▲ 81 ▼ NYC Telecom Raid: What's Up with Those Weird SIM Banks? (tedium.co) submitted 1 year ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world 13 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/636119 Comments
[–] Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (7 children) More info: https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/09/us-uncovers-100000-sim-cards-that-could-have-shut-down-nyc-cell-network/ permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] jonne@infosec.pub 12 points 1 year ago (6 children) This looks like the gear normally used by gangs that do text spam scams, what makes this exactly out of the range for a run of the mill criminal syndicate? Unless they have some other information that they're not sharing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] frongt@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 year ago (5 children) Yeah the part about overwhelming emergency services just seems like fearmongering to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] jonne@infosec.pub 9 points 1 year ago* (3 children) I mean, you could probably use them that way, but there's no indication that they were planning on doing that. One of those devices is only ~$3000, so if you want to spam all of New York and the upside is a bunch of people sending you their life savings it's not exactly an investment that's out of reach for your average crime syndicate. State actors would probably hack into the Telco systems themselves instead, which you can do without needing to be on the ground. Or they'd keep their DDoS device in their embassy and do it from there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child) the linked article did mention apartments were "abandoned", so maybe it is actual organized crime local to NYC. Whoever it was would have to be pretty entrenched to know where is safe to set up. If it were just run of the mill spam/scam stuff, why not just use VoIP or contract out like the rest of them do? It would certainly be cheaper if that were the goal. There are many, many different reasons to want so many local numbers that are beyond the obvious. Personally, I have questions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Call recipient can tell when incoming number terminates at a data center (most VOIP). They like cellular network numbers for the same reason they like residential IP addresses. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* Or they’d keep their DDoS device in their embassy and do it from there. If such activities are in any way traceable, it might be prudent to preserve deniability by siting them somewhere other than the embassy. But having said that, this looks much more like an SMS bot farm, designed for smam'nscam purposes, that caught the Secret Service's attention because it was being used by someone to obfuscate the origin of threats. If the treasonous idiots in the Trump administration hadn't fired most of the governments cyber-security experts, we might have seen a less hyperbolic, hysterical analysis than what the Secret Squirrel Service has published. But as things stand, it's a bad idea to believe anything the government says, since it is being run by people who are neither competent nor truthful. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago So does the comment about facilitating communication among miscreants: that's just the Feds' hard-on to outlaw encrypted messaging rearing its ugly head again. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jonne@infosec.pub 12 points 1 year ago (6 children) This looks like the gear normally used by gangs that do text spam scams, what makes this exactly out of the range for a run of the mill criminal syndicate? Unless they have some other information that they're not sharing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] frongt@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 year ago (5 children) Yeah the part about overwhelming emergency services just seems like fearmongering to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] jonne@infosec.pub 9 points 1 year ago* (3 children) I mean, you could probably use them that way, but there's no indication that they were planning on doing that. One of those devices is only ~$3000, so if you want to spam all of New York and the upside is a bunch of people sending you their life savings it's not exactly an investment that's out of reach for your average crime syndicate. State actors would probably hack into the Telco systems themselves instead, which you can do without needing to be on the ground. Or they'd keep their DDoS device in their embassy and do it from there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child) the linked article did mention apartments were "abandoned", so maybe it is actual organized crime local to NYC. Whoever it was would have to be pretty entrenched to know where is safe to set up. If it were just run of the mill spam/scam stuff, why not just use VoIP or contract out like the rest of them do? It would certainly be cheaper if that were the goal. There are many, many different reasons to want so many local numbers that are beyond the obvious. Personally, I have questions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Call recipient can tell when incoming number terminates at a data center (most VOIP). They like cellular network numbers for the same reason they like residential IP addresses. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* Or they’d keep their DDoS device in their embassy and do it from there. If such activities are in any way traceable, it might be prudent to preserve deniability by siting them somewhere other than the embassy. But having said that, this looks much more like an SMS bot farm, designed for smam'nscam purposes, that caught the Secret Service's attention because it was being used by someone to obfuscate the origin of threats. If the treasonous idiots in the Trump administration hadn't fired most of the governments cyber-security experts, we might have seen a less hyperbolic, hysterical analysis than what the Secret Squirrel Service has published. But as things stand, it's a bad idea to believe anything the government says, since it is being run by people who are neither competent nor truthful. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago So does the comment about facilitating communication among miscreants: that's just the Feds' hard-on to outlaw encrypted messaging rearing its ugly head again. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 year ago (5 children) Yeah the part about overwhelming emergency services just seems like fearmongering to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] jonne@infosec.pub 9 points 1 year ago* (3 children) I mean, you could probably use them that way, but there's no indication that they were planning on doing that. One of those devices is only ~$3000, so if you want to spam all of New York and the upside is a bunch of people sending you their life savings it's not exactly an investment that's out of reach for your average crime syndicate. State actors would probably hack into the Telco systems themselves instead, which you can do without needing to be on the ground. Or they'd keep their DDoS device in their embassy and do it from there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child) the linked article did mention apartments were "abandoned", so maybe it is actual organized crime local to NYC. Whoever it was would have to be pretty entrenched to know where is safe to set up. If it were just run of the mill spam/scam stuff, why not just use VoIP or contract out like the rest of them do? It would certainly be cheaper if that were the goal. There are many, many different reasons to want so many local numbers that are beyond the obvious. Personally, I have questions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Call recipient can tell when incoming number terminates at a data center (most VOIP). They like cellular network numbers for the same reason they like residential IP addresses. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* Or they’d keep their DDoS device in their embassy and do it from there. If such activities are in any way traceable, it might be prudent to preserve deniability by siting them somewhere other than the embassy. But having said that, this looks much more like an SMS bot farm, designed for smam'nscam purposes, that caught the Secret Service's attention because it was being used by someone to obfuscate the origin of threats. If the treasonous idiots in the Trump administration hadn't fired most of the governments cyber-security experts, we might have seen a less hyperbolic, hysterical analysis than what the Secret Squirrel Service has published. But as things stand, it's a bad idea to believe anything the government says, since it is being run by people who are neither competent nor truthful. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago So does the comment about facilitating communication among miscreants: that's just the Feds' hard-on to outlaw encrypted messaging rearing its ugly head again. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jonne@infosec.pub 9 points 1 year ago* (3 children) I mean, you could probably use them that way, but there's no indication that they were planning on doing that. One of those devices is only ~$3000, so if you want to spam all of New York and the upside is a bunch of people sending you their life savings it's not exactly an investment that's out of reach for your average crime syndicate. State actors would probably hack into the Telco systems themselves instead, which you can do without needing to be on the ground. Or they'd keep their DDoS device in their embassy and do it from there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child) the linked article did mention apartments were "abandoned", so maybe it is actual organized crime local to NYC. Whoever it was would have to be pretty entrenched to know where is safe to set up. If it were just run of the mill spam/scam stuff, why not just use VoIP or contract out like the rest of them do? It would certainly be cheaper if that were the goal. There are many, many different reasons to want so many local numbers that are beyond the obvious. Personally, I have questions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Call recipient can tell when incoming number terminates at a data center (most VOIP). They like cellular network numbers for the same reason they like residential IP addresses. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* Or they’d keep their DDoS device in their embassy and do it from there. If such activities are in any way traceable, it might be prudent to preserve deniability by siting them somewhere other than the embassy. But having said that, this looks much more like an SMS bot farm, designed for smam'nscam purposes, that caught the Secret Service's attention because it was being used by someone to obfuscate the origin of threats. If the treasonous idiots in the Trump administration hadn't fired most of the governments cyber-security experts, we might have seen a less hyperbolic, hysterical analysis than what the Secret Squirrel Service has published. But as things stand, it's a bad idea to believe anything the government says, since it is being run by people who are neither competent nor truthful. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child) the linked article did mention apartments were "abandoned", so maybe it is actual organized crime local to NYC. Whoever it was would have to be pretty entrenched to know where is safe to set up. If it were just run of the mill spam/scam stuff, why not just use VoIP or contract out like the rest of them do? It would certainly be cheaper if that were the goal. There are many, many different reasons to want so many local numbers that are beyond the obvious. Personally, I have questions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Call recipient can tell when incoming number terminates at a data center (most VOIP). They like cellular network numbers for the same reason they like residential IP addresses. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Call recipient can tell when incoming number terminates at a data center (most VOIP). They like cellular network numbers for the same reason they like residential IP addresses. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* Or they’d keep their DDoS device in their embassy and do it from there. If such activities are in any way traceable, it might be prudent to preserve deniability by siting them somewhere other than the embassy. But having said that, this looks much more like an SMS bot farm, designed for smam'nscam purposes, that caught the Secret Service's attention because it was being used by someone to obfuscate the origin of threats. If the treasonous idiots in the Trump administration hadn't fired most of the governments cyber-security experts, we might have seen a less hyperbolic, hysterical analysis than what the Secret Squirrel Service has published. But as things stand, it's a bad idea to believe anything the government says, since it is being run by people who are neither competent nor truthful. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago So does the comment about facilitating communication among miscreants: that's just the Feds' hard-on to outlaw encrypted messaging rearing its ugly head again. permalink fedilink source parent