NSA spying: What's the best phone encryption & IMEI random number generator?

[Misha]

With all the NSA mass data collection on us going on, is there a
way for we Americans to encrypt our phone calls and to randomly
change our IMEI numbers with each phone call?

It's not illegal, I already know that, at least not in the USA
- NOTE: In Britain, I think it's illegal to change your IMEI but
not in the USA. In France, I think it's illegal to use encryption,
but not in the USA.

So, this is only a USA question:

Q: Is it possible for us to encrypt our (smartphone Android)
phone calls (I have a Galaxy SIII with 4.1.2) and to randomly
change our IMEI numbers?

NOTE: No individual can hide from a state-sponsored adversary should
that adversary AIM for them; however, I'm not worried about them
aiming specifically at me as much as my duty as an American citizen
to protect what little privacy we have left (which is what this
country stands for).

[Jeff Liebermann]

On 07 Sep 2013 21:58:46 GMT, Misha <***@invalid.com> wrote:

I should know better than to answer such a question.

>With all the NSA mass data collection on us going on, is there a
>way for we Americans to encrypt our phone calls and to randomly
>change our IMEI numbers with each phone call?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmpXFju2XTk>
I haven't tried it, nor do I plan to. The problem is that your cell
phone account is tied to the IMEI/ESN number. You can change it, but
in order to make a phone call, you'll need to inform your service
provider. That pairs the new IMEI with your previous phone number,
which is easily traceable. Unless you're dealing in stolen phones,
juggling IMEI/ESN numbers on your own phone is a waste of time.

>It's not illegal, I already know that, at least not in the USA
>- NOTE: In Britain, I think it's illegal to change your IMEI but
>not in the USA. In France, I think it's illegal to use encryption,
>but not in the USA.

It may not be illegal (I don't know for sure), but it will certainly
bring down the wrath of the cellular provider if you get caught. I
almost had that problem. I've been buying and selling used cell
phones for many years. In order to test the phones, I just change the
IMEI/ESN number on the VZW web page or just do the *228 thing. After
testing the phone, I would put the account back to my original phone.
One day, I did about 15 phones in succession when I got an SMS message
to call VZW. I was transferred to security, who wanted to know what
the [expletive] I was doing. I played dumb and he eventually went
away.

>So, this is only a USA question:
>
>Q: Is it possible for us to encrypt our (smartphone Android)
>phone calls (I have a Galaxy SIII with 4.1.2) and to randomly
>change our IMEI numbers?

Not randomly. You need to make sure it's still the number for the
same type of phone. You don't want to accidentally register a phone
that doesn't have data or you may find yourself without data service.
Also, with 7 billion phones and who knows how many devices out there,
there's a fair chance you're going to either hit a phone in use or a
stolen phone. You might want to check the IMEI/ESN first.
<http://checkesnfree.com>

>NOTE: No individual can hide from a state-sponsored adversary should
>that adversary AIM for them; however, I'm not worried about them
>aiming specifically at me as much as my duty as an American citizen
>to protect what little privacy we have left (which is what this
>country stands for).

That's right. Errr... Far Right.
So much for the science fiction. Now, let's do it the right way...

I don't think you're going to be able to do much inside the phone. You
could probably write an Android SIP client with built in encryption
and use the phone data only. That can get expensive but is probably
secure.
<http://www.cellcrypt.com>
<http://cryptophoneaustralia.com/background/cryptophone-technology/>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_phone>

A slightly more sane method is to use a handset with built in audio
encryption. That scrambles just the audio, and will work over
land-line, VoIP, Skype, as well as cellular. You can probably roll
your own with a PIC that has an A/D and D/A inside.
<http://blog.modernmechanix.com/wiretap-proof-telephone/>
Well, maybe something smaller:
<http://www.pimall.com/nais/cellphonevoicekeeper.html>

Good luck and please don't ask me for bail money.


--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Dale]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:26:27 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> It may not be illegal (I don't know for sure), but it will certainly
> bring down the wrath of the cellular provider if you get caught.

The IMEI is meaningless to the cell phone provider.

It's like a NIC address. Just a bunch of numbers to id a device, but
any other set of numbers work as well.

Changing the IMEI will scramble the metadata for someone like you
or me, but I doubt the added obscurity will confuse the NSA by much.

Then again, they never caught Tsarnav due to a spelling quirk in
their do-not-fly lists, so, it might be worth the try.

[Misha]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:26:27 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmpXFju2XTk>
> I haven't tried it, nor do I plan to. The problem is that your cell
> phone account is tied to the IMEI/ESN number.

Hey there Jeff,
I know you're famous on a.i.w, so I respect your response.

I never understood WHY people say that the IMEI number matters to the
telco. I put different SIM cards in my phone all the time, and thereby
use either T-Mobile or AT&T and I haven't explicitly registered the
cell phone with either company.

So, how exactly is an IMEI "tied" to the phone company? I never understood
that.

The SIM card *is* tied to the company - but in my experience, it works
in any (unlocked) phone of any IMEI.

So, that's why I never understood when people say you can't change
your IMEI. You "effectively" change your IMEI every time you put your
SIM card in another phone (which happens all the time).

Can you explain?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On 09 Sep 2013 02:38:43 GMT, Misha <***@invalid.com> wrote:

>So, how exactly is an IMEI "tied" to the phone company? I never understood
>that.
>
>The SIM card *is* tied to the company - but in my experience, it works
>in any (unlocked) phone of any IMEI.

The GSM providers (AT&T and T-Mobile) use SIM cards for identifying
the owner and the account, but not the phone. The CDMA providers
(Sprint and Verizon) do not use SIM cards. Instead, they use the
MEID/IMSI/IMEI/ESN numbers. When you activate a phone on Verizon,
it's by those numbers:
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/nso/enterDeviceId.do>
On a smart phone, dial *#06# to display the number(s). What the IMEI
number does for the vendor is identify the phone and it's
capabilities.

More later. Really busy tonite.

--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Misha]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 20:10:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> The GSM providers (AT&T and T-Mobile) use SIM cards for identifying the
> owner and the account, but not the phone. The CDMA providers (Sprint
> and Verizon) do not use SIM cards. Instead, they use the
> MEID/IMSI/IMEI/ESN numbers.

Hi Jeff,
Ah. I knew you knew what you were talking about, since I know you.
So I'm glad you clarified. I never think about Verizon, since I'm
a GSM person nowadays. So what you're saying is that, for CDMA
telcos, they *need* the IMEI to verify the account.

But, for GSM telco's, the IMEI is a (nearly) meaningless number
from the standpoint (only) of identifying the account.

The IMEI, as you noted, is certainly a predictor of the telephone
capabilities though - but that's not the reason for my concerns so
I won't worry about data plans and software upgrades.

My Android phone isn't rooted (and I'm not really sure what that
even means) so, my first order of business is to figure out how
to ROOT the Android phone. Then I can worry about installing
the terminal emulator. And then I can change the IMEI.

On T-Mobile GSM, do you predict any negative repercussions from daily
changing the IMEI number (assuming I generate a valid IMEI number)?

[Mutlley]

Misha <***@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 20:10:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> The GSM providers (AT&T and T-Mobile) use SIM cards for identifying the
>> owner and the account, but not the phone. The CDMA providers (Sprint
>> and Verizon) do not use SIM cards. Instead, they use the
>> MEID/IMSI/IMEI/ESN numbers.
>
>Hi Jeff,
>Ah. I knew you knew what you were talking about, since I know you.
>So I'm glad you clarified. I never think about Verizon, since I'm
>a GSM person nowadays. So what you're saying is that, for CDMA
>telcos, they *need* the IMEI to verify the account.
>
>But, for GSM telco's, the IMEI is a (nearly) meaningless number
>from the standpoint (only) of identifying the account.

I wouldn't say meaningless because if your fone is stolen and you
know the IMEI they can block any fone with this EMEI from registering
on to their network. Of course there is nothing stopping them from
going to another GSM / WCDMA carrier and using it unless there is a
common stolen fone database running between carriers..

[Casper H.S. Dik]

Mutlley <***@hotmail.com> writes:

>I wouldn't say meaningless because if your fone is stolen and you
>know the IMEI they can block any fone with this EMEI from registering
>on to their network. Of course there is nothing stopping them from
>going to another GSM / WCDMA carrier and using it unless there is a
>common stolen fone database running between carriers..

Such databses exist between carriers in some countries, but I don't
think there is an international shared database of stolen phones.

Casper

[Misha]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:01:22 +1200, Mutlley wrote:

> I wouldn't say meaningless because if your fone is stolen and you know
> the IMEI they can block any fone with this EMEI from registering on to
> their network.

The record will show that, at least in the USA, the carriers have
absolutely no interest in blocking stolen phones.

They won't do anything - as you can see from mine and other posts.

So, from _that_ perspective, the IMEI is a meaningless set of numbers.

[Casper H.S. Dik]

Misha <***@invalid.com> writes:

>On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:01:22 +1200, Mutlley wrote:

>> I wouldn't say meaningless because if your fone is stolen and you know
>> the IMEI they can block any fone with this EMEI from registering on to
>> their network.

>The record will show that, at least in the USA, the carriers have
>absolutely no interest in blocking stolen phones.

I a number of countries in Europe, they are being forced by the
government.

Casper

[Jeff Liebermann]

On 09 Sep 2013 04:14:06 GMT, Misha <***@invalid.com> wrote:

>But, for GSM telco's, the IMEI is a (nearly) meaningless number
>from the standpoint (only) of identifying the account.

Mostly correct. In theory, the GSM vendor would not need to know the
IMEI number. Reality is quite different:
1. The SIM card identifies the owner and stores his data. However,
if the phone is vendor locked, it ties the SIM ID to the IMEI,
effectively making it impossible to move the SIM card to a different
phone. A less draconian vendor lock looks at only the vendor, model,
and service provider parts of the IMEI, and just locks the SIM to
those numbers. That allows the dealer to replace one smartphone, with
a similar model, and not have to update the SIM.

2. The IMEI defines the maker and model of the phone, and it's
features. If those demonstrate that the phone is a smart phone, the
vendor tacks another $30/month onto the bill for data service, even if
it wasn't requested or ordered. I did this by accident. I picked up
a basic phone that someone had hacked with the IMEI for an iPhone 3G.
I didn't recognize the problem. When I activated the phone for a
customer, I found a data service charge tacked onto their bill. The
phone wasn't worth hacking, so I just changed to a phone, with a real
IMEI number. However, the $30/month didn't disappear from the online
billing summary until after I called customer service three times.

>On T-Mobile GSM, do you predict any negative repercussions from daily
>changing the IMEI number (assuming I generate a valid IMEI number)?

I don't do T-Mobile, so I have no idea what might happen. Sorry.

--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Casper H.S. Dik]

Jeff Liebermann <***@cruzio.com> writes:

>Mostly correct. In theory, the GSM vendor would not need to know the
>IMEI number. Reality is quite different:
>1. The SIM card identifies the owner and stores his data. However,
>if the phone is vendor locked, it ties the SIM ID to the IMEI,
>effectively making it impossible to move the SIM card to a different
>phone. A less draconian vendor lock looks at only the vendor, model,
>and service provider parts of the IMEI, and just locks the SIM to
>those numbers. That allows the dealer to replace one smartphone, with
>a similar model, and not have to update the SIM.

That is not correct: the firmware in the phone checks whether the
SIM is from a particular operator; it is locked to the operator
and not to the SIM card.

>2. The IMEI defines the maker and model of the phone, and it's
>features. If those demonstrate that the phone is a smart phone, the
>vendor tacks another $30/month onto the bill for data service, even if
>it wasn't requested or ordered. I did this by accident. I picked up
>a basic phone that someone had hacked with the IMEI for an iPhone 3G.
>I didn't recognize the problem. When I activated the phone for a
>customer, I found a data service charge tacked onto their bill. The
>phone wasn't worth hacking, so I just changed to a phone, with a real
>IMEI number. However, the $30/month didn't disappear from the online
>billing summary until after I called customer service three times.

Interesting. It is probably listed in the "small print" but that would
also mean that the operator will frowned upon change IMEIs.

Casper

[Jeff Liebermann]

On 10 Sep 2013 08:35:14 GMT, Casper H.S. Dik
<***@OrSPaMcle.COM> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <***@cruzio.com> writes:
>
>>Mostly correct. In theory, the GSM vendor would not need to know the
>>IMEI number. Reality is quite different:
>>1. The SIM card identifies the owner and stores his data. However,
>>if the phone is vendor locked, it ties the SIM ID to the IMEI,
>>effectively making it impossible to move the SIM card to a different
>>phone. A less draconian vendor lock looks at only the vendor, model,
>>and service provider parts of the IMEI, and just locks the SIM to
>>those numbers. That allows the dealer to replace one smartphone, with
>>a similar model, and not have to update the SIM.
>
>That is not correct: the firmware in the phone checks whether the
>SIM is from a particular operator; it is locked to the operator
>and not to the SIM card.

True. There is no processor on the SIM card so that comparison has to
be done by the phone firmware. However, my point was that the vendor
lock can be by the specific phone, by the cellular vendor, or by the
phone manufacturer, depending on how much of the IMEI number is used.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock>
- Mobile country code (MCC; e.g., will only work with SIM issued
in one country)
- Mobile network code (MNC; e.g., AT&T Mobility, T-Mobile, Vodafone,
Bell Mobility etc.)
- Mobile subscriber identification number (MSIN; i.e., only one SIM
can be used with the phone)

>Interesting. It is probably listed in the "small print" but that would
>also mean that the operator will frowned upon change IMEIs.

Apple and AT&T were the first to require a mandatory data plan. If
you activated an iPhone, you were required to have a data plan. Since
there were few protests by those who didn't want the data plan, the
other vendors did the same thing almost immediately. I complained on
the Verizon support site, and soon found both my postings and account
had been removed by VZW. After about 6 months, Verizon extended the
mandatory data plan to newer smartphones, eventually dividing their
selection between "feature phones" and "smart phones". Again, there
was little protest, so the other vendors did much the same thing. The
Verizon MVNO's were more flexible and would activate smartphones
without data plans, so all was not lost. However, this wasn't to
accommodate disgruntled users, such as myself, but rather because
Verizon would not allow the MVNO's to use their latest data service.
For example, Page Plus Cellular will only do 3G data, not 4G. Before
Verizon built their 4G system and only had 3G, the MVNO's could only
use EVDO or 1XRTT.

However, soaking customers for a mandatory data plan wasn't sufficient
for VZW. They often billed customers for accidental use of the data
service. In the early days of smartphones, it was not unusual for
customer to not know that their phones had internet data service, much
less how to use it. If I bought a smartphone with data capability,
but didn't subscribe to the monthly data plan, I would be charged some
rediculously high rate for moving a few bytes if the phone decided to
do a lookup or update check. Many phones had no obvious way to
disable data service. Intitally, VZW also obfuscated the charges on
the bill and didn't properly explain the charges when the phone was
activated. That resulted in lawsuits and FCC action:
<http://www.phonedog.com/2010/10/28/verizon-settles-with-fcc-will-cut-customers-a-52-8-million-check/>
The continuation and expansion of the mandatory data plan was
allegedly a result of this action. Never mind that it would have been
trivial for VZW to block all data traffic by IMEI and be done with the
problem.

--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Misha]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:15:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> my point was that the vendor lock can be by the specific phone, by the
> cellular vendor, or by the phone manufacturer, depending on how much of
> the IMEI number is used.

Hi Jeff,

In practice, at least in the Santa Cruz mountains, both AT&T and T-Mobile
work just fine no matter what phone you stick their SIM cards into.

[Misha]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:15:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Apple and AT&T were the first to require a mandatory data plan. If you
> activated an iPhone, you were required to have a data plan. Since there
> were few protests by those who didn't want the data plan, the other
> vendors did the same thing almost immediately.

Hi Jeff,

Let's be clear about the details here ... :)

AT&T *certainly* tacks on a data plan, even if you have a data block.
They say it's to ensure you have a consistent bill; but they're lying
since they allow you to have a data block by SIM card, so there is no way
you can get charged for data accidentally. They lie.

Verizon may have followed suit (I don't know); but certainly T-Mobile has
not.

I know this inside and out. T-Mobile will allow you to have ANY phone,
without data. They don't care if you bought the phone on your own (or if
it's a pay-as-you-go phone).

Now, if you bought a subsidized contract phone, then yes, T-Mobile also
requires data until your contract runs out. But the easy way around this
is to just buy an unsubsidized or pay-as-you-go subsidized phone.

[Nomen Nescio]

>On 10 Sep 2013 08:35:14 GMT, Casper H.S. Dik
><***@OrSPaMcle.COM> wrote:
>
>True. There is no processor on the SIM card so that comparison has
>to be done by the phone firmware.

SIM cards are (supposedly) the same chips as smartcards (like the
european EMV bank cards). I know bank cards have processers (this is
how the PIN is verified by the card).

What am I missing? I thought the chips differed in content only.

[Misha]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:35:14 +0000, Casper H.S. Dik wrote:

> the firmware in the phone checks whether the SIM is from a particular
> operator; it is locked to the operator and not to the SIM card.

Exactly.

With T-Mobile, you can (and I do) switch phones at will, and there are
zero negative repercussions.

With AT&T, the only disadvantage is their practice of forcing you to have
a data plan, whether you want it or not - for phones with certain IMEI
numbers.

For that reason alone, it's useful to be able to switch IMEI numbers,
although one could easily argue that this is a circumvention of the
service contract.

I'm no lawyer, but, I wonder how that plays in court though, as all you
want it NOT to have a data plan, so, it can't be argued that you're using
a service and not paying for it.

On the contrary, with AT&T, you're being charged for a service you don't
even want, simply because of a random IMEI number having been "targeted"
by AT&T as being of a phone smart enough to make use of data.

Seems illegal to me but I'm not a lawyer - and - that's the whole reason
I dropped AT&T in favor of T-Mobile in the first place.

[Misha]

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 19:19:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> In theory, the GSM vendor would not need to know the
> IMEI number.

Hi Jeff,
In practice, at least with both AT&T and T-Mobile, you can swap your SIM
card into as many phones as you like, and they'll all work. AT&T requires
you to "tell" them what your IMEI number is initially and T-Mobile
doesn't even ask what the IMEI number is. Either way, you can still swap
the SIM card into as many phones as you like, and they don't care (from
an account-identification purpose).

> 1. The SIM card identifies the owner and stores his data. However, if
> the phone is vendor locked, it ties the SIM ID to the IMEI, effectively
> making it impossible to move the SIM card to a different phone.

Hmmm... I've moved my SIM card to a whole bunch of phones, over the
years, and within my family, I swap SIM cards among phones, and I teach
my kids how to call me from their friends' phones when their batteries
are dead, simply by swapping the SIM card. So, in practice, the only
thing that's difficult is switching carriers; not switching phones.

> 2. The IMEI defines the maker and model of the phone, and it's
> features. If those demonstrate that the phone is a smart phone, the
> vendor tacks another $30/month onto the bill for data service

This added "data" fee is only done by AT&T. T-Mobile has no such
automatic data fee. That fee is the reason I dropped AT&T in favor of T-
Mobile in the first place, so, I know this inside and out. There are so
many misconceptions revolving around the IMEI.

I don't claim to be an expert, but, at least with T-Mobile, the IMEI is
(nearly) meaningless; and it's only meaningful from the standpoint of
charging you extra by AT&T.

[m***@gmail.com]

One thing to know is the IMEIi is based on the manufacturer and model of your phone (or other device) That's how they catch people that put their telephone sim ibdata card. There is a clause in your contract that will let tthem cancel your service if yoyour messing with their network. I assume they will call changing yoour imei a vviolatuon of that, whether it really is oor nonot. So you want to be caretful what imei you choose. If your imei is from an old flip phone, but your using llte data, the could figure it out. The can also tell a lot based on the traffic that goes over that link, Luke whether your on windows, android andro,blackbeery etc. This based purely on the subsubtle differences in the way each platform implemenplatforts its networking stack. As an example,tethering on T-Mobile used to work. But then they started throttling. At first changing your user agent worked. Then that quit working. But you could connect to a VPN from the Pc and that worked. For awhile. But if you connect with a Linux computer instead of windows,it works fine. My best guess is, since Android is using the Linux TCP-IP stack,its close enough the don't notice. (I'm nonot saying cant tell, bebecause I bet if you dug deep enough you could find differences) what I do now is change the iptables settings so android can share a VPN connection and connect the phone to the VPN. The only know I'm running a VPN, but have no idea what's going over it, as it should be.

The takeaway is, you should make sure what your pretending to be makes sense. Options could be to take it from a dead phone or tablet. Another possibility is to choose one from a manufacturer that does not exist or a model that does not exist. A tempting option would be to look atat if there is any rhyme or reason to the unique part. In other words, ddo they assign them randomly, or sequentialysequentialy. If sequentially, just find out how many were made. Companies brag about

[William Unruh]

On 2015-01-07, ***@gmail.com <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing to know is the IMEIi is based on the manufacturer and model of your phone (or other device) That's how they catch people that put their telephone sim ibdata card. There is a clause in your contract that will let tthem cancel your service if yoyour messing with their network. I assume they will call changing yoour imei a vviolatuon of that, whether it really is oor nonot. So you want to be caretful what imei you choose. If your imei is from an old flip phone, but your using llte data, the could figure it out. The can also tell a lot based on the traffic that goes over that link, Luke whether your on windows, android andro,blackbeery etc. This based purely on the subsubtle differences in the way each platform implemenplatforts its networking stack. As an example,tethering on T-Mobile used to work. But then they started throttling. At first changing your user agent worked. Then that quit working. But you could connect to a VPN from the Pc and that worked. For awhile. But if you connect with a Linux computer instead of windows,it works fine. My best guess is, since Android is using the Linux TCP-IP stack,its close enough the don't notice. (I'm nonot saying cant tell, bebecause I bet if you dug deep enough you could find differences) what I do now is change the iptables settings so android can share a VPN connection and connect the phone to the VPN. The only know I'm running a VPN, but have no idea what's going over it, as it should be.

You know, your message would be far more readable if you used the
carriage return occasionally. Even on a reader that puts in linebreaks,
this continuous stream is hard to read.

>
> The takeaway is, you should make sure what your pretending to be makes sense. Options could be to take it from a dead phone or tablet. Another possibility is to choose one from a manufacturer that does not exist or a model that does not exist. A tempting option would be to look atat if there is any rhyme or reason to the unique part. In other words, ddo they assign them randomly, or sequentialysequentialy. If sequentially, just find out how many were made. Companies brag about

[Anonymous]

>The GSM providers (AT&T and T-Mobile) use SIM cards for identifying
>the owner and the account, but not the phone.

I think you meant to say is GSM providers strictly use the SIM for
/billing/.

Strictly speaking, GSM providers can ID someone using either the SIM
or the IMEI, no? An IMEI won't have a person associated with it as it
sits on the store shelf, but as soon as someone buys it and starts
using it, there are a variety of ways an identity can become
associated with the IMEI.

IMEIs are usually printed the box the phone ships in, and sometimes
eventually on store invoices.. so if you buy the phone with a bank
card, your identity is immediately connected to the IMEI.

Even google grabs the IMEI number, and links it to your google account
if it's an android. In fact, any Android app with the "read phone
state and identity" permission can harvest the IMEI.

>The CDMA providers (Sprint and Verizon) do not use SIM cards.
>Instead, they use the MEID/IMSI/IMEI/ESN numbers.

IMEI is a GSM-only concept, btw.

[Casper H.S. Dik]

Misha <***@invalid.com> writes:

>I never understood WHY people say that the IMEI number matters to the
>telco. I put different SIM cards in my phone all the time, and thereby
>use either T-Mobile or AT&T and I haven't explicitly registered the
>cell phone with either company.

>So, how exactly is an IMEI "tied" to the phone company? I never understood
>that.

It is also not correct.

However, in a number of countries stolen handsets will be registered and
the operators will refuse service to stolen handsets.

>So, that's why I never understood when people say you can't change
>your IMEI. You "effectively" change your IMEI every time you put your
>SIM card in another phone (which happens all the time).

You shouldn';t be able to change your IMEI but only because you shouldn't
change the serial number (so it is pointless to have it stolen) Except, of
course, many stolen handsets are exported.

Casper

[Misha]

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:54:09 +0000, Casper H.S. Dik wrote:

> You shouldn';t be able to change your IMEI but only because you
> shouldn't change the serial number (so it is pointless to have it
> stolen) Except, of course, many stolen handsets are exported.

First off, nobody here is talking about stolen handsets; and secondly
we're talking about the USA only (at least I was).

Regarding stolen handsets in the usa, my handset was stolen (well,
actually, I left it in a cafe, but someone took it) and the telco
did absolutely nothing about it.

And, as I said from the start, in the USA, it's not illegal to change the
IMEI (probably for the same reason that they do nothing about stolen
handsets).

Anyway, I got my answers on how to change the IMEI and I'm working on the
details. Thanks.

As for the encryption - the answers were good - but too deep for me.

[Misha]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:26:27 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> You need to make sure it's still the number for the same type of phone.
> You don't want to accidentally register a phone that doesn't have data
> or you may find yourself without data service.
> Also, with 7 billion phones and who knows how many devices out there,
> there's a fair chance you're going to either hit a phone in use or a
> stolen phone. You might want to check the IMEI/ESN first.

Hi Jeff,

Again, I don't understand any of these statements for the same reason
as before - yet I highly respect your opinion. That's why I'm confused.

The only thing the telco cares about is the SIM card.

They don't care what phone you put it in. So, for example, if I borrowed
your phone, and put my SIM card in it, then I'd have the same service
as if I had that same SIM card in my cell phone.

The IMEI number was immaterial to the phone company (yes, I know it's
transmitted to them - but it's meaningless to them from the standpoint
of my service). [Yes, I know about the AT&T policy of smartphones having
to have a data plan - that's a *policy* issue that only clouds the issue
so let's ignore that unless it actually matters, bearing in mind that
T-Mobile doesn't have that problem so it's not a technical issue.]

And, the argument that you have to have a "similar" IMEI number was used
for MAC address changing also - but it's really statistically a weak
argument. I doubt it would ever matter *what* IMEI number you used, since
the chance of actually colliding with another duplicate IMEI is
vanishingly small. Let's say I'd have a better chance of winning the
lottery, so, IMEI collisions are a tiny issue that can easily be averted
but since the chances are so slim, they're not even worth the effort.

And, while my argument has nothing to do with stolen phones, it's my
understanding that in the USA, there is no stolen phone list. Certainly
I've had *my* phone stolen (well, ok, I left it on a cafe table and it
was gone when I returned) - and the telcos did absolutely NOTHING about
it except replace my SIM card. So I don't think, in the USA, matching
an IMEI of a stolen phone is also something to worry about.

The thing that confuses me is that the IMEI is nearly meaningless from
the standpoint of the contract between the owner and his telco. I, for
one, have a SIM card from T-Moblie, and they just shipped me that SIM
card. That's it. I never gave them *any* IMEI, and I used that SIM card
in multiple phones. They never cared.

The *only* effect, it seems to me, of randomizing the IMEI, is to keep
the NSA off base, in that their meta data will be off by a tiny amount.
Of course, if they were DIRECTLY observing me (which I hope they're not,
then that slight inconsistency would be meaningless); but if they're
on a fishing expedition, if EVERYONE changed their IMEI daily, it would
benefit us all, by adding just one more level of privacy to our daily
intrusions.

phones

[d***@57.usenet.us.com]

In alt.internet.wireless Misha <***@invalid.com> wrote:
> Again, I don't understand any of these statements for the same reason
> as before - yet I highly respect your opinion. That's why I'm confused.

> The only thing the telco cares about is the SIM card.

I recall Jeff saying something like:
Verizon/Sprint/USCelluar CDMA phones don't have SIMs.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

[Misha]

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 04:13:26 +0000, dold wrote:

> I recall Jeff saying something like: Verizon/Sprint/USCelluar CDMA
> phones don't have SIMs.

Thanks. Since I'm GSM, I wholly missed the part about CDMA needing the
IMEI number. Reading his story of how he got in trouble with them, I
couldn't fathom how T-Mobile would have a similar problem.

Now I realize that, for CDMA, the IMEI might matter a lot.

Luckily, I'm on GSM; so the IMEI is (apparently) nearly meaningless from
the standpoint of the carrier figuring out whether or not to supply
service to me.

They get all that from the SIM card information, not from the IMEI.
Which leaves me to change the IMEI at will.

Of course, now that I realize all this, changing the IMEI might not give
me the obscurity from the NSA that I desire, simply because the SIM card
will just as easily uniquely identify me.

Sigh. (as I slam my tinfoil hat down on the ground)

[Frank Slootweg]

Misha <***@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 04:13:26 +0000, dold wrote:
>
> > I recall Jeff saying something like: Verizon/Sprint/USCelluar CDMA
> > phones don't have SIMs.
>
> Thanks. Since I'm GSM, I wholly missed the part about CDMA needing the
> IMEI number. Reading his story of how he got in trouble with them, I
> couldn't fathom how T-Mobile would have a similar problem.
>
> Now I realize that, for CDMA, the IMEI might matter a lot.
>
> Luckily, I'm on GSM; so the IMEI is (apparently) nearly meaningless from
> the standpoint of the carrier figuring out whether or not to supply
> service to me.
>
> They get all that from the SIM card information, not from the IMEI.
> Which leaves me to change the IMEI at will.

It depends *how* 'meaningless' "nearly meaningless" *really* is.

For example, as (IIRC) Jeff said, from the IMEI your provider knows
which exact phone model you're using.

If I put my SIM in another phone, my (account on my) provider's
website will show which brand and model phone I'm using, while I've
never told them. They will also send the messages to configure the
Internet and MMS setup of the phone, which (AFAIK) are brand/model
dependent.

So a forged/bogus/unused IMEI is exactly that. Whether it's "nearly
meaningless" is up to the NSA. :-)

> Of course, now that I realize all this, changing the IMEI might not give
> me the obscurity from the NSA that I desire, simply because the SIM card
> will just as easily uniquely identify me.
>
> Sigh. (as I slam my tinfoil hat down on the ground)

[Misha]

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:08:55 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> from the IMEI your provider knows
> which exact phone model you're using.

True.

> If I put my SIM in another phone, my (account on my) provider's
> website will show which brand and model phone I'm using, while I've
> never told them.

I do this all the time.

> They will also send the messages to configure the
> Internet and MMS setup of the phone, which (AFAIK) are brand/model
> dependent.

Yup. I see these messages all the time when I put my SIM card into a
different cellphone. I ignore the messages.

> So a forged/bogus/unused IMEI is exactly that.

Well, a forged/bogus IMEI isn't any different, in my case, than simply
sticking my (T-Mobile) SIM card into a different phone with a legit IMEI.

Same thing - for practical purposes.

[Misha]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:26:27 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> It may not be illegal (I don't know for sure), but it will certainly
> bring down the wrath of the cellular provider if you get caught.

Just to reiterate, one of my cellular providers (T-Mobile) doesn't give
one whit about the IMEI and doesn't make any statements in the contract
regarding what phone I use.

The other (AT&T) does care, if only to gouge me for a data plan (which
I never wanted and never needed).

But certainly it's not illegal (in the US) to change your IMEI number
daily. So I watched that you-tube you referenced with interest.

Unfortunately, I'm on Android, so, I need to see if it can be transposed.

[Misha]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:26:27 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmpXFju2XTk>

This looks like what he did on his Android phone (with an iOS theme).

0. *#06# (reveals the old IMEI as 123456789012345 / 10)
1. root the device
2. install terminal emulation
3. start terminal application
4. su (switch to the super user)
5. echo 'AT+EGMR=1,7,"546765676567656"' > /dev/pttycmd1
6. reboot
7. *#06# (reveals the new IMEI as 546765676567656 / 10)

Seems simple enough. Thanks.

[Khelair]

To: Misha
Re: NSA spying: What's the best phone encryption & IMEI random numbergener
By: Misha to alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.internet.wireless,comp.security.misc on Sat Sep 07 2013 21:58:46

Mi> With all the NSA mass data collection on us going on, is there a
Mi> way for we Americans to encrypt our phone calls and to randomly
Mi> change our IMEI numbers with each phone call?

Best bet, I would think, would probably be utilizing RedPhone for phone call
encryption. It's by Philip Zimmerman, who proved in the 90s that he's probably
the best bet for reliable PKI encryption. He quite obviously scared the shit
out of the NSA when they brought up the charges on him for exporting
munitions-grade encryption.
No idea about the IMEI numbers. :P I've done VoIP spoofing when I've run a
PBX at a business as a sysadmin before, but that's the closest I've been.

Mi> It's not illegal, I already know that, at least not in the USA
Mi> - NOTE: In Britain, I think it's illegal to change your IMEI but
Mi> not in the USA. In France, I think it's illegal to use encryption,
Mi> but not in the USA.

It is, actually, provided it's with certain algorithms that the NSA has
declared to be 'munitions-grade'. If you want to use RSA, for instance, you
better be using their patented RSAREF algorithm if they notice, or you may well
find yourself in the fed clink.

Mi> So, this is only a USA question:
Mi> Q: Is it possible for us to encrypt our (smartphone Android)
Mi> phone calls (I have a Galaxy SIII with 4.1.2) and to randomly
Mi> change our IMEI numbers?

Secure text for texts, RedPhone for calls. That's what I use on my Galaxy
SIII. Don't forget about the rumors that they can keylog and pull ANY data off
of those devices, too. Don't use a PKI password that you use for anything
else.

-The opinions expressed are not necessarily an advocation of any of the
aforementioned ideologies, concepts, or actions. We still have the freedom of
speech, for now, and I enjoy using it in a satirical or ficticious manner to
amuse myself-

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a
revolutionary act." -- George Orwell

--- Synchronet 3.16a-OpenBSD NewsLink 1.101
Tinfoil Tetrahedron: telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/

[Juergen Nieveler]

"Khelair" <***@bismaninfo.hopto.org.remove-sfa-this> wrote:

> Best bet, I would think, would probably be utilizing RedPhone for
> phone call
> encryption. It's by Philip Zimmerman, who proved in the 90s that he's
> probably the best bet for reliable PKI encryption. He quite obviously
> scared the shit out of the NSA when they brought up the charges on him
> for exporting munitions-grade encryption.

Nitpick: RedPhone is not by Phil Zimmermann, but by Whisper Systems.

The ZRTP encryption was designed by Phil Zimmermann, though.


--
Juergen Nieveler

[unruh]

On 2013-09-30, Juergen Nieveler <***@arcor.de> wrote:
> "Khelair" <***@bismaninfo.hopto.org.remove-sfa-this> wrote:
>
>> Best bet, I would think, would probably be utilizing RedPhone for
>> phone call
>> encryption. It's by Philip Zimmerman, who proved in the 90s that he's
>> probably the best bet for reliable PKI encryption. He quite obviously
>> scared the shit out of the NSA when they brought up the charges on him
>> for exporting munitions-grade encryption.
>
> Nitpick: RedPhone is not by Phil Zimmermann, but by Whisper Systems.
>
> The ZRTP encryption was designed by Phil Zimmermann, though.

I am not sure I would trust Zimmermann as a designer of cryptography.
His forte was tying crypto together into a package and getting that
package out there. Only when he used off-the-shelf cryptography did
things start to work.

[Khelair]

To: Juergen Nieveler
Re: Re: NSA spying: What's the best phone encryption & IMEI random numberg
By: Juergen Nieveler to comp.security.misc on Mon Sep 30 2013 11:25:50

JN> Nitpick: RedPhone is not by Phil Zimmermann, but by Whisper Systems.

JN> The ZRTP encryption was designed by Phil Zimmermann, though.

Gotcha. Thank you for pointing that out.

-The opinions expressed are not necessarily an advocation of any of the
aforementioned ideologies, concepts, or actions. We still have the freedom of
speech, for now, and I enjoy using it in a satirical or ficticious manner to
amuse myself-

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a
revolutionary act." -- George Orwell

--- Synchronet 3.16a-OpenBSD NewsLink 1.101
Tinfoil Tetrahedron: telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/

[Jim]

On 07 Sep 2013 21:58:46 GMT, Misha <***@invalid.com> wrote:

>With all the NSA mass data collection on us going on, is there a
>way for we Americans to encrypt our phone calls and to randomly
>change our IMEI numbers with each phone call?

Not worth the hassle.

They don't record the content of your calls, only the
origin, destination and duration.

They just don't have the storage capacity to record
the audio (or digital) content of every call made.

Think about it!

That isn't to say They CAN'T access audio/digital
content, buy They'd only do that for 'persons of interest'.

--

:: Jim ::

UKIP-BNP Migration Policy:
'Go back to where you came from!'
Tory Migration Policy:
'Contact the Home Office for help
to go back to where you came from'.

[Nomen Nescio]

>With all the NSA mass data collection on us going on, is there a way
>for we Americans to encrypt our phone calls and to randomly change
>our IMEI numbers with each phone call?

You might be interested in LBE Privacy Guard if you have an Android.
It will supposedly block IMEI requests. Although I heard it may not
do anything for GSM.. just nosey apps.

[Fritz Wuehler]

>The IMEI is meaningless to the cell phone provider.

The GSM network simply cannot handle the same two IMEIs using the
network simultaneously. So IMEI uniqueness is essential to the
network.

This is why all dual-sim dual-active phones have *two* different IMEI
numbers, one for each sim slot. Contrast that with dual-sim
dual-standby phones, which usually use the same IMEI for both sim
slots.. in which case they can both register, but if one becomes
active the other is disabled.

--Tracking--

All mobile phones are trackable. A provider may only opt to refuse
registration from blacklisted IMEIs, but what's to stop them from
tracking the theif? Nothing, apart from economics, AFAIK. Of course
the OPs natural concern is whether he can be tracked. Why not?

--Denial of Service--

Couldn't someone deny service to someone else simply by cloning their
IMEI, and staying active on the same network? I'm conjecturing, but
it seems being able to change IMEIs would control for someone who
would do this kind of attack against you.

>Changing the IMEI will scramble the metadata for someone like you or
>me, but I doubt the added obscurity will confuse the NSA by much.

Suppose you change the IMEI before every new SIM is inserted... don't
you think the IMEI+SIM combination appears like a new phone and
different user?

Otherwise, if you don't change IMEI numbers, every past sim will be
associated to each other and every future sim, no?