384 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
384 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
![]() |
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Beating Caller ID
|
|||
|
by The Fixer
|
|||
|
v.1.03 98/08/30
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(C) 1998 The Fixer's Tech Room
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For free distribution - you may freely repost & distribute this but not
|
|||
|
for profit without permission of the author. See further restrictions
|
|||
|
at the end of this file.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
To start off with - 12 Ways to beat Caller ID
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(0) This doesn't count as a way to beat CID, but there's a general
|
|||
|
principle to consider when contemplating ways to beat CID.
|
|||
|
Generally, the CID signal your target sees corresponds to the owner
|
|||
|
of the dial tone you call him from. If you call direct, you dial
|
|||
|
from your own dial tone and your line is identified. If you call a
|
|||
|
third party, and by whatever means manage to acquire his dial tone,
|
|||
|
and from there dial out, it is the number associated with that
|
|||
|
second dial tone that your target sees. Some of the ideas following
|
|||
|
this were developed with this basic idea in mind.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(0.5) This also doesn't count, but remember that beating Caller ID as
|
|||
|
such is only the first layer of your protection. If your calling is
|
|||
|
sufficiently annoying or criminal, there is *always* a paper trail
|
|||
|
(ANI data, billing data, trouble reports, *57 traces, etc) leading
|
|||
|
back to the phone you first called from. That trail is not always
|
|||
|
easy or worthwhile to track you down with. Whether or not the trail
|
|||
|
is followed depends entirely upon how pissed off your target is and
|
|||
|
how much co-operation he can get from the phone company, law
|
|||
|
enforcement, etc.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(1) Use *67. It will cause the called party's Caller ID unit to
|
|||
|
display "Private" or "Blocked" or "Unavailable" depending on the
|
|||
|
manufacturer. It is probably already available on your line, and if
|
|||
|
it isn't, your local phone company will (most likely - please ask
|
|||
|
them) set it up for free. This is the simplest method, it's 100
|
|||
|
percent legal, and it works.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(2) Use a pay phone. Not very convenient, costs 25 or 35 cents
|
|||
|
depending, but it cannot be traced back to your house in any way,
|
|||
|
not even by *57. Not even if the person who you call has Mulder and
|
|||
|
Scully hanging over your shoulder trying to get an FBI trace (sic).
|
|||
|
Janet Reno himself couldn't subpoena your identity. It's not your
|
|||
|
phone, not your problem, AND it will get past "block the blocker"
|
|||
|
services. So it's not a totally useless suggestion, even if you
|
|||
|
have already thought of it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(3) Go through an operator. This is a more expensive way of doing it
|
|||
|
($1.25-$2.00 per call), you can still be traced, and the person
|
|||
|
you're calling WILL be suspicious when the operator first asks for
|
|||
|
them, if you have already tried other Caller ID suppression methods
|
|||
|
on them.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(4) Use a prepaid calling card. This costs whatever the per-minute
|
|||
|
charge on the card is, as they don't recognize local calls. A lot
|
|||
|
of private investigators use these. A *57 trace will fail but you
|
|||
|
could still be tracked down with an intensive investigation (read:
|
|||
|
subpoena the card company). The Caller ID will show the outdial
|
|||
|
number of the Card issuer.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(5) Go through a PBX or WATS extender. Getting a dial tone on a PBX is
|
|||
|
fairly easy to social engineer, but beyond the scope of this file.
|
|||
|
This is a well-known and well-loved way of charging phone calls to
|
|||
|
someone else but it can also be used to hide your identity from a
|
|||
|
Caller ID box, since the PBX's number is what appears. You can even
|
|||
|
appear to be in a different city if the PBX you are using is! This
|
|||
|
isn't very legal at all. But, if you have the talent, use it!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(6) I don't have proof of this, but I *think* that a teleconference
|
|||
|
(Alliance teleconferencing, etc.) that lets you call out to the
|
|||
|
participants will not send your number in Caller ID. In other
|
|||
|
words, I am pretty sure the dial tone is not your own.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(7) Speaking of dial tones which aren't yours, if you are lucky enough
|
|||
|
to live in an area with the GTD5 diverter bug, you can use that to
|
|||
|
get someone else's dial tone and from thence their identity.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(8) Still on the subject of dial tones which aren't your own, you can
|
|||
|
get the same protection as with a payphone, but at greater risk,
|
|||
|
if you use someone else's line - either by just asking to use the
|
|||
|
phone (if they'll co-operate after they hear what you're calling
|
|||
|
about) or by the use of a Beige Box, a hardware diverter or bridge
|
|||
|
such as a Gold Box, or some other technical marvel.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(9) This won't work with an intelligent human on the other end, it
|
|||
|
leaves you exposed if the called party has a regular Caller ID box
|
|||
|
with memory, and has many other technical problems which make it
|
|||
|
tricky at best and unworkable for all but experts. A second Caller
|
|||
|
ID data stream, transmitted from your line after the audio circuit
|
|||
|
is complete, will overwrite the true data stream sent by the telco
|
|||
|
during the ringing. If the line you are calling is a BBS, a VMB, or
|
|||
|
some other automated system using a serial port Caller ID and
|
|||
|
software, then you can place your call using *67 first, and then
|
|||
|
immediately after the other end picks up, send the fake stream. The
|
|||
|
second stream is what the Caller ID software processes, and you are
|
|||
|
allowed in. See the technical FAQs below for an idea of the
|
|||
|
problems behind this method; many can be solved.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(10) Someone in alt.2600 (using a stolen AOL account, so I can't credit
|
|||
|
him or her properly) suggested going through 10321 (now 10-10-321)
|
|||
|
or 10288. Apparently using a 10xxx even for a local call causes
|
|||
|
"Out of Area" to show up on the Caller ID display. I live in Canada
|
|||
|
where we don't have 10xxx dialing so I can't verify nor disprove
|
|||
|
this.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(11) There are 1-900 lines you can call that are designed to circumvent
|
|||
|
Caller ID, ANI, traces, everything. These services are *very*
|
|||
|
expensive, some as high as $5.00 a minute, but they include long
|
|||
|
distance charges. This was first published in 1990 in 2600
|
|||
|
magazine, and in 1993 the IIRG reported that 1-900-STOPPER still
|
|||
|
works. Beware - even if you get a busy signal or no answer, you
|
|||
|
will get charged at 1-900 rates! Another one published in 2600 in
|
|||
|
1990: 1-900-RUN-WELL. That one supposedly allows international
|
|||
|
calls. I'm not about to call either one to find out. Note that you
|
|||
|
could still be caught if the operators of these services were to be
|
|||
|
subpoenaed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(12) Use an analog cellular phone. Most providers of plain old analog
|
|||
|
service show up on Caller ID as "Private" or "Out of Area" or a main
|
|||
|
switchboard number for the cell network. This is becoming less and
|
|||
|
less true as cellular providers move to digital cellular and PCS,
|
|||
|
which pass the phone's number on Caller ID. Corollary: Rent a
|
|||
|
cellphone by the day. This might even be cheaper than using a
|
|||
|
prepaid phone card.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
How Caller ID Works
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Caller ID is a data stream sent by the phone company to your line
|
|||
|
between the first and second ring. The data stream conforms to Bell
|
|||
|
202, which is a 1200 baud half-duplex FSK modulation. That is why
|
|||
|
serial Caller ID boxes run at 1200 baud.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The data stream itself is pretty straightforward. Here's an example:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU<EFBFBD>'^D032415122503806467x
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The first thing of note is the 30 U's. Those are actually sync pulses.
|
|||
|
A "U" is 55 hex, or 01010101 binary. This is called the "Channel
|
|||
|
Siezure Signal."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
After that comes 130 milliseconds of 1200 Hz (the Bell 202 "mark"
|
|||
|
frequency) which usually shows up in the datastream as a character or
|
|||
|
two of garbage.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
That is followed by the "message type word", which is 04 hex for
|
|||
|
standard Caller ID, 07 hex for Name & Number. A word, by the way, is 8
|
|||
|
bits for our purposes.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
That is followed by the "message length word" which tells us how many
|
|||
|
bytes follow.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The next four bytes are the date, in ASCII. In the example above, the
|
|||
|
date is 0324, or March 24th.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The next four bytes after the date are the time, also in ASCII. In the
|
|||
|
example, the time is 1512, or 3:12pm.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The next 10 digits are the phone number that is calling. In the
|
|||
|
example, the phone number is 250-380-6467. The number is also in ASCII
|
|||
|
and doesn't contain the hyphens. Some phone companies will leave out
|
|||
|
the area code and only transmit 7 digits for a local call, others will
|
|||
|
always send the area code as well.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If this were a name-and-number Caller ID data stream, the number would
|
|||
|
be followed by a delimiter (01h) and another message length byte to
|
|||
|
indicate the number of bytes in the name. This would be followed by the
|
|||
|
name itself, in ASCII.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If this call originated from an area that doesn't support Caller ID,
|
|||
|
then instead of the phone number, a capital "O" is transmitted (4F hex).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If the call was marked "private" as a result of the caller using *67 or
|
|||
|
having a permanent call blocking service, then instead of the phone
|
|||
|
number, a capital "P" (50 hex) would be sent.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The very last byte of the data stream is a checksum. This is calculated
|
|||
|
by adding the value of all the other bytes in the data message (the
|
|||
|
message type, length, number and name data, and any delimiters) and
|
|||
|
taking the two's complement of the low byte of the result (in other
|
|||
|
words, the two's complement of the modulo-256 simple checksum of the CID
|
|||
|
data).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some Technical FAQ's
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Q: When I block Caller ID with *67, does it send my number anyway and
|
|||
|
just set a "private bit" so that the other person's Caller ID Display
|
|||
|
unit won't display it?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A: No. The person you're calling doesn't get your phone number anywhere
|
|||
|
in his data stream if you block your call that way. All he/she gets
|
|||
|
is "P" and the date/time of the call.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I would like to refer to an experiment I performed in March, 1998
|
|||
|
with a Serial Port Caller ID, which delivers the raw data stream to a
|
|||
|
PC for software interpretation. The following Usenet message (edited
|
|||
|
for this file) is the report I published on that experiment:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Newsgroups: alt.2600
|
|||
|
From: The Fixer <fixer@bc1.com>
|
|||
|
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 98 16:12:58 -0800
|
|||
|
Subject: Caller ID and *67 - The Facts
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
OK, it's time to shovel the bullshit which is piling up in this
|
|||
|
newsgroup about Caller ID.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A few people are saying that when you block your Caller ID with
|
|||
|
*67, the switch sends your number anyway along with a so-called
|
|||
|
"private bit" that tells the Caller ID display unit to suppress
|
|||
|
display of the number.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In order to squelch those who'd rather flame back with "show me
|
|||
|
proof" than just read a FAQ, here is the proof. These are
|
|||
|
actual raw data captures from a Bell 202 demodulator (better
|
|||
|
known as a serial port Caller ID) which I captured myself today.
|
|||
|
They prove conclusively that the "Private Bit" is a myth.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here is what I got in my raw data stream when I called my voice
|
|||
|
line from one of my BBS lines (which is unlisted, hence the
|
|||
|
PRIVATE string in the name field):
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU<55>'^A^H03241512^A2503806467^G^OPRIVATE x
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This is what I got when I did the same thing with *67:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU<55>^P^A^H03241512^D^AO^H^AP(<28>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The number I was calling from was 250-380-6467. That string is
|
|||
|
clearly displayed in the first (non *67) call. In the number
|
|||
|
field of the second call, only the letter "O" is transmitted.
|
|||
|
In the name field, only the letter "P" is transmitted.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In both calls, the date and time (03/24, 15:12) is transmitted,
|
|||
|
but transmission of the calling telephone number is suppressed
|
|||
|
in the second call. There is no "private flag" suppressing
|
|||
|
display of the number by the display unit; the calling number is
|
|||
|
not transmitted at all!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For those of you unfamiliar with the CID raw data stream, the
|
|||
|
U's are actually sync pulses (an ASCII "U" is 01010101 binary).
|
|||
|
The control characters are field delimiters. The first 8-digit
|
|||
|
number is the date and time in MMDDHHSS format. The second
|
|||
|
number in the first call is the phone number, in NPANXXXXXX
|
|||
|
format. That is followed by the name (for those of us with name
|
|||
|
& number CID). The ^O (0Fh) just before the name indicates how
|
|||
|
many characters are in the name - in this case "PRIVATE" is
|
|||
|
padded out with 8 spaces (20h) to make 15 characters. At the
|
|||
|
very end is an 8-bit checksum.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Believe me, if I were wrong about this, there would be a huge
|
|||
|
marketing frenzy to sell "*67 proof Caller ID boxes" and I would be
|
|||
|
making a fortune selling my Serial Caller ID software, which works
|
|||
|
directly with the data streams illustrated above!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Q: Can't I just send noise down the line to scramble the Caller ID
|
|||
|
signal between the rings?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A: No. Your phone line doesn't generate the Caller ID signal. It is
|
|||
|
made by the switch on your calling party's line, and the audio
|
|||
|
circuit between your line and his is not completed until after he
|
|||
|
picks up the phone.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Q: Do 1-800 numbers have Caller ID? Can I hide my identity from them?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A: Some do have Caller ID, and the *67 block will work, but many more
|
|||
|
have realtime ANI - Automatic Number Identification. This is an
|
|||
|
older technology which uses a separate line to deliver your number,
|
|||
|
and cannot be blocked. And all 800 subscribers get a list of
|
|||
|
everyone who called them on their monthly bill, blocked or not.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Q: Can I hide my identity by sending a fake Caller ID signal down the
|
|||
|
line before they answer?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A: *Generally*, no. The audio circuit between your phone line and their
|
|||
|
line is not completed until the other party picks up. Once they do,
|
|||
|
they would hear your fake signal and know what you were doing...
|
|||
|
unless the person you're calling is very poorly informed or
|
|||
|
untrained. Even so, most Caller ID devices have memory and so the
|
|||
|
person you're calling could just as easily scroll back through the
|
|||
|
box's memory and find your true number.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Once upon a time, the phone system worked differently, and the audio
|
|||
|
circuit WAS connected even before the called party picked up. A
|
|||
|
device called a "mute" or a "black box" was used to take advantage of
|
|||
|
this fact and allow anyone calling a line with a black box to do so
|
|||
|
toll-free. If the system still worked that way (and there's no
|
|||
|
technical reason why it couldn't in these days of digital switching)
|
|||
|
then yes, it would be very feasible to send a fake Bell 202 data
|
|||
|
stream down the line; in fact you'd hear the real one every time you
|
|||
|
called someone with Caller ID and you'd get a really good feel for
|
|||
|
the timing involved. But if it worked that way, then black boxes
|
|||
|
would also still work, and they don't.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Q: How about *69? If I protect my call using *67, can they still call
|
|||
|
me back?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A: Not in 604/250 anyway, and probably not most places.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some interesting notes about this: When *69 was first introduced
|
|||
|
here in 250, if you tried to *69 a blocked call, you would get a
|
|||
|
recording telling you that the number could not be announced. And it
|
|||
|
would then offer to connect you anyway! I guess it was business who
|
|||
|
asked for the change because that meant a telemarketer using *67
|
|||
|
would have people call back and their switchboard answer "Sleazebag
|
|||
|
Marketing, how can I help you?". At that point the number was a
|
|||
|
white pages lookup away. So BC Tel, and I would venture to guess its
|
|||
|
parent company GTE and many others, changed it so that *69 won't even
|
|||
|
call back.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you find in your area that you CAN call back with *69 to a *67
|
|||
|
protected number, you're a lucky sonofabitch! Why is that? Well,
|
|||
|
with the "old" working of *69, you may still be able to get the
|
|||
|
number of a blocked caller if you are (a) lucky and (b) patient. Take
|
|||
|
your phone off the hook until midnight (if it's a business) or early
|
|||
|
afternoon (if it's a person). THEN activate *69. No incoming calls
|
|||
|
will have come into your line since it was off-hook, so your line's
|
|||
|
*69 last-call register will still have their phone number in it, and
|
|||
|
at those times you are far more likely to get an answering machine
|
|||
|
which may spill the beans as to who called you... clever huh?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Final Word
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Caller ID can be worked around in so many ways that it really offers no
|
|||
|
value to its subscribers. I am not against the existence of Caller ID,
|
|||
|
as I have been on the receiving end of harassing phone calls and slimy
|
|||
|
telemarketers, all of whom I've been able to put in their place thanks
|
|||
|
to this technology. There's no doubt that Caller ID can help bring
|
|||
|
those who deserve it to justice. But at the same time, we all have the
|
|||
|
right to privacy, and the option to not share your identity with someone
|
|||
|
you're calling is, and always should be, available.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For this reason, I think that Caller ID should be available free on
|
|||
|
every line as part of the basic service. It's worth nothing anyway!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
That's it. This file may be updated as I receive more information.
|
|||
|
Look for updates on my web site at
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
http://ranchonevada.home.ml.org
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
or
|
|||
|
http://ranchonevada.ml.org
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
or if that doesn't work,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
http://A3A18294.sympatico.bconnected.net
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This file is a freely-distributable copyrighted work. You may repost
|
|||
|
this file free of charge without modifications, but no for-profit
|
|||
|
distribution is allowed without prior arrangement with the author.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Two individuals who have stolen my work in the past are hereby
|
|||
|
prohibited and enjoined from possessing or distributing this file:
|
|||
|
Pinhead the Cenobite and Jolly Roger. If you are either of these
|
|||
|
individuals, you must delete this file from your system now. If you are
|
|||
|
not, you may not knowingly allow either of these individuals to receive
|
|||
|
this file if it is in your power to prevent such reception. Retention
|
|||
|
of this file on your system or on any backup constitutes acceptance of
|
|||
|
this term.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(C) Copyright 1998 The Fixer's Tech Room, a division of Whirlwind
|
|||
|
Software (British Columbia). All rights reserved.
|
|||
|
|