3 ms·
How about just not allowing phone numbers to be spoofed in the first place? That would mitigate nearly ALL robocalls.
by HumblyTossed 3y ago
How about just not allowing phone numbers to be spoofed in the first place?
That would mitigate nearly ALL robocalls.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoThis has been a problem far longer than cell phones or spoofed numbers. I don't want to have to individually block every one of the 8000 numbers some scam telemarketer paid to have allocated. I don't think your plan mitigates any robocalls, it just forces them to (slightly) change tactics.
- at_a_remove 3y ago/me leans up against Chesterson's Fence. I reckon it would be beneficial to discover why such a thing was allowed in the first place, and for what it is commonly used aside from robocalls.
- AlotOfReading 3y agoThe A in SS7 stands for authentication. It's old enough that it predates any kind of meaningful network security practices. You can amend the standard to add auth (that's what SHAKEN does), but the issue has been that much of the equipment carrying these calls was built back when C was a hot new language and people rode dinosaurs to work. Some telcos based their entire business model on putting off the upgrades and none of the legitimate telcos would cut them from the network, so the FCC (eventually) stepped in.
- cout 3y agoIt took me a little while to get this joke.
- HumblyTossed 3y agoI know what it's used for. I just don't care. Corporations can find another way.
- JohnFen 3y agoIt's to allow for trunked calls. If you're calling out from a call center, it allows the caller ID to reflect the public phone # that people can actually call rather than the internal phone # that was used to call out. It's a legitimate use, but comes with a high potential (and reality) of abuse.
- yokem55 3y agoThe most common use case for spoofing is trunk-to-trunk call forwarding while preserving the original caller's caller id.