then half the metro area would be off limits to me. So whatever they are doing I am pretty much going to have to accept it because I a
Re: (Score:3)
There is no U.S. constitutional right to privacy. This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive. (You do know that's what your cell phone does, right?)
In the U.S. your right to privacy, to the extent you have one, is granted by statute. Your constitutional right to be secure in your person keeps the government from reaching into your pocket, not from listening to your public ramblings.
If a policeman wants to stand on the corner listening to publi
Re: (Score:2)
There is no U.S. constitutional right to privacy.
The government can only do what the constitution says it can. The constitution is not a list of rights that citizens have, but a list of powers that the government has. Therefore, there is a constitutional right to privacy unless explicitly stated otherwise.
This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive.
Oh, fuck off. I damn well expect the government to not listen to my communications. And say, "Well, it would be pretty easy to listen to your conversation!" doesn't mean that it's moral to do so. My conversation is between me and the person I'm talking t
Re: (Score:3)
The government can only do what the constitution says it can. The constitution is not a list of rights that citizens have, but a list of powers that the government has. Therefore, there is a constitutional right to privacy unless explicitly stated otherwise.
And by the same logic the government can't stop you from driving your car on the public roads or from selling narcotics on the corner.
This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive.
Oh, fuck off. I damn well expect the government to not listen to my communications. And say, "Well, it would be pretty easy to listen to your conversation!" doesn't mean that it's moral to do so. My conversation is between me and the person I'm talking to. It's not public just because it's transmitted in the clear, and people like you with a such a privacy-hostile mentality are the cause of things such as the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, and warrantless wiretapping in general.
I will choose to "fuck off" behind closed doors. You apparently want to fuck off in the street and expect everyone else to turn away or go to jail. If you want to post your conversations in public places, then you can't reasonably expect them to be private, even under the color of your warped sense of morality. (Let me help you to notice the obvious: there is no wire to wiret
Re: (Score:2)
These are not "public" conversations and this is not the police.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is the military opening our mail, literally. That's unconstitutional and illegal. Period.
Re:This does not bother me (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no U.S. constitutional right to privacy.
Yes there is. It is contained in implications of and the relationships between the 4th, 9th and 14th amendments. See Griswold v. Connecticut [cornell.edu] for more details.
No, there isn't. The case law you refer to defines aspects of privacy in the "penumbra" of other rights. Now, I can define any term I want to any way I want to and, if it appears in a Supreme Court case, it instantly becomes "the law" to those who want it to be. The "right to privacy" that Griswold discusses is the right individuals have to control aspects of their lives (such as the use of contraception). Griswold does not grant any right to keep the government from peering in your open windows, following you around town or reading your postcards you put in the mail.
Perhaps the most supportive case you have is Mapp v. Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup... [cornell.edu] ... and that says that the government can't invade your SECURED residence to collect evidence. If you leave the information or the evidence in the open (as you're doing when you broadcast your cell phone conversations), you aren't protected by that decision. If you walk out to the street and shout a message to the world, there is no "right to privacy" granted by the Constitution you can use to keep anyone from hearing and recording it.
May I suggest to you that the flaw in your lack of "privacy" lies in the technology, and not in the law as it presently stands? Do you want privacy? Then demand it from your communications carrier, or see that you implement any necessary encryption yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
If so, why would those towers be only at their bases? If using regular mobile phone frequencies (or frequencies close to those), they won't be able to create a complete network out of them, simply because the reach of those towers is limited to some 50 km, or the nearest mountain or tall building. Get off the base, and lose your communication - doesn't sound like a very useful system in case of emergency or war.
Re: (Score:2)
They experiment with setting up their own cellular networks.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that these towers are found next to military bases speaks volumes.
The military needs to there own version of everything to make sure things work in times of national crisis, emergency, or security. They need to have their own infrastructure to insure communications. They need to control their communications around bases and know who is saying or doing what. They need to be able to anticipate attacks. Nobody should have any expectation of privacy on or next to a military base.
Quite frankly, I'm glad to see this.
RTFA and it says the towers were found ON not NEAR the bases.
I also have enough confidence in the military that they have entire books of regulations covering things like radio towers being anywhere near a base.
Re: (Score:2)
The military needs to there own version of everything to make sure things work in times of national crisis, emergency, or security.
The military has their own radios for just that reason. They aren't going to depend on cell phones in a national security crisis. They certainly aren't going to try to harden a consumer cell phone and use it as a substitute for whatever the tanks on the battlefield use to communicate.
This came up in Iraq (I think that was Iraq v2, but maybe it happened in v1). The guys in the field had big clunky milspec GPS receivers, and many found consumer GPS units to be more featured and easier to use. The problem
Not towers (Score:2)
Interceptors look to a typical phone like an ordinary tower. Once the phone connects with the interceptor, a variety of “over-the-air” attacks become possible, from eavesdropping on calls and texts to pushing spyware to the device.... Interceptors vary widely in expense and sophistication – but in a nutshell, they are radio-equipped computers with software that can use arcane cellular network protocols and defeat the onboard encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Not towers (Score:2)
It just depends on who is paying and what fits in with the surrounding area.
"Phony" cell towers? (Score:5, Funny)
Is this article some kind of joke I don't quite get?
It depends on your phone (Score:2)
The "Phony" cell towers do not respond or act in the same way. They are fake but still fool a users phone into making a network connection.
Tame consumer grade hardware is fooled into seeing just another cell tower.
Somewhat on topic. (Score:5)
Can I just say,
From the mouths of ANYONE who isn't an American.
STOP FUCKING GEO-REDIRECTING LINKS FOR FOREIGNERS YOU ASSHOLES.
Jesus christ fuck me gently it's the worst god damned thing to do on any web page, I think it might actually be worse than "this content is not available in your region" - because at least it takes us (mostly) to what we wanted.
http://www.popsci.com/article/... [popsci.com]
takes me to
http://www.popsci.com.au/?src=... [popsci.com.au]
Thanks dipshits.
Re: (Score:3)
Get around stupid geolocation redirects like that by using Google Translate as a proxy. Simply tell it to 'translate' the original URL from Arabic* to English.
(* or almost any language that doesn't use the Roman alphabet.)
Re: (Score:2)
So, a magazine website would rather you visit their local version, to serve you better targeted ads, or local interest stories, or load leveling, or prices in local currency, or subscription services on the same continent, or maybe even to serve you better with faster access, and this is some American scheme to abuse you? Did it ever occur to you that an Australian company (or a German one, or...) wanting to create content unique to multiple continents might do the same thing? Or do you actually think URL r
Re: (Score:2)
Click the second link, and you might understand the problem.
All in all... (Score:3)
For some reason people aren't breaking out the hammers. It's as if they just don't care, or fail to understand the implications at least, of all this surveillance and monitoring.
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
– Martin Niemoeller
spectrum is expensive (Score:2)
Phony (Score:2)
Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers
Aren't all cell towers phone-y?
Android IMSI-Catcher Detector (AIMSICD) (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like Apple has built in detection from IOS 5 (though being Apple it might well have an off switch for legal intercept type applications):
http://9to5mac.com/2011/06/07/... [9to5mac.com]
And it looks like some developers have gotten together to do something for Android with a project called Android IMSI-Catcher Detector (AIMSICD)
https://secupwn.github.io/Andr... [github.io]
http://seclists.org/fulldisclo... [seclists.org]
Has anyone tried this?
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like Apple has built in detection from IOS 5
So, the iPhone he says unhelpfully didn't tell him there was a rogue tower...was actually aware of the rogue tower, and therefore not compromised? That it would have warned him if he tried to communicate through it, and has therefore already, for years, been doing the same thing his secure phone does? You mean someone who is selling a secure phone is making up a use case for it?
You don't say.
Re: (Score:3)
If I recall correctly, this doesn't detect stingray, because stingray looks like any other cell tower.
It seems that stingray is an imsi-catcher so unless there's a way for law enforcement to disable the notification (which I said may be the case in my original post) I think it should work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Do you have any more specific info on it?
I wonder (Score:2)
Cut the cable -- See who screams (Score:2)
Take one out of action. See who responds. It's not that hard.
Make sure your lawyer is on speeddial.
E
Data, data everywhere ... (Score:3)
... and we can't find out who built the towers and who paid the freaking bill?
Cities are tracking people by cellphone (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Where did the linked to article go? (Score:5, Funny)
You're not trying to open this link on a phone near a military base, are you?
Where did the linked to article go? (Score:3)
"Android security mystery 'fake' cellphone towers found in U.S." (28 AUG 2014)
http://www.welivesecurity.com/... [welivesecurity.com]
Fake, phone-attacking cell-towers are all across America (Sep 1, 2014)
http://boingboing.net/2014/09/... [boingboing.net]
"The fake "interceptor" towers force your phone to back \\down to an easy-to-break 2G connection, then goes to work"
"..the baseband firewall on the Cryptophone set off alerts showing that the phones encryption had been turned off, and that the cell tow
Article full text (Score:5, Informative)
Source. [immaculata.edu]
Mysterious Phony Cell Towers Could Be Intercepting Your Calls
Wed, 08/27/2014 - 11:00
Unencrypted Connection Les Goldsmith Like many of the ultra-secure phones that have come to market in the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks, the CryptoPhone 500, which is marketed in the U.S. by ESD America and built on top of an unassuming Samsung Galaxy SIII body, features high-powered encryption. Les Goldsmith, the CEO of ESD America, says the phone also runs a customized or "hardened" version of Android that removes 468 vulnerabilities that his engineering team team found in the stock installation of the OS.
His mobile security team also found that the version of the Android OS that comes standard on the Samsung Galaxy SIII leaks data to parts unknown 80-90 times every hour. That doesn't necessarily mean that the phone has been hacked, Goldmsith says, but the user can't know whether the data is beaming out from a particular app, the OS, or an illicit piece of spyware. His clients want real security and control over their device, and have the money to pay for it.
To show what the CryptoPhone can do that less expensive competitors cannot, he points me to a map that he and his customers have created, indicating 17 different phony cell towers known as “interceptors,” detected by the CryptoPhone 500 around the United States during the month of July alone. Interceptors look to a typical phone like an ordinary tower. Once the phone connects with the interceptor, a variety of “over-the-air” attacks become possible, from eavesdropping on calls and texts to pushing spyware to the device.
“Interceptor use in the U.S. is much higher than people had anticipated,” Goldsmith says. “One of our customers took a road trip from Florida to North Carolina and he found 8 different interceptors on that trip. We even found one at South Point Casino in Las Vegas.”
Who is running these interceptors and what are they doing with the calls? Goldsmith says we can’t be sure, but he has his suspicions.
“What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases. So we begin to wonder – are some of them U.S. government interceptors? Or are some of them Chinese interceptors?” says Goldsmith. “Whose interceptor is it? Who are they, that's listening to calls around military bases? Is it just the U.S. military, or are they foreign governments doing it? The point is: we don't really know whose they are.”
Ciphering Disabled Les Goldsmith
Interceptors vary widely in expense and sophistication – but in a nutshell, they are radio-equipped computers with software that can use arcane cellular network protocols and defeat the onboard encryption. Whether your phone uses Android or iOS, it also has a second operating system that runs on a part of the phone called a baseband processor. The baseband processor functions as a communications middleman between the phone’s main O.S. and the cell towers. And because chip manufacturers jealously guard details about the baseband O.S., it has been too challenging a target for garden-variety hackers.
“The baseband processor is one of the more difficult things to get into or even communicate with,” says Mathew Rowley, a senior security consultant at Matasano Security. “[That’s] because my computer doesn't speak 4G or GSM, and also all those protocols are encrypted. You have to buy special hardware to get in the air and pull down the waves and try to figure out what they mean. It's just pretty unrealistic for the general community.”
But for governments or other entities able to afford a price tag of “less than $100,000,” says Goldsmith, high-quality interceptors are quite realistic. Some interceptors are limited, only able to passively listen to either outgoing or incoming calls. But full-featured
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. The immediate question in my mind is can our regular phones be made to detect these interceptor towers and how is he doing so? How does he know that these are not micro-cells that have been added to increase capacity (not that it might be possible to tell the difference).
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the typical smartphone is designed to protect the baseband OS from the front-end OS, and not the other way around. If that baseband OS has full access to memory/IO and it is subverted, then you're talking about a rootkit detection problem from inside the rootkitted OS, and that is always tricky to do. The major vendors don't even try.
The solution security vendors like Blackphone and such pursue is to contain the baseband OS. For FCC reasons they probably still have to protect it from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how we know it's a conspiracy man, the article now never existed...
These will be the Chemtrails of this decade.
owner (Score:3)
The problem is more people now understand just how their low cost cell phone works as a gps becon, text, photo, calls list and voice, voice print collector.
The costs for voice systems like this in Ireland, South America where mil only historically. Now any regional, city, gov with funding can have a go at years of "warrantless surveillance".
The only issue is the upgrade to next gen costs and keeping detail
Re: (Score:3)
Learn to use encryption and quit your whining.
What if you have to talk to a normal person, and they don't have a clue about encryption? Encryption requires technical knowledge at both ends of the phone call. Even if you use encryption, "they" can still see who you are calling and how long you talk.
Makes me feel old (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Learn to use encryption and quit your whining.
If you read the article, the interceptors hack into the baseband processor (that's not the phone OS-- it's the system that controls the radio system in the phone), and switch the connection "from 4G down to 2G, a much older protocol that is easier to de-crypt in real-time. But the standard smart phones didn’t even show they’d experienced the same attack."
So you may think you're using encryption, and stop whining. But although your phone says you are encrypted, you have been switched to a break
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally you would be using encryption on top of this to which only you and the party at the other end had the keys. This would mean not using the phone features of the phone.
I'm not sure it's possible but ideally you could also block any non-encrypted and targetted connections from the phone also to prevent leakage of private data. This would pretty much disable it as a general internet access device though.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they don't feel the need to respond that is. Unless that sort of approach becomes common it's almost trivial to figure out who's talking to whom.
Re: (Score:2)
"using the fabric of spacetime as your communications medium, it becomes rather quite difficult to prevent interception"
I've heard that if you use plaid for your space-time fabric that interception is much more difficult.
this might be another secret plan of #US govt. (Score:2)
Are new staff instructed only to w
Re: (Score:2)
They are the new number stations!
Re: (Score:2)
OMG! LOGIC!