4 ms·

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

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.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ruszki 1y ago
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.
mfro 1y ago
Somehow I doubt telecom infrastructure in NYC is susceptible enough to completely drop service citywide when under attack from one DDoS source. In fact, I suppose this is technically just DoS, because all these SIMs should be served by 1, maybe 2 towers.
tsimionescu 1y ago
The NYT article fell apart the moment they quoted the silly "35 miles from UN headquarters" quote by the SS without pointing out it's an absurd attempt at sensationalizing. No need to read further than that before figuring out it's a propaganda piece.
- 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
  That's the figure that has been cherry picked and everyone has run with to dismiss the announcement yes. While it probably was included to sensationalize, I fail to see how that is some kind of smoking gun that somehow falsifies all the rest of it. Everyone buying into this is showing their bias
  - wat10000 1y ago
    It's the most obvious example, it's not the sole piece of evidence. Let's pick through the official statement. "In addition to carrying out anonymous telephonic threats, these devices could be used to conduct a wide range of telecommunications attacks. This includes disabling cell phone towers, enabling denial of services attacks and facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises." This is a mix of bullshit and mundane. Disabling cell towers? I don't buy it. DoS attacks? Yeah, any collection of internet-connected devices can do that. Anonymous, encrypted communication? Everybody's smartphone qualifies for that. You could be talking about arresting a pickpocketer and be technically correct in saying that you siezed a device that could be used to facilitate anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises. "While forensic examination of these devices is ongoing, early analysis indicates cellular communications between nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement." So some foreign government was using these services. You could say the same about AWS. "The potential for disruption to our country’s telecommunications posed by this network of devices cannot be overstated" A nice example of the genre of self-disproving statements. "These devices were concentrated within 35 miles of the global meeting of the United Nations General Assembly now underway in New York City." It bears repeating that "within 35 miles" of the UN includes the entire New York metro area and a large area beyond. In addition to that, the very concept of electronic equipment being "concentrated within" four thousand square miles doesn't make the least bit of sense.
    - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
      those are absurd interpretations, "nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law" = some foreign country? give me a break
      - tsimionescu 1y ago
        You seem to not understand how propaganda puff pieces work. You are taking the anonymous sources and the SS agents' words at face value as if they are good faith normal language. But given the clear propagandistic nature of the piece, you should instead immediately suspect every statement as being the most weasely possible "technically true" statement that could have been made. When someone is willing to call 35 miles away from NYC as "close to the UN", you should absolutely expect that they would be willing to call "a known fraudster and a corrupt official from Kazakstan" as "nation-state threat actors and individuals known to federal law", which they technically are.
brk 1y ago
DDoS the tower? These look like they represent less than the aggregate crowd at MSG, or even a fairly dense office building (of which there are plenty in NYC). Didn't seem like enough to launch a coordinated DDoS attack. Also, just from looking at the base units, it appears the ratio of SIMs to radios/antennas is Many:1, so not all SIMs can be leveraged in a DDoS at any singular time.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ruszki 1y ago

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.

mfro 1y ago

Somehow I doubt telecom infrastructure in NYC is susceptible enough to completely drop service citywide when under attack from one DDoS source. In fact, I suppose this is technically just DoS, because all these SIMs should be served by 1, maybe 2 towers.

tsimionescu 1y ago

The NYT article fell apart the moment they quoted the silly "35 miles from UN headquarters" quote by the SS without pointing out it's an absurd attempt at sensationalizing. No need to read further than that before figuring out it's a propaganda piece.

1234letshaveatw 1y ago
That's the figure that has been cherry picked and everyone has run with to dismiss the announcement yes. While it probably was included to sensationalize, I fail to see how that is some kind of smoking gun that somehow falsifies all the rest of it. Everyone buying into this is showing their bias
- wat10000 1y ago
  It's the most obvious example, it's not the sole piece of evidence. Let's pick through the official statement. "In addition to carrying out anonymous telephonic threats, these devices could be used to conduct a wide range of telecommunications attacks. This includes disabling cell phone towers, enabling denial of services attacks and facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises." This is a mix of bullshit and mundane. Disabling cell towers? I don't buy it. DoS attacks? Yeah, any collection of internet-connected devices can do that. Anonymous, encrypted communication? Everybody's smartphone qualifies for that. You could be talking about arresting a pickpocketer and be technically correct in saying that you siezed a device that could be used to facilitate anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises. "While forensic examination of these devices is ongoing, early analysis indicates cellular communications between nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement." So some foreign government was using these services. You could say the same about AWS. "The potential for disruption to our country’s telecommunications posed by this network of devices cannot be overstated" A nice example of the genre of self-disproving statements. "These devices were concentrated within 35 miles of the global meeting of the United Nations General Assembly now underway in New York City." It bears repeating that "within 35 miles" of the UN includes the entire New York metro area and a large area beyond. In addition to that, the very concept of electronic equipment being "concentrated within" four thousand square miles doesn't make the least bit of sense.
  - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
    those are absurd interpretations, "nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law" = some foreign country? give me a break
    - tsimionescu 1y ago
      You seem to not understand how propaganda puff pieces work. You are taking the anonymous sources and the SS agents' words at face value as if they are good faith normal language. But given the clear propagandistic nature of the piece, you should instead immediately suspect every statement as being the most weasely possible "technically true" statement that could have been made. When someone is willing to call 35 miles away from NYC as "close to the UN", you should absolutely expect that they would be willing to call "a known fraudster and a corrupt official from Kazakstan" as "nation-state threat actors and individuals known to federal law", which they technically are.

brk 1y ago

DDoS the tower? These look like they represent less than the aggregate crowd at MSG, or even a fairly dense office building (of which there are plenty in NYC). Didn't seem like enough to launch a coordinated DDoS attack. Also, just from looking at the base units, it appears the ratio of SIMs to radios/antennas is Many:1, so not all SIMs can be leveraged in a DDoS at any singular time.