Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mobile Game Trojan Calls the South Pole

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the if-a-penguin-answers dept.

Crime 195

UgLyPuNk writes with an excerpt from Gamepron.com: "Freeware games can actually cost you more money than their pay-to-play cousins, as mobile gamers in the UK have learned. A 'booby-trapped' version of a popular Windows Mobile game has been sneakily spending their money while they sleep – by dialing phone numbers in the Antarctic behind their backs."

cancel ×

195 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

yikes (5, Funny)

iwannasexwithyourmom (1804754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415018)

aw man, that's pretty cold.

Re:yikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415140)

Mod parent up--brrrrr!

Re:yikes (4, Funny)

PDX (412820) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415284)

What next downloading penguin porn? That would be appropriate for a Linux virus.

Re:yikes (4, Funny)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415482)

No, that would be perfect for a Windows virus.

Adds insult to injury, with a dash of salt.

Re:yikes (-1, Offtopic)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415294)

replying to undo moderation, where the fuck did the button go to let me do it without this shit

Re:yikes (0, Troll)

love2putmypenisthere (1804486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415574)

you most certainly love the cock.

LOL (1, Insightful)

wulfmans (794904) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415022)

Windows virus writers strike again.

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

vivian (156520) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415166)

Crappy brain dead design strikes again.
Why on earth are mobile phone apps even allowed to make calls in the first place, without some sort of specificaly made user authorization?

Surely that should be something that has to be done on a per-application basis, and only after the user has allowed it by entering an authorization password to allow the app to access those parts of the phone!?
There should also be a way to limit the number or costs of calls (per application) that is built in at the lowest possible level too.

Re:LOL (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415258)

Thats way too complicated IMO. All that should be allowed is sending a number to the dialer program. Then the user can decide to call that number or not.

Re:LOL (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415486)

the problem is that a secure design would show a popup like:

do you want to call this 00431341424345 number with your modem (yes/no/always allow this number) every time the modem driver engage

instead windows 7/vista shows us a popup like:

the application solitaire.exe requires you authorization to continue (yes/no)

and that popup is so common that users click trough it without a second thought.

Re:LOL (1)

promythyus (1519707) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415754)

but it does stop phones from dialing without *ANY* user interaction (besides installing the program), which is what this program is doing... It's your own damn fault if you let a call go through because you pressed "yes" without thinking, but it's hardly one's fault for installing a seemingly innocent program, then finding it has racked up a massive bill on your -once monthly!- statement.

Re:LOL (1)

kasimbaba (1813770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415846)

We're talking about Windows Mobile, not Windows 7/Vista.

Re:LOL (2, Informative)

eugene2k (1213062) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415288)

>Why on earth are mobile phone apps even allowed to make calls in the first place, without some sort of specificaly made user authorization?
For the record, when a Symbian app tries to make a call or connect to the internet the user is presented with a dialog asking whether to allow the app to connect/make a call. No idea why Microsoft decided this is not needed.

Re:LOL (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415400)

Might be using some software bug to circumvent the prompt but yeah.

Re:LOL (3, Insightful)

jimthehorsegod (1210220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416346)

... software bug ....

Oh I hardly think that likely...

Re:LOL (0, Troll)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415780)

No idea why Microsoft decided this is not needed.

User frienliness

In any case, the victims "deserve" what they got. Don't they have any geek friends, and didn't any of these warn them about Windows Mobile?

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415298)

ATDT

Terminal, still the best app :)

Re:LOL (4, Insightful)

FearForWings (1189605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415330)

The simple answer is that the phone companies hope you'll be to embarrass to contest the charges.

Simmilar examples can be found in:

1.) Back in the good old days of dial-up, there were adult sites that would give "free" access assuming you (stupidly/unknowingly) dialed into a south-pacific island nation number that had a north American prefix, with your unlimited long distance account.*
2.) All the cell joke and ring tone numbers you can "get for free" that are/were advertised on TV.

*my brother found out about this the hard way

Re:LOL (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416160)

All the cell joke and ring tone numbers you can "get for free" that are/were advertised on TV.

That's generally known as false advertising and fraud, at least in countries with sensible regulatory systems. Our cellphone/ring tone scams here in the UK are all rather more advanced for this reason...

Re:LOL (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415378)

Well the phone networks would probably be more inclined to promote Microsoft's phones if their users spend $900/mo more on average than everyone else :P

Re:LOL (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415422)

No doubt. My blackberry asks if I want to allow software to access the internet, bluetooth, gps and dial the phone each and every time (unless I mark that software safe to do so on its own). So if I am playing a game and it wants to dial my phone, I'm going to deny it and then wonder "wtf?!" Then I'd probably remove it. Not saying that RIM are especially insightful in their creating the OS that way. I'm saying it's plain obvious that it should be exactly like that and that it is unimaginably stupid for Windows Mobile devices to behave in that manner. And if it happened because the security was circumvented? Once again, sucks to be a Windows user, but that is par for the course with Windows. Stop using it! When I see a "cool new Windows mobile phone" I stop seeing it as cool in pretty much the same way I react when I see a cute little black and white animal and realize it's a skunk... back away...back away...

Re:LOL (1)

machine321 (458769) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416524)

Almost all BB apps I've tried will grab whatever perms they want during the install (via innocuous OS prompt, something like "Do you want to set permissions for this app?").

With that said, the BB perms are pretty granular. If you don't set the perms, when you run it you'll get prompts like "Allow [program] to access maliciousad.doubleclick.net?" and you can "deny always".

Re:LOL (5, Informative)

profplump (309017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415502)

And decent phones do. On a BlackBerry, for example, you have to specifically authorize each application to access to the voice radio, IP connections (as a whole or per-domain), GPS, address book, etc. It's easy to use and provides great protection, not to mention the instant insight into what a program is actually doing (i.e. "Why does this free calculator want to connect to warez.ru"). Why WindowsCE doesn't do such things is a complete mystery.

Re:LOL (1)

Bugamn (1769722) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415844)

Why WindowsCE doesn't do such things is a complete mystery.

Are you sure it is a mistery?

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415858)

There's no mystery. Windows CE is crap.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415906)

A lot of phones have the opposite problem (from game developers view): every time you access the network, every time you use camera, every time you use the filesystem, it will pop up a confirmation. EVERY time as is 25 times per second (if you could dismiss the stuff fast enough, that is) if you're trying to do realtime stuff. Unless your application is signed with the proper permissions, of course, in which case anything goes and the user doesn't even need to know about it.

The security model is just completely fucktarded.

Re:LOL (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416320)

Android also has finegrained security permissions and does stick up a warning before installation of what the app is permitted to do. But I think it would be very easy for people to click through these. I think certain permissions are more dangerous that others, especially in combination and I would like to see phones more prominently warn upfront and also when the app tries to invoke them.

Re:LOL (1)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415518)

Hammer, meet nail head.

You are dead on with that. As much fun as it is for the /. community to say "oh look, another WINDOWS VIRUS!" and start bashing MS this is a screw up at the application level, not the OS.

Looks like I'm going to have to save my MS bashing comments for another day, bummer.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415840)

I think you missed his point entirely. Security permissions should be handled on a per-application basis BY THE OS. How is a random application going to enforce security on itself to prevent itself from abusing the system?

As other's have pointed out, RIM's BlackBerry does that in a great and simple way. When you install the app, it tells you what permissions the app is requesting and you can allow all of it, some of it, or none of it, depending on what you want.

This is absolutely a Microsoft screw-up, and even with their history I still have a hard time believeing their phones don't work in a similar manner to my BlackBerry.

Re:LOL (1)

kasimbaba (1813770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415868)

There's no screw up at the application level. The trojan app is doing what it's designed to do, which is screw the users out of their money. It should be up to the OS to ensure that the user is protected from said app.

Re:LOL (4, Informative)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415672)

It's how .NET CF's telephony API works. You call a function, send it a number as a parameter, and it dials it. As long as I can remember, that's pretty much been how you call that particular .NET CF function. At least, that's how it worked in 2005 with .NET CF 1.0. So basically, that particular hole has been there for probably about 5 years. Since most mobile phones run a slightly older than latest version of .NET CF, I'd imagine that quite a few phones would be vulnerable to that. That said, the main reason it doesn't prompt for verification is because a lot of big companies, carriers, major third party dev houses, etc. most likely demanded that they be able to "phone home" seamlessly and quietly for various reasons or they wouldn't support their platform.

I know, you're probably thinking "what reasons"? Well, from some of the vendors I've worked with, it ranges from location based information to cell phone recovery tracking to remote programming. None of it is absolutely necessary given current available technology and that you can do all that stuff over the data network, but when Windows CE was originally designed, data networks weren't quite as useful.

Re:LOL (1)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415692)

Whoops, meant to say "when .NET CF for Windows CE was originally designed", not just Windows CE. It's a difference of about 5 or 6 years. 2 pint mugs of White Russians can do that to a guy.

Did penguins answer ? (5, Funny)

Arvisp (1626837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415026)

and what did they say ?

Re:Did penguins answer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415148)

They're not sure, all they heard was: "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!"

Re:Did penguins answer ? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415514)

That guy with the whistle is calling again.

Re:Did penguins answer ? (5, Funny)

Xaduurv (1685700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415178)

Seriously Linus, don't you think you're taking the whole penguin thing a bit too far? Your OS is better already! You don't need to get all supervillain on us...

Re:Did penguins answer ? (1)

vbotka (1185015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415320)

The answer is pretty clear. How can you be sure the program is save ? You have to check the source code ! Generally the open source program is safer than the proprietary one, because the source code is available and thousands eyes observe it. Freeware does not necessarily provide the source code. Freeware only tells you that you do not have to pay. The main goal of this article is to mix open source and freeware and spread fierce uncertainty and doubt (FUD). Actually nothing new.

Re:Did penguins answer ? (0, Offtopic)

DreadPirateShawn (1246208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415390)

"Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you..."

Re:Did penguins answer ? (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415678)

No penguins answered. The only sound they heard was Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

Re:Did penguins answer ? (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415746)

Probably something along the lines of "Nope, not seeing any bees around here either".

Stop Calling Me, Damnit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415028)

It sucks enough here with the cold, now I have the phones ringing off the hook!!

OS name appropriate - WinCE (3, Funny)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415056)

I always thought Microsoft made a bit of a branding error when it came to naming their mobile OS. "WinCE" just invites all kinds of negative associations, and stories like this one just add to the painful image.

Cheers,

Re:OS name appropriate - WinCE (4, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415236)

On the other hand, having programmed for windows CE, it may actually be the most descriptive name the could find.

Re:OS name appropriate - WinCE (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415474)

I've been writing for Windows CE for so long, I've got a permanent furrow on my brow.

Re:OS name appropriate - WinCE (3, Funny)

splutty (43475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416106)

As we all know, 6 months of programming in Windows makes you want to jump out of one (YMMV)

Re:OS name appropriate - WinCE (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415700)

*winces at the pun*

Re:OS name appropriate - WinCE (0, Troll)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415732)

Dude. That was funny 10 YEARS AGO.

Re:OS name appropriate - WinCE (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32416180)

Nerds can enjoy the same joke over and over for periods much longer than 10 years. It means we don't need to spend a lot of money on entertainment, assuming of course that we actually did spend money on entertainment instead of pirating it. Did I mention that peg legs and eye patches ARRR still funny, too?

Let's play a game... (4, Funny)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415058)

....how about a nice game of Ice Station Zebra?

Hahaha!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415076)

This is what happens when you herp derp derp Android & Windows... On my iPhone at least I don't always have to herp derp herp derp. Apple always derp herp. Apple iPhone Apple Apple Apple Jobs 3GS herp derp. Apple store always derp better quality apps herp derp stuff like this happening a lot more in the future.

Cost of the calls (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415090)

Just like to point out that as the UK is not part of the eurozone euros are not the currency of the UK; the cost is roughly £4 per minute (which equates to roughly 5 euro or roughly 6 US dollars).

Wait I'm confused (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415120)

So I've been reading Slashdot for a couple of years now and I'm thoroughly confused about how we decide which stories deserve the community's notice. A few days ago a young geek asked the community for advice on coming out ( http://slashdot.org/submission/1249026/Coming-Out-For-Geeks ) and the struggles of being being different in both within geek culture and wider society as a whole - something I'm sure most of the community could offer some really insightful commentary on. A day later and it's buried under the weigh of scam sites, advertisments, random idles, and this.

Okay I get that there's a security worry, and as computer users we should all be worried. But how has that risen to the top when the other story dissapeared without any notice whatsoever? Should we be gaming the system so as to post at the optimal time to attract attention? Is it just something we have to shrug off and ignore? I thought "News That Mattered" was as much a declaration of a philosophical basis as anything else - a commitment to serve the needs and interests of a self-selected community of geeks. One of our community had a life changing question, one that really got to the heart of what it means to be one of us, and we ignored him.

Re:Wait I'm confused (0, Offtopic)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415304)

So I've been reading Slashdot for a couple of years now and I'm thoroughly confused about how we decide which stories deserve the community's notice.

What happens is kwadson looks at the story, and if it's anti-MS, he posts it. (This is not a complete description of the process.)

(And to be fair, this story is much less flamebait than some of the FUD that he's put on the front page.)

Re:Wait I'm confused (-1, Offtopic)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415324)

Just because you're gay doesn't mean anyone on slashdot cares. It's also a pretty stupid question as the issues of "coming out" are no different then with non-geeks. This isn't a homosexual oriented site. This is a tech site. Hence why windows mobile virus is on the main page and "I'm a gay teen, should I out myself?" isn't.

One really has to wonder... (3, Insightful)

Lord Artemis (1141381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415126)

...how they even *found* numbers in the Antarctic. It's not like you can set up a phone line down there, and I can't imagine many people would have occasion to call the Antarctic.

Re:One really has to wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415182)

Yeah that's silly, we all know Santa's in the north pole!

Re:One really has to wonder... (1)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415206)

There's enough phone numbers down there it has its country code for mobiles, and that's supposedly what this malware does. It dials +88234 numbers. It probably just wardials numbers in certain blocks.

I don't know how UK mobile providers do it, but I had to call my cell provider (Sprint) to enable international dialing before I could dial past +1.

Still it is a hell of a lot cheaper than wardialing +870 (Inmarsat) numbers. Last I heard, those were going for 10Euro/min on the wholesale market.

Re:One really has to wonder... (1)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415256)

I stand corrected. 88234 is not just for mobiles in Antarctica. It is a country code assigned "Global Networks Switzerland".

Re:One really has to wonder... (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415274)

I don't know how UK mobile providers do it, but I had to call my cell provider (Sprint) to enable international dialing before I could dial past +1.

My bet is that this is a US specific thing. Certainly in Australia new SIM cards can by default dial any number on Earth (and for all I know, some not on Earth). International roaming OTH is not always enabled by default and I have been bitten by this a few times.

Re:One really has to wonder... (4, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415318)

    You know, I was curious about this too. I found this page [countrycode.org] which shows there to be no phones (land lines nor cell) in the Antarctic. Wikipedia has a reference to calls being relayed over HAM radio only. They also mention that Scott Base does have a satellite relay for telephone calls [wikipedia.org] . It seems they do have a country code assigned (672), so I'd suspect that someone got a number assigned, regardless of the fact that they aren't really there.

    What I don't exactly see is how they're profiting off the number. I know some long distance calls act as premium rate numbers (like dialing a 900 number in the US), where a profit can be had from the initial connection and the minutes on the maintained connection. It should be a simple matter to follow the money back to the source of the problem, and prosecute them accordingly. It's becoming rare that pranks like this are done just as pranks. There's usually a financial interest in it.

Re:One really has to wonder... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415342)

What I don't exactly see is how they're profiting off the number

Probably doing it for the lulz.

Re:One really has to wonder... (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415862)

absolutely... who really knows what the phone numbers to the antarctic are? The writers of this torjan likely didn't so they sat around for a few nights investigating it... likely chatting to each other on irc describing their angst in finding the numbers... and then after a few successful prank calls to the south pole confirmed, all hell commenced :-) Laugh...

Re:One really has to wonder... (3, Informative)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415420)

+672 is not just for Antarctica, though. It is shared with Norfolk Island (a sort-of part of the commonwealth of Australia).

Re:One really has to wonder... (4, Interesting)

stonertom (831884) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415668)

Wholesale phone minutes is a sleazy business. If you have a good route to an obscure country making loads of calls to it would probably pay off.

Profiting is the easy part (4, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415808)

What I don't exactly see is how they're profiting off the number.

There are plenty of providers of international premium rate numbers that will ask no questions about the callers and deposit a percentage of the call termination fees into a bank account at the end of the month - the article mentions they used Somalia ($0.14/min) [getpremiumnumbers.com] , Dominica (€0.45/min) [getpremiumnumbers.com] , Antarctica (€0.46/min) [getpremiumnumbers.com] . The provider I linked to was the top of Google's search - you can probably find others offering higher rates.

It should be a simple matter to follow the money back to the source of the problem

Not really. These crimes cross multiple legal jurisdictions, and there is no evidence to tie the trojan writer to the person profiting from the calls. Authorities in, say, Switzerland, will not break the banking secrecy of an individual just because they profited from running a premium rate phone number.

I remember hearing a story back in the early 90s about a French guy who had over 30 land lines installed in his house, and had set up an automated blueboxing dialler to call international premium rate numbers 24/7. Allegedly, he was earning $1.50/min from each call, and he quickly became a millionaire.

Re:Profiting is the easy part (5, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416204)

Funny, back when I used to work in toll fraud at one of the Big Three, we regularly had overseas calls in the $3-4 range per minute. A popular destination was Vanuatu along with some other Pacific islands, easily the most expensive of them all. I never really understood porn over voice. Any time I saw the country codes for Pacific islands, I blocked them immediately. Another popular destination for toll fraud was 809, which was part of NANPA but still counted as overseas (Caribbean islands) and thus ran up big charges quickly. The most expensive fee per minute I ever saw was a puzzling destination of INMARSAT. What kind of country is that, I thought to myself as I dialed the number to check what it was. Seaman Mumble picked up the call, it was the bridge of a Navy destroyer! INMARSAT was/is a satellite communications provider for ships at sea. $5.50 per minute, the highest I ever saw.

The point of this rambling post is that toll fraud seems much cheaper these days. Fifty cents a minute to Antarctica seems like nothing compared to rates back in the day.

Re:One really has to wonder... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415928)

+88234 is allocated to our company Global Networks Switzerland AG who operates a GSM network in Antarctica. The +88234 allocation is published by the ITU in the E.164 standard somewhere around 2003. As Antarctica is not considered a country according to the united nation but international territories, the +88234 allocation is out of the shared country codes block which is where you also find the satellite networks such as GlobalStar, Thuraya etc and also networks operating on Cruise Ships and similar. This is the main reason why operators charge a fortune. They don't differentiate +88234 in pricing from other networks in +882xx or +881xx which means you get charged sattelite connections even though our connection is much cheaper (and they make a hell of a lot of money off you). The connectivity to Antarctica goes over satellite to the edge of Antarctica to a research station (you can't reach the center over satellite). There is a second allocation +672 for antarctica for the australian Scott's base which is basically some kind of areacode of Australia. We have nothing to do with that network.

About the abuse of the number for so called auto-dialers, malware in games etc, please be aware that we are not involved in this. People somewhere in the middle do break out those calls and terminate it illegally on their equipment charging termination fees and making money of it. Those calls do not end up on our switch where they would supposed to go. The numbers used in the dialers are not in use in our network so calling them would result in a "unallocated number" error and you would not have been charged.

If you get charged for calls to +88234-8.... complain to the operator as it clearly points to shortstopping by a 3rd party.
Our legitimate users use mainly +88234-7xxx xx xx with a few allocations in +88234-4... and +88234-5...

Regards

Andreas Fink
CEO
Global Networks Switzerland AG
afink at gsm.aq

Re:One really has to wonder... (4, Interesting)

Lumbre (1822486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415392)

...how they even *found* numbers in the Antarctic. It's not like you can set up a phone line down there, and I can't imagine many people would have occasion to call the Antarctic.

I don't see how you can't imagine phones in Antarctica. It's not like there aren't dozens are hundreds of researchers down there. It doesn't have to be a physical wired connection. It could be a phone connecting to a satellite. As another example of advanced technology in Antarctica, you can find an ATM down there [wellsfargo.com] . It's pretty much a normal ATM which they service every couple years. Think abstractly my fellow /.er

Re:One really has to wonder... (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415632)

There will be satellite phones from networks with a polar orbit, such as Iridium, but not networks like Inmarsat which has a geostationary orbit. That's why it is so expensive.

Those pesky penguins (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415134)

I guess this is their revenge for Happy Feet

Could someone please post the phone number (1)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415262)

I seriously want to call this number. My guess is that the would not have a transoceanic sea line, so it would have to be an Iridium phone that picked up on the other end.
Anyone have details?

If the penguins could get a pay phone set up in Antarctica they could make a killing calling 1-800 numbers all day.

Re:Could someone please post the phone number (5, Funny)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415292)

+88234-86-7-53-0-9

Re:Could someone please post the phone number (1)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415328)

Oh, and you're correct about the lack of undersea cable. Everything that goes down there has to be transported on satellite, and even that gets iffy at times, especially at places south of McMurdo. Connection to the Amundsen-Scott has been done by a combination of geosynchronous birds in inclined orbits and by medium-earth-orbit birds in highly eccentric Molinya-type orbits.

Re:Could someone please post the phone number (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415364)

you inconsiderate bastard...
we were trying to get some sleep down here

Re:Could someone please post the phone number (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415412)

I assume thats the only way to stay warm at this time of year. So how is the hibernation going?

Re:Could someone please post the phone number (4, Funny)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415694)

Well that's helpful. I tried googling the phone number to see what I could find.

Google told me the answer was 88,079.

Thanks Google.

no phone numbers in antartic (1)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415268)

According to Wikipedia, there is no international dial code for the antartic [wikipedia.org]

Re:no phone numbers in antartic (1, Insightful)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415336)

According to Wikipedia, there is no international dial code for the antartic

That's because Antarctica has no nations to be international with. There are however plenty of research stations there with people who like to talk to mom n dad on the holidays.

Re:no phone numbers in antartic (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415396)

You are retarded. That article says "In Antarctica dialing is dependent on the parent country of each base:", ie: there is no main country code for Antarctica, but there are phone numbers, the country code used depends on the research base.

Re:no phone numbers in antartic (5, Informative)

pookemon (909195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415424)

I originally modded you up - and then I did a search of my own.

http://countrycode.org/antarctica [countrycode.org]

Seems Wikipedia is not right about everything - go figure.

Re:no phone numbers in antartic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415536)

IDD (International Direct Dialing) is not the same as the country code. I think the gp assumed that IDD was the country code and that the malware authors chose Antarctica because it would not have an obvious international code at the beginning. However, IDD is the prefix used to designate the country you are calling FROM, not TO... for the USA the IDD is 011, however, the country code is 1.

Anyway, Wikipedia actually gets it right, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_Antarctica
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_calling_codes (see section "Locations with no country code")

Re:no phone numbers in antartic (3, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415570)

That country code is for Australia (they have one code for Australia proper, and one for external territories, which includes the Antarctic station). Most countries use their own country code for their Antarctic territories, but Australia is the exception. The only people you'll get with that country code are Australians, and none of the other research stations, so I'm not sure I'd say that Antarctica has its own country code.

Re:no phone numbers in antartic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415528)

O'rly?
http://www.gsm.aq/ [www.gsm.aq]

And apparently they are not happy at all that someone abused their range:
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/8823462479 [whocallsme.com] - second message from the bottom.

But that all can't be because wp doesn't list them...

as General Disarray says, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415366)

Simpsons did it.

UgLyPuNk (1)

UgLyPuNk (1166251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415408)

http://www.wtng.info/wtng-672-au.html [wtng.info] Base Old format New format Casey +672 12 8xx +672 12 8xxx Davis +672 10 6xx +672 10 6xxx Macquarie Island +672 13 9xx +672 13 9xxx Mawson +672 11 7xx +672 11 7xxx

What to the hackers gain? (4, Interesting)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415472)

I saw this on the BBC website too, but neither article tells me how it is to the advantage of the hackers to give random people big telephone bills. Do the hackers own some little phone company which the calls are going through? Do they have some overpriced premium number connecting to a computer in Scott Base which recites astrology readings in a synthetic voice?

More seriously: why should the phone OS allow a game to initiate phone calls? (I really hope the answer is 'the OS has a bug' rather than 'that's how they designed it.')

Re:What to the hackers gain? (3, Informative)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415552)

but neither article tells me how it is to the advantage of the hackers to give random people big telephone bills.

Maybe they get lonely down there.

Re:What to the hackers gain? (4, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415864)

This is almost triggering nostalgia. I remember the good old days where viruses were actually malicious to the system they were installed on. None of this run silently in the background bot zombie we'll use your resources if we need it to further our own gain crap.

In the good old days a virus just wasn't a virus if it didn't format your C: on some arbitrary birthday of the writer, or nuke your master boot record, or even copy itself to the master boot record so that when you started up the computer said Suck It! Rather than displaying the Windows 3.11 loading screen. Man it sucked re-installing dos and windows from floppies.

Re:What to the hackers gain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32416110)

Right On! Virusin' Old Skool! 1337 Vandalism because you can!

Ah, the good old days.

If I think calmly, odds probably go on it being some establishment drone trying to put fear in the hearts of those who consider using freeware, but it's somehow more heartening to think it's some high school anarchist trying to stick it to the man.

Re:What to the hackers gain? (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415866)

neither article tells me how it is to the advantage of the hackers to give random people big telephone bills

International premium rate numbers are big business, see my other reply [slashdot.org] . Here's another provider [premiumtlc.com] offering 1+ euro a minute. The lines usually cost a couple of hundred Euros to set up, so it's easy to make the money back if you can get people to call them.

Re:What to the hackers gain? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415976)

From the sounds of things, the hackers cracked what was originally a shareware app. Putting in a money-wasting dialler may just be their way of saying "if you want to pirate games with the assistance of hackers, get ready for some serious bullshit".

Hacked by penguins (1)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415496)

Hernk the planet squaaack!

Permissions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415504)

Symbian phones at least require you to explicitly give discrete permissions to the programs you put on them. Do you want to allow access to the gprs? do you want to allow read acess to personal data? to memory stick? write access? sms? calls? stupid for windows phone to let them randomly allow or stupid for people to give a game those permissions.

To install or not install (3, Interesting)

krischik (781389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415592)

One of the problems with mobile apps is the "allow and install" vs "deny and not install". You read the list of privileged operations and you are left with a tough decision and no middle ground - which would be "deny and still install". If I read the list of requested privileged applications I often get a shiver.

Considering how often links get slashdotted (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415666)

You'd think SOMEONE would actually tell us the name of the game responsible?
Seems like that should have been in the headline or story.
("3D Anti Terrorist Action" by the way)

But no, I suppose it's more important to emphasise that it's Windows.

Slashdot. Old school journalism at its finest.

("There's a chemical in your home which may kill you. We'll tell you what it is, after these important messages")

Coriolis Effect (1)

Torrance (1599681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415674)

Which way do your toilets flush down there? Clockwise or anti-clockwise?

Still Think Apple Moderates Too Harshly? ;) (3, Funny)

Udigs (1072138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415758)

Running any application on your phone from untrusted sources produces unexpected results. Clip at 11.

Re:Still Think Apple Moderates Too Harshly? ;) (1)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415950)

My thought exactly!

Diego Garcia (4, Informative)

ei4anb (625481) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416212)

The island of Diego Garcia used to be a favourite for such phone scams. Phone companies have international agreements to tranfer money, a portion of what they bill for international calls. In the case of the scam calls to Diego Garcia the money could be siphoned off by middlemen because Diego Garcia did not have agreements with all phone companies (bad credit rating?) and the money was routed indrectly. Something similar is happening here. The Irish Communications Regulator blocked direct dial calls to a list of countries to cut down on such fraud http://news.cnet.com/Ireland-launches-phone-fraud-crackdown/2100-1036_3-5377387.html [cnet.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>