Iran Abused Mobile Networks' Vulnerabilities To Locate US Military In Middle East (techcrunch.com) 147
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The Iranian government abused well-known vulnerabilities in the global telecoms infrastructure to locate U.S. military personnel in the build-up to the Iran War, as well as in the early days of the conflict, according to Financial Times. The Iranian government exploited Signaling System 7, or SS7, a set of protocols for 2G and 3G networks that has long been the backbone of how cellular networks connect to each other to route subscribers' calls and texts around the world, the newspaper reported, citing research by the Mobile Surveillance Monitor, as well as anonymous government officials with knowledge of the spy campaign.
Intelligence agencies have long abused SS7 to track cellphones abroad, which is what happened in this campaign. Using this technique, Iran was reportedly able to locate U.S. military forces stationed in military bases as well as hotels in Iraq, Bahrain, and other countries in the Middle East, which allowed the regime to strike them. These attacks resulted in several injuries. Apart from SS7, Iran also abused advertising technology used to serve tailored ads to cellphone users, another well-known surveillance technique that relies on everyday technology.
Intelligence agencies have long abused SS7 to track cellphones abroad, which is what happened in this campaign. Using this technique, Iran was reportedly able to locate U.S. military forces stationed in military bases as well as hotels in Iraq, Bahrain, and other countries in the Middle East, which allowed the regime to strike them. These attacks resulted in several injuries. Apart from SS7, Iran also abused advertising technology used to serve tailored ads to cellphone users, another well-known surveillance technique that relies on everyday technology.
Wahhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wahhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
DJT, stuck in a war of his own making (Score:4, Insightful)
Both Putin and Trump have started wars that they cannot win, and from which they cannot withdraw without an enormous loss of face.
The only difference is that Putin's war only effects Russia's economy, while Trump's war effects the whole world.
Re:DJT, stuck in a war of his own making (Score:5, Insightful)
And even when the fat man has fallen off his perch things will not "go back to how they used to be" , the world has already decided it will never been under control of the USA again.
Re: (Score:2)
More so the USA long term as more of the world financially decouples from the USA.
Who is decoupling from the US? Direct foreign investment continues on an up trend.
Re: (Score:3)
BRICS is taking another big bite
Palantir has been banned from the EU
EUis working on replacing MS
EU has licensed Googles tech and will be running their own cloud servers
EU is dropping military spending in the USA , so is Canada.
EU, Japan and others are pulling money from US bonds
EU and others have repatriated gold back to their home countries
"promises" of investment actual investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin's war only effects Russia's economy
wat
Re: (Score:2)
You had me at "State of Hormuz." I guess that's the 52nd State? And then later after Puerto Rico becomes the 51st State, they can recycle deep state to mean Hormuz. Which is course encompasses Canada, because... pizza.
There's too much stupid to go around on this one. So much stupid to go around that the media wanted their turn with this story!
If you can't find a negotiated military base on a map... you're probably too stupid to "abuse" radio transmissions until the radio trannies show you their documents an
Re: (Score:2)
> America could have been *billions* better off at this point.
Weapons manufacturers and Big OIl are billions better off now. All patriotic Americans should consider that a win, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is now buying more military hardware from the EU than the USA, and in return they are getting real investment into Canada.
The EU is buying much less US hardware, making their own, and better yet selling it to the rest of the world too.
South Korea is growing as a supplier.
The USA has lost hundreds of billions in cancelled orders and contracts going elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same with the Gripen fighters, Canada is not buying US
And they get to make them in Canada...
Aircraft refuelling tankers, those would be Airbus now, so EU not buying US
Radar surveillance aircraft, not US ones anymore
The list goes on....
So yeah, the numbers do indeed "add up", the US is losing customers fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, you did make that up. You don't know how many extra billions US weapons are making because of this war.
Re: (Score:2)
That is hundreds of billions, for the US to cover it they will be taking out more debt.
Debt repayments are already costing the US more than the military budget, and increasing...
US inflation is higher than expected and will stay high, growth is falling, US borrowing is the highest ever (US$2 Trillion a year)
Cost of US bonds is higher = more cost for the US to p
Re: (Score:2)
You information is bad, and it makes you write ignorant things.
Re: (Score:2)
But which part(s) of mine were wrong...???
Re: (Score:2)
What he is NOT claiming is that he is the leader of the free world, the "No more wars" president, or any other such BS.
Trump is a pedophile trying to stay out a jail for that and all of his other crimes
Meantime he is bankrupting the USA while stealing billions for himself and his crime family.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The orange shitgibbon literally said that.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you won the war 37 times already. What happened?
Re: (Score:2)
And with the US walking away from the Budapest Memorandum , they proved to the world that guarantees of "protection are not worth the paper it is written on, the Ukraine would have been safe if it kept the Nukes.
And in the current climate, other countries may well feel they need protection FROM the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is crying or asking them to stop, they haven't actually succeeded at counter-attacking anything.
I know it takes two brain cells to rub them together, but come on... you can simulate a cockroach with two transistors, try to at least simulate having two real brain cells.
Israel probably (Score:5, Interesting)
Israel has been known to abuse the ss7 network in the United States and spying on our own government personnel. I doubt Iran did this. I'm far likely to believe it was an Israeli attempt to get the United States to strike Iran.
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty much anyone can do SS7 abuse. It doesn't have to be state actor. It's not very hard and TTPs have been available for years.
Re:Israel probably (Score:4, Informative)
Correct. SS7 is ancient, and was never created with security in mind. Bell created it in the 1970s, and very idea that security was needed would not even have been in the engineers' world view.
This is a protocol only meant for phone companies, and Bell was still a monolith back then. Similar to the early internet in the 1970s where only the military and a few computer scientists even had access.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It was created for a world where only phone companies were to connect to it and those connections were ve
We told you so (20 years ago) (Score:3)
Re:We told you so (20 years ago) (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess this is from the Quick Thinker Department. Usually the time between problem observation and soluition is another 20 years.
Funny. You're 30 years too late. SS7 dates to the early days of network routing where security simply wasn't remotely a consideration. Much like you could trace packets to the target of a TCP/IP connection, and see which device responds to IP pings, this is a network feature.
If you told anyone 20 years ago, it'll have been 25 years after the protocol was developed. And the issue with this now is what do you do about it? Do we break fundamental backwards compatibility with SMS (probably the most reliable mobile communications method on the global GSM network) because of this? Doesn't sound like a good idea. There's a reason your fancy 5G iPhone supports a protocol that is statistically old enough to be a grandparent have have had its midlife crisis.
Iran has good hackers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's really going to make them want to help you.
And it worked.
All of them want to help America.
None of them want to help Iran.
Re: Iran has good hackers (Score:3)
We are all witnessing, with Iran, what happens when a country does not "want to help" the US. This is the mob making an example so that everyone else in the neighbourhood knows whose side they should be on. Remind me, why do the US need to have a military presence in that region of the world again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Iran has good hackers (Score:4, Informative)
You are being unfair. The vulnerabilities in SS7 had been there for years. There was lots of work in GSM to try to improve them and, for example, the MAP protocol which was layered on top of SS7 uses temporary identifiers to make it difficult to track people. The experts didn't do nothing. They actively impeded some of that work and they took away time that could be used for validating and identifying vulnerabilities in other parts of that work.
The basic vulnerabilities in SS7 can be reduced by using SIGTRAN to replace it, but again, whilst I don't know the details of standardization there, there clearly hasn't been a priority on getting the best possible solutions to get rid of the problems with SS7.
Re:Iran has good hackers (Score:4, Interesting)
Iranians are well known to have a very competent cyber organization hacker organization (among the best).
Iranian hackers are mid-tier at best. It isn't hard to hack into SS7 - it's a shitty protocol with a lot of vulnerabilities. It's why 4G and 5G don't use SS7. The US doesn't even use 2G and 3G anymore, but of course, the stupid phone manufacturers leave them in for unnecessary backwards compatibility.
I'm not willing to call Iranians competent until they do something that actually requires some skill and intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
> unnecessary backwards compatibility.
Unnecessary?
https://www.skoda-auto.com/con... [skoda-auto.com]
Do not underestimate the amount of devices still relying on 2G/3G, not every industry has a turnaround of 5 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Too fucking bad. I don't give a shit about legacy devices relying on 2G/3G. Not to mention this has nothing to do with backward compatibility of newer devices. For example, the cars you linked need the 2G/3G networks to do specific functions. Newer devices do not *need* to communicate on these older networks. At all. For any reason. And more specifically, nothing the US military uses should be using 2G/3G networks - they are inherently terrible networks and cannot be secured at all.
Skoda should issue a reca
Re: (Score:3)
Too fucking bad. I don't give a shit about legacy devices relying on 2G/3G.
If you are a cellular operator, you should. A few decades ago, our local utility started a switch over from their own proprietary mesh meter reading network to a 2G/3G GPRS system. They got a ways into switching a few hundred thousand meters over when they got the AT&T memo: We're switching to 4G/5G. They went back and reinstalled their mesh network. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again, shame on me.
AT&Ts law enforcement network was even worse. They conned our region's police forces to switch
Re: (Score:2)
A few decades ago, our local utility started a switch over from their own proprietary mesh meter reading network to a 2G/3G GPRS system.
Your local utility was apparently run by morons.
AT&T
also sucks dick in general. Your police dept or whoever all approved that switch; also morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Your local utility was apparently run by morons.
Yes. For drinking the telecoms KoolAide in the first place. Unfortunately, nobody could have foreseen cellular networks "going dark" in rural areas upon the cutover to 4/5G. Right where the utility would most depend on wireless meter reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. For drinking the telecoms KoolAide in the first place.
They were morons long before the telecoms approached them.
Backdoors can and will be used against you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Backdoors can and will be used against you... regardless of your original intentions when mandating them.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this is a backdoor. It's abuse of a network protocol capability designed in the 70s when security just wasn't a word associated with anything electronic.
I'm surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
Not surprised that someone exploited a vulnerability, but surprised that deployed military personnel are allowed to use civilian communication systems.
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in a time juuuust before so for me turning my cell phone off and leaving it in a locker wasn't a big deal and, "Yeah I'm not carrying something around that can be used to target me while deployed" was good common sense.
Now the smoke break has been replaced by the phone break. On my walk to and from my car, from the badge scanner to the end of the covered walkway, is LINED with people on their phones. It's hilarious honestly.
I leave as an exercise for future scientists to decide if social media add
That is called "being competent".... (Score:5, Insightful)
An enemy in a war does not "abuse" your weaknesses. They are "using" them if they are competent. And on the other side? Simple: Having these vulnerabilities is stupid. But the whole war is excessively stupid on the US side. Not the most stupid war ever fought, but probably up in the all-time top-10. And to think the only reason for that war is that a multiple-felon president needs to hide how he raped children.
Re: (Score:2)
Abuse is abuse, even if it is a feature, so long as that feature is being used for purposes other than what it was intended for.
Re: (Score:2)
No. "Abuse" is pure propaganda, i.e. lying. I guess you are fine with that.
Re: (Score:2)
no nukes for Iran
Naziyahoo says what for decades? Bullshit every time? Get fucked, Zionazi.
Re: (Score:2)
Naziyahoo says what for decades? Bullshit every time? Get fucked, Zionazi.
A couple months into the war people involved with the Iranian side of the JCPOA came out and stated publicly of course their goal was always nukes and gave an example of restrictions on processing of powders. They described how Iran circumvented it by selecting a similar element the same process would work on.
The JCPOA would have credibly limited enrichment to less than 4% thru 2030 and perhaps another deal could have been reached to extend it. Yet in all dimensions... supporting technologies, delivery ve
Re: (Score:2)
The Iranian regime is literally a bunch of Nazis [...] Look at what is going down in Iraq and Lebanon
You mean being attacked by Israel, a country which is actually doing a genocide, with our money, from a nation which was founded on genocide? You're only a genocide apologist.
Re: That is called "being competent".... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean being attacked by Israel, a country which is actually doing a genocide, with our money, from a nation which was founded on genocide? You're only a genocide apologist.
You obviously have not been paying attention to current events. The Lebanese just signed an agreement with the Israelis and the Americans in which Hezbollah who has been lobbing rockets into Israel from Lebanese territory would be disarmed and Israel would leave. The Lebanese people are fed up with Hezbollah's bullshit... from memory opinion polling 80% of Lebanon wants these fuckers disarmed. How can any state tolerate not having a monopoly on the use of violence? This is a basic requirement for any sta
Re: (Score:2)
The Lebanese just signed an agreement with the Israelis and the Americans in which Hezbollah who has been lobbing rockets into Israel from Lebanese territory would be disarmed and Israel would leave
Israel consistently breaks every cease fire. You won't have to wait long.
Hamas is severely degraded
Oh, did Naziyahoo stop sending them money?
Re: (Score:2)
Israel consistently breaks every cease fire. You won't have to wait long.
The Israelis have not initiated hostilities in Lebanon and have stated they have no territorial or other designs on Lebanon. They have only responded to incoming fire from non-state actors (Hezbollah) in the form of rockets and missiles launched from Lebanon. Attacks from Hezbollah were being directly coordinated with the IRGC.
Re: (Score:2)
The Iranian regime is literally a bunch of Nazis with the same sensibilities.
Iran is definitely not run by Nazis.
It's run by clerics who believe that Islam is the best religion, and will allow them to dominate first the middle east, then the entire world.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Different, but not any better. Still important to know the specifics, because eventually there will need to be peace. The "kill them all" approach was something not even the 3rd Reich managed, and they were very determined. Only the terminally stupid and highly aggressive will argue for that approach. Obviously, these people also advocate mass-murder, but they probably are too dumb to understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am talking about the peace that needs to happen, not domestic Iranian politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was saying that the US and Israel will have to eventually make some sort of peace with Iran, since they cannot wipe Iran out. They cannot occupy it either. And religious fanatics typically cannot be intimidated into surrendering.
My apologies if that was unclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Internally, the regime is fighting an insurgency [cnn.com]. There are various armed factions, and it's just a matter of making sure that whoever wins decides to not be a nuclear sponsor of terrorism (or, sponsor of the "wrong" terrorists if you want to be cynical).
Militarily, the only hope the IRGC has is that America gives up. Iran has smaller mountains than Afghanistan, and a weaker military than Ira
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the US had sort-of peace and even nuclear inspection, before criminal idiot Trump came along and had to, again, misdirect away from him raping teenagers.
And no, the US cannot reasonably occupy Iran. It would break the US military and economy. And it would have to be done very long term. The US did not even manage that in Afghanistan, and that has about half the population of Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the US had sort-of peace and even nuclear inspection,
Yeah that's true.
And no, the US cannot reasonably occupy Iran. It would break the US military and economy
You are vastly underestimating the power of the US military. An occupation would be easier than Iraq OR Afghanistan, because there won't be outside funding for an insurgency, and because the vast majority of Iranians already hate their government.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, the US cannot reasonably occupy Iran. It would break the US military and economy
You are vastly underestimating the power of the US military. An occupation would be easier than Iraq OR Afghanistan, because there won't be outside funding for an insurgency, and because the vast majority of Iranians already hate their government.
Hahahaha, no. But the US military capability is routinely vastly overestimated. The reason for all those bombing campaigns? Because that is essentially the only thing it can really do.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you get this idea, did you stop reading the news? Did you see that they conquered Venezuela in three hours?
The current task for the US military is to open the straits of Hormuz. How much of a ground force will be necessary (if any) is unclear, but we will see. Incidentally America is the only military in the world that can currently do large scale combined arms operations [youtube.com].
The US military won th
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is definitely not run by Nazis.
Are you sure?
Kill the Jews...check.
External expansionist aggression... check.
Delusions of world domination... check.
Internal repression... check.
Even if it looks like a Nazi, swims like a Nazi, and quacks like a Nazi... I suppose there is a chance it might not be a Nazi... yet that seems rather unlikely.
It's run by clerics
That mostly went out the window with Khomeini in the 80s. Ali openly admitted he was not qualified and was chosen because the IRGC thought he could be controlled. It is beyond question Mojtaba is comically
Re: (Score:2)
There's a fairly strong Jewish community living in Iran.
In terms of killing power, the IRGC has the guns. But the only reason anyone follows them is because they have a cleric at the top, even if that cleric is bad or doesn't make decisions. In this way they are similar to Japan in WW2. In fact, Japanese commentators have made the comparison between modern day Iran and Japan during the Pacific War.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want to kill the Jews, they want to control Israel. There's a huge difference.
Now things are getting stupid. Death to Israel is really just an inside joke. Ditto for asserting Israel should be wiped off the map and calling it a cancerous tumor of a state that should be removed from the region.
There's a fairly strong Jewish community living in Iran.
Well north of 90% fled. There are only a few thousand left. Certainly less than what remained in Nazi Germany during WWII.
In terms of killing power, the IRGC has the guns. But the only reason anyone follows them is because they have a cleric at the top
And to think you've lectured others here about spouting nonsense.
In this way they are similar to Japan in WW2. In fact, Japanese commentators have made the comparison between modern day Iran and Japan during the Pacific War.
The Japs were worse than the Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
The Nazis and Iranians have in common that they both breath oxygen and drink water, but so do you.
Re: (Score:2)
We can also add that in 99% of the cases (including here) calling them "Nazis" is just a rhetorical technique, not an actual analytical comparison.
The Iranian regime is the same technology dressed in different cloths. While underlying details are different the mechanisms and effects are similar. Obviously nobody thinks the regime are literally Nazi's yet the dismissal as rhetorical completely misses the point.
The Nazis and Iranians have in common that they both breath oxygen and drink water, but so do you.
This statement lacks any useful specificity.
Re: (Score:2)
This statement lacks any useful specificity.
I'm glad you can recognize that.
How would the Nazis have responded to a poll like this? [iranintl.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you can recognize that.
Why? What was the point of the irrelevant statements?
How would the Nazis have responded to a poll like this?
You tell me. I have no clue where you are going with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Israel is quite busy. .... As well as fighting Iran.
They've never slaughtered tens of thousands of its own people over a couple of days like Iran recently did...
You keep going on about "its own people". Why is that so important to you? Israel has killed tens of thousands of people in Gaza, including children. Are you saying that doesn't matter because it's okay for Israel to kill anybody they choose, except Israelis? People are people, and dead is dead.
You seem to be trapped in an extreme tribalist paradigm in which it's terribly evil for a tribe to kill its own members but entirely okay to kill members of other tribes, because they aren't really human. That atti
Re: That is called "being competent".... (Score:2)
It requires at least ten years of education from a reputable source to be offended by the prior comment.
Re: That is called "being competent".... (Score:2)
But the US and Israel already have nukes.
âoeDeterrenceâ is the extra terrorism you keep in reserve.
Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll say it again:
Active military personnel carrying around standard mobile phones is such a breach of all kinds of basic security protocols that it should be illegal.
But can't let the troops get bored, eh? Have to let them do their fitbit on board your cruiser that you're trying to keep secret, and have them checking into Facebook while they're in Helmand province, and giving away their movements when they're running around your bases at home, and having an always-on device capable of tracking and recording everything from audio to the radiowaves to location, made by the Chinese, wherever they go.
Dumbest fucking idea ever.
Re: (Score:2)
I never served, but it boggles my mind that troops would be allowed to carry such things anywhere they please. If I were a soldier I wouldn't want anyone near me carrying one that wasn't supposedly totally secured and authorized either.
And then of course you've got the problem of troops posting potential war crimes on social media.
Israel troops continue posting abuse footage despite pledge to act [bbc.com]
Israeli soldiers deployed in Gaza post their abuses on social media [lemonde.fr]
Israeli Soldier Shares Evidence of Torture on [democracynow.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I never served either, but I am guessing it's a lot like any large organization comprised of people. They are going to do whatever they want as long as they think they can get away with it.
There was a story not long ago about some Navy staff who installed a bunch of consumer-grade access points and a StarLink satellite disk to bypass official Internet restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Do what we say (Score:1)
used and abused (Score:2)
Funny how if it's someone we like, they used it. But if it's someone we don't like, they abused it.
This is war! (Score:2)
No rules, no excuses.
OpSec (Score:2)
Define abuse? (Score:2)
I was looking for some joke along those lines, but maybe the story lacked implicit irony?
Abused vulnerabilities? (Score:2)
That's what you do in war.
Code is law. (Score:3, Informative)
If the code allows it, it's not abuse.
Re:Code is law. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the code allows it, it's not abuse.
That's actually pretty much a fair comment. A number of the mobile systems were originally designed to be more secure than they were finally delivered. GSM in particular. These systems then had security removed from them and monitoring added in during standardization according to American (and later European and other) requests. Probably what Iran has done to kill American soldiers are things that could have been eliminated from the mobile communication standards if the security agencies had been putting a priority on protecting us over spying.
This is a key reminder for us that when NSA and GCHQ demand that the security of systems is weakened they are doing the opposite of their jobs. They are endangering both American and British military people alongside also endangering civilians and allied military people worldwide. They are taking time from experts who should be spending it looking for vulnerabilities and building more secure systems. They are using that time to introduce weaknesses, for example getting rid of end to end encryption and adding in global identifiers, which also make the job of securing the system much more complex.
This isn't just an American problem. Europe's new Chat Control 2.0 is the same idea. There are pre-image attacks [csa-scient...letter.org] where you can make child porn which matches the image-hash of the material you want to track [reddit.com]. Russia and Iran will be able to use those pre-image attacks to track people who have their secret materials.
Calling this "abuse" is misleading. It's just Iran using weaknesses that our security services left in the systems, wanting to be able to use themselves and which Iran then discovered.
Re: (Score:2)
Should probably add the Fight Chat Control [fightchatcontrol.eu] link. The chat control supporters in the EC just got a big vote through by running it when people weren't watching. This is a good time to check on your MEP and call them to complain if they voted for it.
Re:Code is law. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's actually pretty much a fair comment. A number of the mobile systems were originally designed to be more secure than they were finally delivered.
Not really. Just because a feature exist doesn't mean that it's use is immune from being described as "abuse". If you use a feature for a completely unintended purpose then it's still abuse, it's just not hacking or some other covert nefarious activity. But it is abusing a feature.
It's worth noting though this has ZERO to do with security. SS7 was designed back in the 70s and it's a core routing technology. The idea of being able to trace packets or data to a target device was simply not a consideration in the design of any network back then. GSM didn't water this down, they simply never considered the possibility of not providing the functionality at all. It's the same with TCP/IP and the idea that every device on the network should always respond correctly to a tracert or IGMP request. Functionality was key, security wasn't even an after thought. Today we're dealing with the legacy of this. While we happily route voice over LTE, and IP everything, the fundamental backwards compatibility of protocols like SMS still exist and still rely on that routing technology designed without any security in mind.
It's also not fair to describe GSM security as being less secure than originally envisaged even if it technically has had a security reduction. GSM had security removed not because people back home wanted to monitor it, but because it was broken. The entire air interface encryption process was pretty rubbish and relied heavily on obscurity than any kind of actual functioning encryption. There was a weakening of security on purpose, but it was never destined for the USA market, never intended for spying at home, it was a poison pill intended for spying on Europe. Unfortunately air interface encryption system for the "secure" markets back home was reverse engineered and broken even before every idiot had a mobile phone. By the time the GSM spec actually dropped the encryption completely both forms of it was long useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Just because a feature exist doesn't mean that it's use is immune from being described as "abuse". If you use a feature for a completely unintended purpose then it's still abuse, it's just not hacking or some other covert nefarious activity. But it is abusing a feature.
True, but in this case the "features" (actually flaws, but anyway) were deliberately created with the explicit aim making it easier to spy on people. The only difference is that the spying is being done by Iran's security forces where it was expected to be done by the NSA or their allies. However, Iran is not doing anything that the NSA didn't expect to do themselves, so I think calling it "abuse" is misrepresenting what's going on.
Re: (Score:2)
False. The article is talking about a network function that was created for routing messages to a target device. It's like saying your computer responding to ICMP ping requests is a feature deliberately created for spying. It's just not. When SS7 was created people not only didn't give a shit about this (it's not a flaw to not consider something that no one considered at the time), but they didn't envisage a world where enough people would be using the protocol to actually tamper with the protocol to do som
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. SS7 was a complex stack and when the mobile network parts were created end to end encryption was considered. If end to end encryption and authentication had been included along with standardization of optimal routing prevention, which is now implemented as a proprietary mobile network function then none of these problems would have occurred.
Re: (Score:1)
It's abuse as long as somebody else except US does it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Gulf War 3.0 Trump
Gulf War 2.0 Bush II
Gulf War 1.0 Bush I
I'm sensing a pattern.
Re: Trump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trump (Score:2)
What does Afghanistan have to do with any of the "Gulf War"s?
The first two were Iraq, the third is Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
America used common sense to find Iran on a map. Let the pummeling continue.
In America, common sense seems to be a non-renewable resource in short supply. Perhaps they shouldn't be using such a precious commodity in aid of waging costly, world-economy-damaging, reputation-destroying wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Let the pummeling continue.
Other then the death of a few leaders, Iran is winning this war in pretty much every other way. You want this to continue so Iran can win even more concessions from the U.S.?