Are Sprint PCS Calls Encrypted?

Ok. Back to the old cup and strings. I'm all about setting up a cup and
string network, but need some funding for overseas access.

Goodday.


"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:E%3Gf.56538$V.14457@fed1read04...
> It could possibly exist, however, it would be very cost prohibitive. For
> that matter, even if the data was encrypted (which it isn't), it is
> possible to break encryption codes. Therefore, if you want to be really
> paranoid, nothing is safe even wired phones. There was a story on the
> national news last evening about a private detective that paid phone
> company technicians to do wiretaps on famous actors.
>
> "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in news:zCOFf.55745$V.46622@fed1read04:
>>
>>> It is not possible for anyone other than the CIA or a government
>>> agency with sophisticated equipment to monitor your call.
>>> p
>>
>> ...because an anonamly such as a non-government agency/person with
>> sophisticated equipment doesn't exist? Honestly, how naive.
>>
>
>

---

› See More: Are Sprint PCS Calls Encrypted?

As soon as you setup your cup and string network, someone will string-tap
your network and it will not be secure.

"Tremayne R. Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ok. Back to the old cup and strings. I'm all about setting up a cup and
> string network, but need some funding for overseas access.
>
> Goodday.
>
>
> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:E%3Gf.56538$V.14457@fed1read04...
>> It could possibly exist, however, it would be very cost prohibitive. For
>> that matter, even if the data was encrypted (which it isn't), it is
>> possible to break encryption codes. Therefore, if you want to be really
>> paranoid, nothing is safe even wired phones. There was a story on the
>> national news last evening about a private detective that paid phone
>> company technicians to do wiretaps on famous actors.
>>
>> "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in news:zCOFf.55745$V.46622@fed1read04:
>>>
>>>> It is not possible for anyone other than the CIA or a government
>>>> agency with sophisticated equipment to monitor your call.
>>>> p
>>>
>>> ...because an anonamly such as a non-government agency/person with
>>> sophisticated equipment doesn't exist? Honestly, how naive.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

It's cheaper just to tap the land based infrastructure.

Call setup with GSM is a major security weakness. Someone could hijack
your session
and make a call, appearing as though it was your phone making the call,
and easily listen
in on the conversation.

"carcarx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Call setup with GSM is a major security weakness. Someone could hijack
> your session
> and make a call, appearing as though it was your phone making the call,
> and easily listen
> in on the conversation.
>

My original inquiry was concerned just with the casual snooper--the kind of
guy that might buy scanning equipment at Radio Shack.

I recall back in the analog days that there was a big business in harvesting
cell phone ESNs and programming them into other phones which were then used
to bill fraudulent calls to an unsuspecting customer's bill. That problem
went away when cell phones incorporated authentication. It may have spurred
development of digital, because I believe that the wireless companies were
losing their shirts. The criminals would park a van at the exit of a
tunnel, and as the cars came out their phones would all log back on to the
networks. They were harvesting ESNs by the ton. They would use them for a
couple of weeks and then replace them with still other ESNs--by the time the
customer got his bill, they would have gone on to another victim.

carcarx wrote:
> Call setup with GSM is a major security weakness. Someone could hijack
> your session
> and make a call, appearing as though it was your phone making the call,
> and easily listen
> in on the conversation.

This is correct. I think that there are efforts to address this weakness
of GSM, but CDMA is much more secure.

In article <zeKFf.35872$DV2.9160@trnddc07>
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> --
> Newsgroups are the trailer parks of the internet and are best ignored.
> Regular posters often just have mud-slinging contests to show how much
> smarter they are by calling the other guys idiots.

You're peeing in the swimming pool.

So you gonna go with Sprint? Cause the cup and strings seem to be less
secuse. Not 100 percent sure people won't string tap us.

"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7AwGf.10162$Gg1.2851@trnddc03...
>
> "carcarx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Call setup with GSM is a major security weakness. Someone could hijack
>> your session
>> and make a call, appearing as though it was your phone making the call,
>> and easily listen
>> in on the conversation.
>>
>
> My original inquiry was concerned just with the casual snooper--the kind
> of guy that might buy scanning equipment at Radio Shack.
>
> I recall back in the analog days that there was a big business in
> harvesting cell phone ESNs and programming them into other phones which
> were then used to bill fraudulent calls to an unsuspecting customer's
> bill. That problem went away when cell phones incorporated
> authentication. It may have spurred development of digital, because I
> believe that the wireless companies were losing their shirts. The
> criminals would park a van at the exit of a tunnel, and as the cars came
> out their phones would all log back on to the networks. They were
> harvesting ESNs by the ton. They would use them for a couple of weeks and
> then replace them with still other ESNs--by the time the customer got his
> bill, they would have gone on to another victim.
>
>
>

Jeremy wrote:

> I recall back in the analog days that there was a big business in harvesting
> cell phone ESNs and programming them into other phones which were then used
> to bill fraudulent calls to an unsuspecting customer's bill. That problem
> went away when cell phones incorporated authentication. It may have spurred
> development of digital, because I believe that the wireless companies were
> losing their shirts. The criminals would park a van at the exit of a
> tunnel, and as the cars came out their phones would all log back on to the
> networks. They were harvesting ESNs by the ton. They would use them for a
> couple of weeks and then replace them with still other ESNs--by the time the
> customer got his bill, they would have gone on to another victim.


Fortunately, the advent of A-Key and (in CDMa's case) the rolling PN
offset took care of that problem for the most part. Now, you CAN have a
customer's ESN and MDN (mobile device number), and it won't matter. The
clone would still need to know the correct A-Key, and in the case of
CDMA, the phone's band mask *and* iteration for the next PN roll in
order for the call to go through successfully. As none of that info is
shared over the air, there are only two real chances to compromise its
security: either the thief must gain access to the handset and special
test equipment to retrieve this data, or someone on the inside has to
obtain it from the switch side.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

"SinghaLvr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:36:56 -0500, Jeremy wrote
> (in article <ccQFf.117166$7l4.6713@trnddc05>):
>
>> Subject: Re: Are Sprint PCS Calls Encrypted?
>> From: "Jeremy" <[email protected]>
>> Date: Monday 5:36 PM
>> Reply-To: "Jeremy" <[email protected]>
>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
>>
>> "Zman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I could answer the question, but based on the statement at the bottom of
>>> your posting, why bother?
>>
>>
>> And I could tell you to "**** off" but I'd rather just say:
>>
>> "P-L-O-N-K"
>>
>>
>
> Trying to live up to the image you created in your footer?
>

I asked a legitimate question, and I asked politely. What is your problem,
asshole?

I don't want anybody listening in on my cell calls to find out what I
am getting on my pizza.

Jeremy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I asked a legitimate question, and I asked politely. What is your problem,
> asshole?

While your question was polite, you then went and insulted people that,
potentially, could/would answer it.

Notan

"Hercules" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I don't want anybody listening in on my cell calls to find out what I
> am getting on my pizza.

Then Don't use any form of electronic communication. Landline, Cellular, or
computer.. Make sure you are wearing your Aluminum foil hat with the shiny
side out as well.

"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeremy wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I asked a legitimate question, and I asked politely. What is your
>> problem,
>> asshole?
>
> While your question was polite, you then went and insulted people that,
> potentially, could/would answer it.
>
> Notan

The two obnoxious responses were not meant to respond to the question I
asked. Read them again, and tell me why they posted those unwelcome
remarks.

Jeremy wrote:
>
> "Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Jeremy wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> I asked a legitimate question, and I asked politely. What is your
> >> problem,
> >> asshole?
> >
> > While your question was polite, you then went and insulted people that,
> > potentially, could/would answer it.
> >
> > Notan
>
> The two obnoxious responses were not meant to respond to the question I
> asked. Read them again, and tell me why they posted those unwelcome
> remarks.

It had to do with your sig, essentially calling newsgroup posters,
"trailer trash."

Notan