Skip Links

Network World

  • Social Web 
  • Email 
  • Close

(Comma separation for multiple addresses)
Your Message:

How to DDOS a federal wiretap

Researchers say that wiretapping equipment standards aren't up to the task
By Robert McMillan , IDG News Service , 11/12/2009
  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say they've discovered a way to circumvent the networking technology used by law enforcement to tap phone lines in the U.S.

The flaws they've found "represent a serious threat to the accuracy and completeness of wiretap records used for both criminal investigation and as evidence in trial," the researchers say in their paper, set to be presented Thursday at a computer security conference in Chicago.

How to hack a parking meter

Following up on earlier work on evading analog wiretap devices called loop extenders, the Penn researchers took a deep look at the newer technical standards used to enable wiretapping on telecommunication switches. They found that while these newer devices probably don't suffer from many of the bugs they'd found in the loop extender world, they do introduce new flaws. In fact, wiretaps could probably be rendered useless if the connection between the switches and law enforcement are overwhelmed with useless data, something known as a denial of service (DOS) attack.

Four years ago, the University of Pennsylvania team made headlines after hacking an analog loop extender device they'd bought on eBay. This time, the team wanted to look at newer devices, but they couldn't get a hold of a switch. So instead they took a close look at the telecommunication industry standard -- ANSI Standard J-STD-025 -- that defines how switches should transmit wiretapped information to authorities. This standard was developed in the 1990s to spell out how telecommunications companies could comply with the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).

"We asked ourselves the question of whether this standard is sufficient to have reliable wiretapping," said Micah Sherr, a post-doctoral researcher at the university and one of the paper's co-authors. Eventually they were able to develop some proof-of-concept attacks that would disrupt devices. According to Sherr, the standard "really didn't consider the case of a wiretap subject who is trying to thwart or confuse the wiretap itself."

It turns out that the standard sets aside very little bandwidth -- 64K bits per second -- for keeping track of information about phone calls being made on the tapped line. When a wire tap is on, the switch is supposed to set up a 64Kbps Call Data Channel to send this information between the telco and the law enforcement agency doing the wiretap. Normally this channel has more than enough bandwidth for the whole system to work, but if someone tries to flood it with information by making dozens of SMS messages or VoIP (voice over Internet protocol) phone calls simultaneously, the channel could be overwhelmed and simply drop network traffic.

That means that law enforcement could lose records of who was called and when, and possibly miss entire call recordings as well, Sherr said.

Back in 2005, the FBI downplayed the Penn team's loop extender research, saying that it applied to only about 10 percent of wire taps. The J- standard studied in this paper is much more widely used, however, Sherr said. An FBI representative did not return messages seeking comment for this story.

  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print

Comments (3)
Login
Forgot your account info?

POP ups and POP undersBy Anonymous on November 13, 2009, 8:28 amI enjoy reading your articles, but if you just can't help bombarding us with pop-ups and pop-unders, you can kiss my laptop goodbye!

Reply | Read entire comment

NoScriptsBy Anon on November 13, 2009, 8:51 amI view this site using the newest version of Firefox running NoScripts and there are no pop-ups or pop-unders.

Reply | Read entire comment

error in storyBy Anonymous on November 14, 2009, 2:31 pmat the end of the article, it says Luckily for the cops, criminals usually don't take their communications security that seriously. "Most criminals THAT WE CATCH...

Reply | Read entire comment

View all comments

Add comment
Anonymous comments subject to approval. Register here for member benefits.
Have a NetworkWorld account? Log in here. Register now for a free account.

Videos

rssRss Feed