Isn’t it less of a government backdoor and more of a result of generally old and insecure protocols still being in use for telecom?
replyLike, the phones happily connect to these fake towers because the signal is strongest from that one and there is no authentication to verify who the tower belongs to, nor encryption of SMSes?
Well said but by the time mobile phone towers were built we had been tapping phone lines for a long time. Hard to not think that to an extent default insecurity for telecoms was a choice.
replyWhen it was developed it was assumed that the cost of cellular equipment and, in some countries, the regulatory hurdles required to get authorisation to purchase radio transmitters that operate on licensed bands would make it almost impossible to do this.
replyI worked in a company that had a base station emulator in their testing lab in 2008. I can’t recall the cost but it was well over $10,000 and only worked with direct antenna coupling, it couldn’t broadcast.
Now we have software defined radios.
Do you honestly believe that teleco companies wouldn't receive government backlash about 'the children' if they were to implement an actually secure standard?
replyIt’s not exactly a back door. It’s a fake radio cell, mimicking your network provider and acting like a man in the middle. In that sense, it’s like a stingray. The differences are
reply1. The Stingray eavesdrops, but avoids interfering with user traffic
2. The stingray is operated by law enforcement, not by fraudsters looking to steal your money
In mamy parts of the US, the cops are the fraudsters looking to steal your money. So it isn't that much of a difference.
replyBan civil asset forfeiture!
reply