Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

cybersect.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#91

Post by ruszki »

firesteelrain wrote: post #77
matthewdgreen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The novel information in this article (confirmed by some technical experts on other platforms) is that this kind of SMS scam relay is a well-known sort of enterprise. I wasn’t aware of this, although it doesn’t surprise me. Once you have that context, the rest of the NYT article kind of falls apart by itself.

I wouldn’t say the NYT article falls apart it is just less sensationalistic. Very likely as this substack article suggests that these SIM farms do knock out SMS from time to time because they DDoS the tower. So that part is correct. Nation state ? Ok maybe far fetched. These farms are not out of reach of a normal person who over time purchases the technical pieces. It’s an investment.

I don’t know whether it’s possible with modern networks, but it was basically impossible to DDoS a tower with SMSs. Either the tower was unavailable at all times even without text messages, or SMSs never caused a problem. You couldn’t even send many text messages at once, it took a while to send say 50 SMSs, like minutes. I know that the tech stack is different nowadays, but it really depends on prioritisation, which I don’t know much about.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#92

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

immibis wrote: post #5

First thing I thought when reading it. This story makes no sense. Nothing they mentioned in the article is actually illegal. Having lots of phones (even in a rack-mount form factor) isn't illegal. Even if the phone network could conceivably be DoSed with that many phones all calling at once, it's not illegal unless you actually do that or intend to do it. And their other justification was that this equipment could be…

A lot of things are not, but US for a while has been on a path that suggests that whether something is legal or not is not the standard. The standard is basically, based partially on personal vibes.

Naturally, this comes years after it was normalized in banking, red flag laws and so on, so I suppose this is not a surprise, but I am surprised that people are making 'this is not illegal argument'.

In this setup, illegal does not matter. If it is suspicious, you are in trouble. For example, I invite you to look at DHS/FBI 'signs'[1][2] to report by private orgs:

- Producing or sharing music, videos, memes, or other media that could reflect justification for violent extremist beliefs or activities

Note the could and despair at the future we are gleefully approaching.

Anyway, I don't disagree with you on principle, but I want you to understand that the system behaves differently these days.

https://tripwire.dhs.gov/documents/us-violent-extremist-mobi... https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/counterterrorism/us-viol...

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#93

Post by klausa »

notatoad wrote: post #74
alansammarone wrote: post #41

I felt slightly...hm...confused when reading this. When I see something in the news, to the degree that I trust the source, I see it only as a statement of fact, and unless I trust the commentator, I ignore the comment. I only expect descriptive accuracy from the news. This sometimes requires resources that individuals don't generally have. When I read a personal blog article articulating a personal opinion, presenti…

I think, the more extraordinary the claim is, the more proof is required. And I’m with you, I’d normally be incredibly skeptical of a substack post from an author I’ve never heard of before, who writes as egotistically as this. But there is just no extraordinary claim in this article. Only a very very ordinary claim that should be believable to any person who has ever owned a cell phone: SIM farms are normal, common…

> And I’m with you, I’d normally be incredibly skeptical of a substack post from an author I’ve never heard of before, who writes as egotistically as this.

It's always funny to see comments like this; because there's always at least 50/50 chance that the article is from someone that is actually prolific, just that the person has a blind-spot for whatever reason.

That is, also, the case here.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#94

Post by topspin »

So if some rando were to just find one of these huge SIM farms, who could they call, and would anything be done?

With the number of radios seen in the photos from the original story, there must have been a great deal of SMS from that structure. That is very easy to spot with low cost equipment: a TinySA[1] and a directional antenna should be sufficient. Hams do "fox hunting" with similarly basic equipment.

Given the resources of cell operators, the most charitable explanation for how something like this can exist for more than a brief interval is total indifference.

[1] The more recent versions ($150+) are pretty powerful and can see all 4G/5G bands.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#95

Post by kotaKat »

raverbashing wrote: post #73

> Technically, it may even be legitimate enterprise, being simply a gateway between a legitimate VoIP provider and the mobile phone network. No. This is not how any of this works Just use SIP?

Yes, that’s how this works, and it uses SIP.

The boxes all basically turn the cell lines into SIP trunks, then they’re used for grey routes for international VoIP providers to dodge termination fees into the target country and get cheaper per-minute rates, because the game of pennies really adds up in telecoms traffic.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#96

Post by alansammarone »

xtiansimon wrote: post #80
alansammarone wrote: post #41

I felt slightly...hm...confused when reading this. When I see something in the news, to the degree that I trust the source, I see it only as a statement of fact, and unless I trust the commentator, I ignore the comment. I only expect descriptive accuracy from the news. This sometimes requires resources that individuals don't generally have. When I read a personal blog article articulating a personal opinion, presenti…

“…which often requires a form of independence/neutrality that news organizations don't have.” Really? I see a difference between 24h infotainment news and News. The News I listen to (AM radio) is compacted into fact, point, counterpoint. And that’s it. When it repeats, no more news. I’m old enough to remember this basic News playbook, and it’s not changed on those stations I listen to.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm with you. I just meant more broadly - I think that inevitably, news organizations, as a whole, have more many competing interests - comercial, political, etc. I think that at least some of them at really trying their best to deliver accurate, factual claims. I'm generally less inclined to read opinion pieces, but I certainly get my news from the News, and I have a huge respect for honest journalists. I think they're one of the most under appreciated professions of our age.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#97

Post by pessimizer »

fidotron wrote: post #27

It's actually a combination of warning and bait, and it's not the first story like that nor will it be the last. Picking at the details of it misses the point. The real question here is who and what it was intended to warn off, and you'll never get a real answer to that.

> Picking at the details of it misses the point.

I ask god to make the people I bullshit all agree with you about this. Please don't pay attention to the details; in fact, they were probably placed there by our enemies to distract us from the story (that I told you.) In fact, you're a genius, and this goes deeper than even I thought. I'm going to need access to your bank account.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#98

Post by roody15 »

Once a Chinese grad student explained to me a difference he noted between Chinese and American citizens. He said in China no really reads or watches 24/7 major news outlets in China. They are fully aware that all of it is propaganda and just go about their life. He said Americans seem to get really emotional over content in the press and seem to really struggle with the idea of propaganda / journalism in the news.

I tend to agree with student, NYT and major news outlets are clearly used for propaganda and if you sit back and look at it from perhaps another angle it makes sense , why wouldn’t a world super power with a massive government apparatus use media to influence and control citizen behavior?

So yes the anonymous experts, the anonymous intelligence experts, the experts on CNN panels .. etc etc. It’s the government pushing a narrative for a purpose. My two cents live your life and spend your precious emotional energy for the people you care about around you. Do things in your local community and help when and where you can.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#99

Post by iszomer »

kuschkufan wrote: post #78
giantg2 wrote: post #71

The story isn't bogus, it's just blown out of proportion. That's unfortunately how most news articles work, especially ones related to crime. The ironic part is that this article is just as much "bogus" with the assumptions it's making.

If the story is espionage, but it isn't actually espionage then the story is bogus, flimflam, propaganda. Made to make you believe, i mean look, we asked all these experts too. And you are not an expert on this, so better believe us.

I thought the point of espionage is complete plausible deniability. For all you know it could be part of a bigger (psy)op to see what "lights up" when people go about sharing analyzing, critiquing this _news_..

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#100

Post by lxgr »

topspin wrote: post #94

So if some rando were to just find one of these huge SIM farms, who could they call, and would anything be done? With the number of radios seen in the photos from the original story, there must have been a great deal of SMS from that structure. That is very easy to spot with low cost equipment: a TinySA[1] and a directional antenna should be sufficient. Hams do "fox hunting" with similarly basic equipment. Given the…

> Given the resources of cell operators, the most charitable explanation for how something like this can exist for more than a brief interval is total indifference.

And why should they care?

A paying customer is a paying customer, never mind the health and integrity of the public phone network (which coincidentally also serves as the primary identification and authentication method for ~everybody in the US).

Post reply on HN