Talk:SMS spoofing

Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

No, SMS spoofing is not just used maliciously[edit]

There are, of course, legitimate reasons for SMS spoofing. Eg. you want a foxytag account, and don't have a mobile phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgombos (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM[edit]

In the fourth section, it says about mobile phone spam. This has nothing to do with SMS Spoofing, maybe move it to a spam related article. --Jenkinsp 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permission[edit]

It looks like that the author of this article has given its permission to be used as a source here.--Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felony[edit]

Can someone cite an article that explains what countries this is a illegal in? It's a bold statement to just say that it's a felony.

In the US, there is an attempt to outlaw sms spoofing in bill S.030.. but it has not passed yet AFAIK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgombos (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A user may also modify the phone's settings so that only messages from authorized numbers are allowed[edit]

so why don't phones always some like that?

and what's an authorized number any way? how does it know? >_< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.113.96 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not up to the providers to decide who their customers can and cannot communicate with. There would be a public outcry if manufactures of cellphones (or carriers) began blocking "unknown" numbers without the user first opting in.

In response to your second question, an authorized number is generally one that exists in the users contacts. Eliwins (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Lakhaney, a FreeLance Information Security Consultant Found a major vulnerability in Facebook, He used SMS spoofing to change people's Status by sending spoofed SMS from Victim's Number (spoofed) to the standard Facebook status update number. According to him the vulnerability still exists in Facebook.

Edit request from 209.87.254.222, 28 March 2011[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

On SMS Spoofing, the last URL links to a page that isn't there. The Threat of SMS Spoofing:Prevent Revenue Loss by Securing The Network Against Fraudulent Attack

It should either be fixed to point to a valid page, or be removed.

209.87.254.222 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you have another link to put in its place, let us know. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why possible?[edit]

This seems like a huge security hole. Does the network really accept SMS with arbitrary sender id/phone number? As the phone's and SIM's identities are known, this seems unnecessary. Those with a legitimate need to use alternative identities could have these noted in a registry. These issues are not discussed here, nor (what I can see) in the articles about the SMS protocols or Mobile security. --LPfi (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]