Noga
join:2004-06-30
Hollywood, FL
| Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure
So, I just want to summarize today's events.
Magicjack released an update yesterday that apparently did nothing but remove "Do not disturb." The next day, all ATA devices (even ones with the magicjack user agents) went dead. This was because magicjack changed the SIP credentials on all magicJacks. Pretty much everyone is using stroths utility to get their new SIP info, but the new SIP info fails to register on the ATA even though their magicJack dongle works fine.
The reports are mixed, but it seems that generally almost no one can use their ATAs. Many have noticed a proxy change from 1 to 01, but changing this doesn't even work.
Thus, either
1) magicJack has somehow hidden the actual proxy
or
2)the update yesterday somehow re-encrypted the SIP credentials which they decided to change this morning. Although stroths pulls up the SIP info, maybe it is completely inaccurate. |
|
pagemen
join:2008-12-28
planet earth | Looks like MJ find someway to block ATA because
1) Wireshark shows that proxies are unchanged
2) Some people are able to register but can't make outgoing calls(incoming works), so the credentials are correct, at least for some. |
|
thedaddy
@charter.com
| I was able to register and my ATA says online but I can't make or receive calls.
If I can't get it back to work using ATA, I will stop recommending magic jack. I'm the only one that I know that uses an ATA for it but I have convinced many people to buy one magicjack. I have two. One I carry with me, the other one I was just using its credential with an ATA.
This is that kind of thing that many software company do and ends up hurting them. They protect their software so much that nobody will experiment with it and nobody will ever hear about it. I understand that Magicjack is so cheap because it's sponsored by ads. However, if you turn the geeks off, they will stop recommending or helping other people with their magicjack. The consequence is that their business will eventually die or be replaced by a smarter competitor. |
|
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to pagemen
Interesting Development:
Change your register expires / session expiry setting on your ATA to 600. If this doesn't work try 0. They may be setting this differently for your setting. This seems to be how they are sorting ATA and non-ATA for now. Changing this on my ATA got incoming to work, BUT not outgoing. |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
|  reply to thedaddy
said by thedaddy :
I will stop recommending magic jack. I'm a bit confused. If you were recommending MagicJack because it worked well, why would you stop?
If you were recommending MagicJack because it was easy to hack credentials, violate TOS and use an ATA ... then I understand.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
pagemen
join:2008-12-28
planet earth
| reply to swanboy
Thanks for the info. I tried 600 but no luck(seems the new value is 1800 here vs. old 900). 0 does get the ATA registered but no incoming or outgoing calls. Incoming did work yesterday after I put the new password in PAP2, but I messed it up later by switching proxies around and now everything stops working. Waiting for some genius to figure it out and save us... |
|
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL | If you have the PMDump utility, it would be helpful to see what your session expire value is for yours specifically |
|
Noga
join:2004-06-30
Hollywood, FL
1 edit | reply to Noga
Well, they do use asterisk...so...I guess we are going to have to buy magicJack's ATA when it comes out. They now have complete control of blocking non-mJ ATAs. My mJ expires at the end of this month so I won't mind to much if the mJ ata unit is at a reasonable price (which is expected.) |
|
JPMorgan
@optonline.net
| reply to Noga
Pandora,
What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS. They can state what ever they want in their TOS but that does not mean it can stand up in a court of law. What if the TOS dictated you could only use their service while sitting at the toilet? Would this mean sitting on your own toilet, a toilet at a friends house or just public toilets? A TOS is a wish list, subject to interpretation. So lets drop the TOS references because until it is supported in a court of law it means squat. The use of a ATA device to use their service that you paid for is a gift to them. Lets face it their little mj device is bordering on garbage. But when the service is used via a ATA device it is as good as any voip out there. MJ is threading on thin ice targeting the small percentage of people who actually use the service that way it supposed to be. People using the service via ATA are not using any more minutes or bandwidth.. This only opens up the way for another provider to swoop in again. MJ should of had an ATA device from the get go as a option. If they did, they would have dominated the voip market. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by JPMorgan :
What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS.
That's not true. See:
said by MagicJack ToS : 8. License magicJack grants you a personal, non-transferable and non-exclusive right and license to use the magicJack device and Software on your computer; provided that you do not (and do not allow anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, reverse assemble or otherwise attempt to discover any source code, sell, assign, sublicense, grant a security interest in, or otherwise transfer any right of the magicJack device. The initial term of this license is for one year and may be renewed (for an additional fee) for additional terms of one year each. You agree not to modify the Software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the Software, including for the purpose of obtaining unauthorized access to the magicJack device. You agree not to access the magicJack services by any means other than through the Software and the magicJack device -- » www.magicjack.com/tos/ said by JPMorgan :
They can state what ever they want in their TOS but that does not mean it can stand up in a court of law. That's true, but irrelevant. I'm sure any court would uphold that MJ has the right to secure it's network and require only its devices use it.
We're not talking about MJ suing customers for violating the ToS, and therefore being in a legal position of "proving" their ToS is reasonable.
We're talking about MJ denying access to users in accordance with the ToS. That puts the users in the position of going to court and arguing that the specific term enforced against them is unreasonable.
Never going to happen.
Mark |
|
macman4hire
join:2009-03-30
| reply to Noga
A $60.00-100 dollar a year premium plan that would allow BYOD users to use MagicJack might be very successful addition to MagicJack's service offerings. I don't think MagicJack can sustain itself on just the hardware margins. It is a novelty item that some people will use and others will dispose of because of the bothersome usage limitations that USB dongle poses. Once the potential pool of buyers dries up and has been exploited where will the revenue come from? Will the revenue possibly come from advertisements that will be displayed on the softphone. I seriously doubt it! The problem with this type of advertising model is that it can be misleading if a company like MagicJack states for example that 1 million ads are served a day by users of their softphone. This may in fact be true but what about the percentage people who legitimately use MagicJack on a dedicated thin client or computer that does not even have a display hooked up to. I personally would not spend my companies advertisement budget on such inaccurate claims. If the market for such advertisement truly exists why have I only seen ads pertaining to MagicJack on the softphone. Where are the advertisements? One may reasonable assume that MagicJack is waiting until all the techical difficulties have been worked and they can respresent the highest user figures inflating ads served on the softphone to potential advertisers. I don't believe this to be the case. Also one must factor the overall health of our economy into the advertising revenue outlook as companies are not foolishly tossing large sums of money into untested advertising vehicles at this time.
The second factor is overall VoIP market is becoming more competitive with every tick of the clock. Sipgate has just announce a service called Sipgate One which offers free USA phone numbers with many free forwarding options. Google Voice when publicly launched will crush the majority of the VoIP service providers for two simple reasons they give you a free USA phone number with several free forwarding options and several ways to place free local and long distance calls. Who will need to pay if Google rolls out it's Google Voice service in the seem accessible way they have offered their free G-Mail service to the masses. If Google Voice is not limited and truly accessible to everyone this changes everything the voice communications market period. I hope big Dan the man understands this and is not taking on the persona of carnival side show salesman selling a bottle of magical elixir for the easy buck! |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
|  reply to JPMorgan
said by JPMorgan :
Pandora,
What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS. They can state what ever they want in their TOS but that does not mean it can stand up in a court of law. What if the TOS dictated you could only use their service while sitting at the toilet? Would this mean sitting on your own toilet, a toilet at a friends house or just public toilets? A TOS is a wish list, subject to interpretation. So lets drop the TOS references because until it is supported in a court of law it means squat. The use of a ATA device to use their service that you paid for is a gift to them. Lets face it their little mj device is bordering on garbage. But when the service is used via a ATA device it is as good as any voip out there. MJ is threading on thin ice targeting the small percentage of people who actually use the service that way it supposed to be. People using the service via ATA are not using any more minutes or bandwidth.. This only opens up the way for another provider to swoop in again. MJ should of had an ATA device from the get go as a option. If they did, they would have dominated the voip market.
I couldn't disagree with your post more. You accept an agreement than proceed to justify violation of it. Sorry, that is a no sale.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL | I'm with Pandora on this. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to pandora
said by pandora  :I couldn't disagree with your post more. You accept an agreement than proceed to justify violation of it. Sorry, that is a no sale. I thought Morgan had a good point that you can't agree to *anything*.
It's like those disclaimers at parking garages or county fairs ("By accepting this ticket, you agree we are not responsible for any injury or damage..."). Those aren't binding. The operator is still bound to take "reasonable" steps to ensure safety and security.
IMO, a ToS is similar. Extreme requirements (or disclaimers) may not be enforceable. But, that doesn't mean everything is.
Unless a person believes EULAs (entirely) are not a valid contract. Like someone writing on the back of their car payment, "cashing this check is acceptance of payment in full." That's not a valid contract (or modification of contract) either.
That's what makes discussions about EULAs difficult:
1. People who argue against a particular element of a EULA actually oppose all EULAs as an unconstitutional usurpation of copyright (which has its origins in the constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.).
2. For those who accept EULAs, there's no clear guidelines about what is enforceable. If I agree to not reverse engineer, does that extend to me using pmdump and Wireshark to examine MJ's use of my memory and network? Or, only cracking their encryption?
Both of those positions are legitimate. But, they tend to talk past each other.
Mark |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
|  I think if you don't like TOS, you don't accept it. Then return the device to get a refund.
Many here seem to believe it is OK to hack, steal credentials and use them elsewhere. Then complain when their accounts are cancelled or they can no longer use a third party ATA.
MagicJack has a business plan. It involves cheap phone service, advertising and an active PC connection to their dongle. Subverting that by hacking, decoding, reverse engineering is probably no only a violation of TOS but a violation of the DMCA.
My guess is MagicJack can't be bothered to seek prosecution against every stupid kid who hacks credentials as they probably have no real assets. However, MagicJack is well within its rights to stop third party ATA access to their network. I applaud MagicJack for doing this.
The people who think violating agreements and law are OK if you don't get caught, may wish to wonder what the world would be like if everyone thought this way. We'd have anarchy and tremendous harm would be done to all.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by pandora :I think if you don't like TOS, you don't accept it. Then return the device to get a refund. The problem is, if a ToS said "By using this product you agree to give us your firstborn son" it wouldn't be enforceable. Or, if it said "you agree to be infected by malware."
You're right that a reasonable person would simply refuse to do business with such a company. But, those things still aren't valid contractual obligations.
Where it gets worse are the gray areas. Like my earlier example concerning reverse engineering. That's like obscenity. We all know it when we see it, but nobody can define exactly what is obscene.
I might agree to a EULA thinking it means I won't do anything to harm MJ's interest in their service. But, now the definition of "harm" is nebulous. If I view MJ in memory (pmdump) and over the wire (Wireshark), am I reverse engineering? Can MJ contractually require me not to examine its use of my computer?
What if my purpose is to discover how MJ fails over to other regional proxies so I can force that process to occur? Did I reverse engineer?
Dan might say I did because, to some degree I've harmed MJ by using the system in a way that wasn't intended (or configured my machine in a way to cause the system to behave unnaturally). This could lead to greater support costs when I invoke chat support, and forget that I blocked proxies and the failover isn't working as intended.
I don't think it's crystal clear.
1. Someone can agree to ToS that contain terms which are clearly unenforceable by simply recognizing they're unenforceable, and rejecting them as such (since that's what would happen in a court of law).
2. Someone can agree to ToS and believe they're abiding by the terms (such as my example of reverse engineering).
3. Someone can simply reject the ToS as an illegitimate contract. As illegitimate as someone entering into a "contract" with you by writing something on the back of a check. (That's not the current position of the legal system. But, it could be a valid act of civil disobedience in the interest of consumer activisim.).
said by pandora :Many here seem to believe it is OK to hack, steal credentials and use them elsewhere. Then complain when their accounts are canceled or they can no longer use a third party ATA. I agree. The term of service against using other devices is clearly reasonable (unlike giving up your firstborn child).
I'm just saying that Morgan's argument about the extremes (obviously unreasonable terms, or ambiguous terms that may be agreed to in good faith but understood in varied ways) is valid. Just not applicable in this case -- unless his real position is that EULAs shouldn't be enforceable, and should be opposed as a matter of civil disobedience.
In the latter case, it's just a cat and mouse game. Users will get away with what they can. And, it's MJ's responsibility to configure its system to enforce the terms of use. Regardless of whether we believe every element of EULAs are valid (or every EULA shouldn't be), it's obvious that the only way the term of service prohibiting non-MJ devices can be enforced is if MJ identifies and blocks such usage. Anything else is just an "honor" system.
In that sense MJ brought this problem on itself. The more people who used ATA devices with impunity (for a *year*), the more it appeared that MJ didn't care about that particular term of service.
This might be why MJ has been closing the loophole without terminating service. They recognize their own fault in allowing this to spin out of control. A EULA doesn't mean anything if your own actions indicate you don't care about it's terms.
In that sense, I don't really see this as a matter of the ToS. Using a non-MJ device (or softphone) is contrary to the clear words of the ToS. Maybe ToSs generally should be invalid contracts (contrary to current law). But, if MJ didn't want non-MJ devices using its service, it should have been more aggressive closing this loophole, or terminating service.
After letting it spin out of control as long as they did, I wish MJ would have waited until an ATA/BYOD product is available before closing rogue usage. I think that would have been a better gesture.
My guess is, the retards at SJLabs don't know how to close this usage. They're just trying different things with each release, then waiting to see if users find a way around it. They tried to close it with the Dec. 17 upgrade too.
Mark |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
| said by amigo_boy :The problem is, if a ToS said "By using this product you agree to give us your firstborn son" it wouldn't be enforceable. The MagicJack TOS refer to use of the MagicJack device and reserve to MagicJack rights it has under the DMCA.
Can we talk about that?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by pandora :said by amigo_boy :The problem is, if a ToS said "By using this product you agree to give us your firstborn son" it wouldn't be enforceable. The MagicJack TOS refer to use of the MagicJack device and reserve to MagicJack rights it has under the DMCA. Can we talk about that? Ok. But, wouldn't any DCMA claim be predicated on the intellectual property owner taking steps to enforce that?
I agree MJ is taking steps. At some point, ATA hackers won't be able to say they thought it was ok because MJ allowed it. And, they could be subject to a DCMA claim.
But, right now, MJ allowed a huge amount of ATA usage simply by not 1) disallowing such connections, or 2) terminating service of those attempting it.
At the moment (or, the past year), I don't see how DCMA would apply.
And, EULAs can contain more than DCMA-related items and still be valid. Likewise, they can contain items unrelated to DCMA and be invalid.
Mark |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
| At the moment, it appears MagicJack is identifying customers who are using ATA's. These today appear on this forum as people claiming they can register but not make calls.
Where MagicJack will go with that information is something only Dan knows. Will he cancel accounts? Will he sue? Will he ask the government to prosecute? I don't know. I do know this isn't drama I need or want in my life.
My guess is if some people do get notices or threats about litigation, we will see a cry fest on this board. Suddenly everyone who boasted about cracking or hacking MagicJack will become pure as new snow.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
 ·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to pandora
So do I violate the TOS when I have ads blocked from my host file?
Also, I fail to see how anything you said is a violation of the DCMA. Do you even know what the DCMA is?
quote:
My guess is MagicJack can't be bothered to seek prosecution against every stupid kid who hacks credentials as they probably have no real assets. However, MagicJack is well within its rights to stop third party ATA access to their network. I applaud MagicJack for doing this.
Why do you applaud this? Magic Jack made money of people who bought it just to use it with an ATA. If there is no way to hack it to use an ATA then MagicJack should refund them for the USB device and prorate their yearly fee. This way no one is out of anything and Magic Jack can sell the USB device to another person.
quote:
The people who think violating agreements and law are OK if you don't get caught, may wish to wonder what the world would be like if everyone thought this way. We'd have anarchy and tremendous harm would be done to all.
Agreements??? I use magic jack and I can tell you I read no agreements or agreed to anything. You can call them rules, but not agreements. TOS's are not always legal and have no power. They would have to be challenged and hold up in court to really make them legal.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
