News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'. Parent comment

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by mikeash on Monday October 17, 2016 @01:18PM (#12727026)
It would be pretty weird if SMS were available but not data.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by FireBeyond on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:20PM (#12727695)
No it wouldn't. SMS is actually a control message on the voice stream (my words might not be precise). You can send SMS with no data connectivity.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by mikeash on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:30PM (#12727813)
I meant in this particular case it would be weird, because it would mean that the perpetrators are somehow blocking mobile data but neglected to block SMS.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by FireBeyond on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:45PM (#12727953)
Right, and there are ways you can consider the validity of either method, but to block SMS would mean blocking voice.

Perhaps a temporary data hiccup might be a more realistic solution (or simulation, if malicious) versus "Call cannot be connected".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by mikeash on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:02PM (#12728164)
I think a state actor could filter at will, since they could MITM the connection and pass stuff through selectively. Not that I can see why they would bother. Although I can't see why they would take this action at all, which is why I don't believe the story in the first place.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by FireBeyond on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:12PM (#12728290)
Pretty much, agreed.
[ Parent | on HN ]