VoIP Scammers Wake Up Industry Providers making security a priority The recently exposed VoIP scam we've covered has prompted several tier 1 VoIP providers to do full system audits to check for similar scams, reports Light Reading. The scam, which netted the fraudsters a million in bogus connection fees, has apparently fired a warning shot over the VoIP's industry bow, letting them know that security should not be an afterthought.
|
  GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Duh?! In this industry, how can security not be considered one of the top considerations? Scams abound everywhere. | |
|  | | | Re: Duh?! Security costs money. | |
| | | | | Re: Duh?! Lack of security costs even more. These costs are simply hidden so it appears that having proper security measures in place is more costly. | |
| | | | | | Re: Duh?! said by BigDaddy05:Lack of security costs even more. These costs are simply hidden so it appears that having proper security measures in place is more costly. You seem to forget the short-sightedness of corporate America. | |
|
| | | Another reason they need PSC regulation and fines for stupidity! | |
| | |  startshotWhere's Da Beaver?
join:2001-05-07
Prince Albert, SK | Re: Duh?! woohooo woo hoo hoo ..... | |
|
| | The Unecrypted Nature of SIP Scares Me The unencrypted nature of SIP scares me. You pass all your authentication in the clear. Moreover, I wouldn't be suprised to learn of voice recognition programs which start looking for conversations with key phrases, and/or filtering programs that look for calls to banking centers, etc. | |
|
1 edit | And so, it begins
Seems like those who jumped right on the VOIP bandwagon weren't as smart as they thought they were. All they saw was the so called lower cost, just like usual. Anything to save a penny and damn the torpedos. Twits just never learn.
now, they will have to go through endless 'upgrades", etc, and will end up spending more in lost time and effore than it would have cost to just stay with a DEPENDABLE and SECURE POTS phone line.
Suckers. | |
|
| |
|
|
