--- Log opened Thu Aug 10 00:00:24 2017
00:57 -!- NoFault [~NoFault@c-174-49-12-150.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
04:45 -!- remoford1 [~remo_lapt@c-68-52-35-32.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
08:25 < Synx_hm> Truecaller?
08:34 < xray> https://www.truecall.co.uk/
08:34 < PigBot> xray: That URL appears to have no HTML title within the first 30480 bytes.
08:40 < Synx_hm> thanks
09:06 <@Corydon76> Catonic: there's no guarantee that even ANI is reliable.
09:14 < Synx_hm> somebody at the carrier level has to have ANI/routing details for billing right?
09:16 <@Corydon76> Not anymore.  In the case of VoIP, they're billed according to out-of-band authentication
09:17 <@Corydon76> But a VoIP call can set whatever it likes for ANI/CallerID, and unless the carrier restricts it (changes it in the process of setting up the call), it'll just pass the call upstream unaltered
09:18 < Synx_hm> ya ive seen that, quite a man carriers allow it
09:18 <@Corydon76> And there's a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting it to be unaltered.  You can claim that you're receiving calls from another carrier and passing it on
09:18 < Synx_hm> ya
09:19 < Synx_hm> my company has actual legit use for it (spoofed ani) in our testing solutions
09:19 <@Corydon76> Or, hey, I'm forwarding calls to people from cellphones, and I want to preserve the original CallerID.  Perfectly legitimate.
09:19 < Synx_hm> so, if flowroute accepts a ingress call, do they just auth with the carrier thats sending them the call and bill them but dont care who the originating party truly is as its not in the hands of the originators carrier?
09:20 <@Corydon76> Correct
09:20 <@Corydon76> They're pretty flexible.  Sometimes they use the authenticated SIP auth, and sometimes they use an accountcode prepended to the dialed number.
09:21 < Synx_hm> so ANI is basically dead from a reliability standpoint
09:21 <@Corydon76> Also correct.
09:21 < Synx_hm> unless we adopt something DNS sec but for ani
09:21 < Synx_hm> s/something/something like/
09:22 <@rattle> Apparently "hold my avocado" is a thing on the Internet today.  This is how I know I'm GenX and not a Millennial.
09:22 <@Corydon76> Anything we adopt would have to be mandatory across the system.  Make an exemption for one carrier, and you're back to rogue carriers doing the same thing.
09:22 <@Corydon76> And anything mandatory takes at least a decade to roll out
09:22 < Synx_hm> ya we'd have to trust all carriers to honor it
09:23 <@Corydon76> Not to mention it would probably have to be an ITU standard
09:23 < Synx_hm> but doesn't stop somebody from just rolling their own mini carrier to send robo calls i guess
09:23 < Synx_hm> rattle, wtf does that even mean? ive never heard it before and this time article is confusing me with video of avocado cutting
09:23 <@Corydon76> and ITU standards are notoriously long winded in terms of time to specify and implement.
09:24 < Synx_hm> :)
09:24 <@Corydon76> If you started today, it would not be unreasonable to expect that an ITU standard would take 25 years to be implemented across the board
09:25 <@Corydon76> In many ways, the telephone system is suffering the same fate as email with spam.
09:25 <@Corydon76> There have been many solutions proposed over the years to deal with spam.
09:25 < Synx_hm> speaking of standards and specs (RFC), i ran into an acme packet sbc last week that accepts SIP REGISTER methods, tosses the contact header out the fucking window and uses the originating source TCP port to send all future SIP INVITEs to
09:25 <@rattle> It's like "hold my beer", but..  Not.
09:26 < Synx_hm> furthur, it ignores the prefix of @ in the contact header and assumes anything that registers from the same *@ip:port are all the same fucking endpoint
09:29 <@Corydon76> Synx_hm: I'm sure there's a good reason for doing that, although the reason escapes me ATM
09:29 < Synx_hm> reminds me of basically every single thing Avaya touches, take something that is a known 'standard' and muck it up so much you can ensure only your own Avaya branded gear will work with your CM
09:30 < Synx_hm> Corydon76, i can think of a few fringe cases for it, but cant see a good reason for that being a default behavior
09:31 < Synx_hm> ive seen Cisco (CUCM) do the same thing on the *@ip:port issue with 3rd part SIP phone integration too
09:33 <@Dagmar> s/supports executables/wasn't mounted with noexec/
09:33 <@Dagmar> !@#!@
09:34  * aestetix hugs Dolemite 
09:35 < Synx_hm> Corydon76, also tell me im taking crazy pills here, i got into a bit of an argument with a customer same customer (one using the fucked up sbc) over their use of TCP for SIP signaling, while i agree there are good use cases for TCP their argument was without it they dont get reliable transport to which i replied 'umm sir are you not aware of SIP ACK?'
09:38 <@Corydon76> Yeah, SIP does the same things explicitly that TCP does implicitly.  It's the same route pathways anyway
09:39 <@Corydon76> So unless you have a firewall that isn't letting UDP through, there's no advantage to using TCP for that
09:39 < Synx_hm> its mind boggling that the massive corporations i 'get' to work with use idiots to architect their networks, just this week i had to explain to a 'senior network engineer' that no i could not alias an IP address from a completely different subnet to the /24 mgmt subnet he put my server in.
09:40 <@Corydon76> In fact, there are remarkable disadvantages to TCP, because if you have enough packet loss that makes the reliability a factor, then your TCP connection is going to take a lot longer to tear down
09:41 <@Corydon76> Synx_hm: I think you actually can do that, but it requires support from the network admin
09:41 < Synx_hm> well ya i mean sure i can and put in place static routing etc both on the server and they can do it on their l3 routers
09:42 <@Corydon76> You have to do some ARP spoofing
09:42 < Synx_hm> but im not thinking that was this guys understanding
09:42 <@Corydon76> He may have been telling you something about the physical architecture being unswitched
09:42 < Synx_hm> he just wanted me to take 500 IPs from a /23 and alias them to a NIC that was in a /24 management vlan and that it was going to just magically route all their voice traffic
09:43 <@Corydon76> That might work, if you're getting the traffic mirrored to that port
09:43 < Synx_hm> i stopped reading into these peoples suggestions long ago when i realized they have no idea what they are doing
09:44 <@Corydon76> I realized long ago that if everybody employed in this country were 100% competent, there'd only be enough work for 10% of the population.  We'd have a 90% unemployment rate
09:44 < Synx_hm> valid, very valid ;)
09:45 < Synx_hm> i should stop complaining and start thanking them for job security, they probably wont realize its a slight anyways
09:45 <@Corydon76> So I don't worry about it too much.  I'm thankful that there are enough incompetent people to make me valuable
09:45 < Synx_hm> thank you for that, its the perspective i need :)
09:46 <@Corydon76> And for the record, no, I'm not claiming I'm 100% competent.
10:05 < Synx_hm> ahh yes, a close to another fun and pleasurable CEO quarterly meeting
10:06 < Synx_hm> and per usual the CEO has done a fantastic job of zapping my will to be employed
10:07 <@Corydon76> The only thing that would zap my will to be employed would be a lottery win.
10:07 < Synx_hm> today he set a record for not understanding our actual products, at one point he congratulated our engineering team on the deliver of TWO new and amazing products, product x and product y.
10:07 <@Corydon76> Unfortunately, you need to play to win.
10:07 < Synx_hm> funny thing about x and y, they are the same thing, x was actually w then renamed to x then renamed to y
10:08 < Synx_hm> its even more funny because our customers that were using x at the time of it being renamed to y were livid over our insistent renaming of products, i think its clear to them we rename shit to make it look new and fancy
10:09 < Synx_hm> HAPPY FRIDAY
10:10 <@Corydon76> Was it just a rename and not a rewrite?
10:29 < Synx_hm> rename
10:30 -!- TheDukh [~thedukh@2607:fcc8:ac80:d900:3c86:4445:83af:b9d0] has quit []
12:03 < Synx_hm> boop
12:44 -!- Drag0n` [~Nunya@96-85-211-122-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #se2600
12:57 < Synx_hm> ..
12:57 < Drag0n`> --
12:57 < Synx_hm> thanks
13:59 -!- sync350|dev [~sync@c-73-237-89-90.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has joined #se2600
14:31 <@Evilpig> and me arguing with comcast has begun
14:31 <@Evilpig> dipshit tier 1 know it all tried to tell me that this graph of my usage https://blueboy.wilpig.org/mrtg/localhost_2.html
14:31 < PigBot> Title: Traffic Analysis for public - firewall.wilpig.org (at blueboy.wilpig.org) http://tinyurl.com/yche9ruz
14:31 <@Evilpig> is NOT valid because it was not graphed from the modem but from the router
14:32 <@Evilpig> went on to tell me how i was being uncooperative by not hooking a pc directly to the modem to run a speed test that will show that burst traffic is getting up to the speeds that I should be getting where my complaint is that my longer running tasks are getting rate limited
14:46 < Drag0n`> your being uncooperative to their desire to make it your fault so they dont have to do any actual work
14:47 <@Evilpig> yes
14:47 <@Evilpig> I really want them to flip my channel profile to 75 up and 15 down.  i'd be okay with that
14:48 <@Dagmar> Easy answer: "You are tier 1.  You are not qualified to address these concerns."
14:48 <@Evilpig> I left him questioning whether he wanted to start killing people in his office, I hope
14:48 <@Evilpig> he was definitely aggitated when I told him he was unqualified and his comcast training was garbage
14:48 < Drag0n`> tier 1 mantra " NONE SHALL PASS....to Tier 2"
14:49 <@Evilpig> he informed me that I cannot request tier 2, that tier 2 is an internal only group
14:49 <@Dagmar> Then he should forward the request to them because he fails to grasp the problem
14:49 <@Evilpig> i mocked him and told him to escalte it
14:52 < Drag0n`> "escalate it you silly tech person or i shall taunt you a second time!!!!"
15:23 < dasunt_> This is one moral group.
15:23 < dasunt_> I'd be tempted to technobabble the idiot until he escalates.
15:33 <@Evilpig> he was impervious to technobable.  he was clearly outgunned at "my computer's name is router and it's plugged directly into the modem"
15:49 < dasunt_> Tell him that you are getting clipped packets or something he won't understand.
15:50 < K`Tetch> I always say "since you are clearly not trained to a competent standard and have prvided poor standards of service as a result of your willful ignorance on topics you should have been trained on, I'm requesting escalation'
15:52 < K`Tetch> another I'd like to use was "one of us has submitted written testimony to the FCC and congress on network traffic analysis, the other has not. Can you guess which one of us that is?" (that worked on AT+T)
15:54 < K`Tetch> and there's always the big guns of "so, er, what's your name again? Right [name], There is an issue, I've stated it clearly, and you are either unwilling, or incapable of understanding the issue. So I will emphasize that when i published the recording of this call"
15:54 < Drag0n`> "one of us works for a telecommunications company in the networking field, the other works for a 2 bit video distribution provider that plays like it know how to deliver networking!"
15:56 < K`Tetch> once I had AT&T say 'well, we want to try another modem", and I replied "I tried 7. the guy that invented the Hayes modem standards is a friend, he lent me some, and I have a review modem coming from your Press department tommorow"
15:57 < K`Tetch> escalation, recording, government/regulator and 'press' are usually 'flag words' in tech support, so they are forced to hand the call to a supervisor
15:57 -!- remoford1 [~remo_lapt@c-68-52-35-32.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has joined #se2600
15:58 < Synx_hm> that shit is my favsies, umm sir we cant promise anything will work unless you direct connect to the modem, umm sir i cannot promise anything your directly connected device is doing is correct, you need stats from the modem which only we can view your data on the mig is inacurate you actually consumed eleventy peta-bites, or nibbles sir are you familiar with peta chip nibbles? if not i cannot help you any more
15:58 < Drag0n`> its always fun when you reach support and the person on the other end recognizes your name as the person that trained them at their last job. at that point they realize its a real issue and to just listen
15:59 < K`Tetch> threatening to sue does too, BUT instead of being cooperative, they lock stuff down, and mix in the legal dept
15:59 < K`Tetch> (wife's done tech supoprt for Asureon for the last 3 eyars)
16:00 < dasunt_> For fuck sake, 0! = 1?
16:02 < Drag0n`> Schrodinger's binary?
16:02 < Synx_hm> 0! might == -1 in some languages
16:02 < Drag0n`> fuzzy maths
16:03 < Drag0n`> as opposed to furry maths where all your numbers end up in a yiff pile
16:04 < dasunt_> I was doing a coding exercise that required finding the value of the factors of various numbers, and it kept giving me the wrong answer.
16:04 < dasunt_> After much debugging, I realized I had assumed 0! = 0.
17:19 -!- sync350 [~sync@c-73-237-89-90.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has joined #se2600
17:19 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o sync350] by ChanServ
17:19 -!- sync350|dev [~sync@c-73-237-89-90.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:35 -!- NoFault [~NoFault@c-174-49-12-150.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has joined #se2600
20:02 -!- NoFault [~NoFault@c-174-49-12-150.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
21:18 -!- dasunt [~dasunt@192.249.59.215] has joined #se2600
21:18 -!- dasunt_ [~dasunt@192.249.59.215] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:18 -!- Catonic [~catonic@71-45-91-197.res.bhn.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:18 -!- Shadow404 [~shadow404@96-80-184-99-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:19 -!- Shadow404 [~shadow404@96-80-184-99-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #se2600
22:28 < K`Tetch> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/08/salesforce-fires-two-security-team-members-for-presenting-at-defcon/
22:29 < PigBot> Title: Salesforce “red team” members present tool at Defcon, get fired | Ars Technica (at arstechnica.com) http://tinyurl.com/yc5crbdf
23:14 -!- Catonic [~catonic@71-45-91-197.res.bhn.net] has joined #se2600
23:14 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o Catonic] by ChanServ
--- Log closed Fri Aug 11 00:00:26 2017