Cooper Phone Lines Vs Fiber Optic & My Experience With Verizon

[Richard Demaret]

Greetings Everyone,

Thanks for taking your time to respond!

I greatly appreciated all of you, and the time all of you took reading my
post to the group and in replying to it.

I have learned from you, and now believe it would probably be best to
switch to FIOS and upgrade the very old cell phones Lou Ann and I use.

Best Wishes
Richard  KI4KXJ

......................

...................

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:

>
> Richard Demaret <ric.demaret at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I tend to like copper, because it says up during prolonged power
> outages.  I
> > also wonder, if it is more secure.
> >
> > About a year ago, a ham radio operator told be he had renewed something
> online
> > with a credit card. on his cell phone.  I asked him if the cell phone
> signal
> > is encrypted.  He said he didn't know.  It seems to me, if the cell
> phone's
> > signal is not encrypted it would be unsafe for sensitive financial
> > transactions either by voice or via the Internet.
>
> GSM encryption is weak, 3g and 4g encryption may or may not be better
> (not my department), but "analog signal in the clear" which anyone
> with a scanner with a clipped diode can tune in went out with the 90s.
>
> But you mentioned that your friend "renewed something online on his
> cell phone", which would tend to suggest a web site not a voice call.
> In this case it doesn't matter if the cell phone is encrypted - the
> session to the web site will be https:// per the requirements of the
> credit card processor.  The opportunity for mischief here is mostly in
> terms of data at rest (see Target, Harbor Freight, etc) not data in
> flight, and has nothing to do with cell phone or not.
>
> > I have also heard about Internet phones --Voice Over IP. I believe
> Comcast has
> > these. I have asked, if these Internet phone are encrypted, and was
> told, "I
> > don't know." If they are not encrypted, they, I believe, would not be
> safe to
> > use for sensitive business or financial discussions.
>
> FiOS and Comcast phone services are both delivered over IP.  Your long
> distance service probably is too, you just aren't aware of it.  Soft
> switches are far less expensive (and cheaper to maintain) than a
> traditional TDM Class 4 switch like a DMS250 or a 4ESS.  To answer
> your question, it is unusual for the RTP G.711u data streams (over
> UDP) to be encrypted.
>
> But speaking as someone who once in the distant past was a teenager
> with a can wrench and a butt set...  VoIP over either Comcast or FiOS
> is exponentially harder to tap at the customer edge than your old
> fashioned copper pairs.  Here's why:
>
> Layer 2 on DOCSIS uses either 56 bit encryption (pre-D3.0) or 128 bit
> AES.  Google for CM-SP-SECv3.0 (CableLabs is not that friendly to deep
> linking) if you'd like to read the spec.
>
> Layer 2 on GPON (FiOS) also uses 128 bit AES.  There have been some
> comparative risk analyses on GPON that tell quite a bit about what's
> under the hood, for example
>
> https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/networkdevs/comparative-risk-analysis-gpon-optical-lan-traditional-lan-technologies-34407
>
> Long story short, the calls are encrypted from the standpoint of
> anyone who has access to the outside plant, which is a lot better than
> you can say for traditional copper pairs.  POTS is absolutely not safe
> for sensitive discussions.  I don't do it and neither should you.
>
> That said, credit cards are hardly "sensitive financial data" when
> your maximum liability is $50.  You probably stick your credit card
> into random gas pumps or convenience store POS terminals (that might
> have skimmers attached) or it over to minimum-wage-minus servers at a
> restaurant without a second thought.
>
> I don't think there's anything wrong with your friend who renewed a
> subscription online from his cell phone.  The security is orders of
> magnitude more than adequate.
>
> -r
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.amrad.org/pipermail/tacos/attachments/20150929/6b5b4be3/attachment.html>