1996-09-19 - Re: 56 kbps modems

Header Data

From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
To: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Message Hash: 922efe8b6af9f4ad9818ac4b33919a98c34a772d5af738ded598e7dfb3bc6317
Message ID: <199609190849.BAA01822@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-19 11:50:57 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:50:57 +0800

Raw message

From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:50:57 +0800
To: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Subject: Re: 56 kbps modems
Message-ID: <199609190849.BAA01822@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:41 AM 9/17/96 -0700, Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com> wrote:

>Crypto/security related: how hard is it to hack a Frame Relay
>connection?  My impression is that it requires access to
>one of the telco's routing computers, which would make it
>about equivalent in difficulty to hacking POTS.

Frame Relay doesn't get handled by the telco's POTS routing
(unlike ISDN) - it's handled by whatever frame relay switch
the telco uses.  I don't know what Pac Bell uses; AT&T uses
Stratacom switches, I think MCI uses Cascade, USWest uses a
mixture.  Frame switches mostly use Permanent Virtual Circuits,
though Switched Virtual Circuits will be coming out in the
next year or so.  PVCs are pretty tough to hack, because they
mostly get provisioned from an administrative interface
on the switch rather than in-band.  SVCs will offer a bit more
risk, since switching is switching.  But it's probably pretty tough.

#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> 	
# You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto






Thread