Beware, Spoofing CLI on 1899 VOIP

Paul_Varjak

Some months ago it was suggested that telephone numbers could be 'spoofed' for outgoing CLI on 1899's VOIP service. Very handy to hide true phone number!

But there is a catch!

1899 seems to recognise customers from their registered phone numbers. I used a 'spoof' CLI of 01000000000 - so that I could hide my real number.

The problem is, someone else has also registered the same number and not paid their 1899 bill! So 1899 have ceased my service, thinking that I owe them money!

So, beware, if you spoof CLI on 1899, you may lose service altogether!!

thefirs

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Don't 1899 carry out a check on their own records when you register a number to be recognised? It would create a conflict in their number recognition system if the same (real) number were to be registered twice.

And if this is not the case then any number - real or imaginary - can be second-registered, the primary registrant could then claim that someone else registered it and that it's the other person's bill.

BexTech

I have several spoofed numbers, that I set up as soon as 1899 VoIP started, when I tried entering certain numbers I got the message the number was already registered.

bbb_uk

Can you use numbers that haven't been registered with VoIP but still exist on POTS (plain old telephone system) phones like the home office's geographical number, etc?

thefirs

I should imagine that you could register any number that isn't already on their database of registered numbers.

Bear in mind though that any person calling from a number with that CLI can then make calls at your expense...and...it would be an offence to pass yourself off as someone else. A law-enforcement body such as the Home Office would certainly pursue any such activity with vigour.

bbb_uk

Thanks.

I have no intention on doing this (I don't even use VoIP) but was concerned that just how easy it is to change a CLI.

I would have thought this be illegal (fraud or something) and I would of have thought (well expected) that OfCOM would do something about this but obviously not.