This news tracks with reports elsewhere that this technology to block cell phone usage in prisons is problematic. An effective contraband cell phone strategy should focus on reducing demand, in addition to restricting supply.

Corrections officials have shared with us the fact that at least 40% of the calls intercepted by these systems are to phone numbers on inmates’ approved calling lists. We suspect that an even higher percentage are to other family and loved ones not on the limited list of allowed contacts and are also non-criminal wireless usage.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) cannot say it was not warned that the high-tech system it was deploying to stop rampant, forbidden cellphone use by inmates in the state’s 34 prisons probably would not work.

The 2012 report by the California Council on Science and Technology said the system wouldn’t block 4G, Wi-Fi, MiFi, Skype, text messages or satellite transmissions. It can’t triangulate radio signals, limiting its effectiveness in identifying specific phones or users. And radio frequency leakage could interfere with regular cellphone usage, affecting the public’s access to 911 operators.

But the state forged ahead, installing the system at 18 prisons before deciding it wasn’t working.

The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that the department has halted expansion while options are pondered. “It’s been difficult to make sure the technology can handle those upgrades,” CDCR spokeswoman Dana Simas told AP. “Whether we’re going to scrap it or whether we can find solutions to these issues, that will be determined later.” “What remains to be determined is if the constant upgrades performed by the vendor will be sustainable in the future,” Simas said.

The report had called the state’s long-term investment in untested technology “unwise” and premature, especially in light of the fact that it really doesn’t even know how many illegal cellphones are floating around the prison system. The council recommended using airport-style screening systems for all personnel and having private carriers identify and disable illicitly obtained phones.

“In point of fact, there are no prisons anywhere in the United States using a functional managed access system to control cell phone use,” the report said.

Prison officials go to great lengths to prevent cellphones, often stolen, from being slipped into the prison by employees or visitors. It doesn’t work very well. Charles Manson, a high-profile 81-year-old killer, was recently caught twice with cellphones used to call around the country. A visitor was caught with a third phone meant for him, in a hallowed out boot heel.

Global Tel-Link’s blocking system made it into 18 of the state’s 34 prisons, and for now that seems as far as it’ll go, because cell phone companies of 2015 are using drastically different networks than the companies of 2011. Between 4G and Long Term Evolution services, phone companies are transmitting calls over a system that has more in common with a wifi network than old-school cell connections.

AP said the number of cellphones grabbed in California prisons declined markedly from 15,000 in 2011 to 8,000 in 2015. But the inmate who talked on his illicit phone to Vice reporter Seth Ferranti in February described a very active tech scene.

“All my homies that got phones, all of us are friends on Facebook. Niggas be making rap videos, they be filming riots and filming shit that’s going on and putting them on YouTube.”

The inmate, a lifer called “Big Smoke,” said, “The cellphones is rampant up and down the coast of California.” He claimed most of the phones were brought in by staff, but, “Some inmates is even smuggling them in now because it’s so profitable. They smuggling in memory cards, chargers, cords, anything that has to do with a cellphone. All that stuff goes for $50 a pop. Every part that has to do with a cellphone is profitable. The black market is big.”

(Source)

The post CDCR Halts Roll Out Of Managed Access Cell Phone Jamming appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

The inmate communication services industry is being fundamentally reshaped by the FCC. Potentially more significant than its predecessor initiative, which significantly reduced prison payphone long-distance rates, the recently issued Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on key drivers of revenue and profit for these prison payphone providers and the prisons themselves.

With the two largest providers of payphone services owned by private equity firms, not usually known for embracing a shrinking profit model, it will be interesting to see how they push their investments to respond – both at the FCC and in the market. One potential bright spot is the increase in call volume achieved post LD rate reduction mentioned below by Commissioner Clyburn. However, with a limited number of payphones per prison facility and call length typically limited to 15 minutes per day, there is a natural cap on the call volume increase that can be hoped for to offset reduced rates and fees. (We do know of one way to provide enhanced access to communications and unlimited calling…)

The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on the following:

• Permanent rate caps on local, intrastate and interstate calling
• What level of cap would ensure coverage of the enhanced security requirements of inmate calling
• The elimination of per-call connection fees
• Prohibiting site commissions as a category for all interstate and intrastate services but permitting facilities to recover any legitimate costs of provisioning inmate calling services
• Capping and restricting ancillary fees, such as fees to open and maintain calling card accounts
• Phasing in these changes, with rate caps being effective in 90 days and a 2-year transition away from site commissions.
• Ensuring that inmate calling services are accessible for all Americans, including inmates and families with disabilities.
• Effective methods of enforcing inmate calling rate rules and reviewing their effect.

According to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler this second rulemaking on prison payphone calls is being undertaken because, “Despite positive steps forward on interstate rates, it is clear that a more comprehensive approach to reform is necessary to address problems that continue to drive up rates. Namely, charges for “ancillary services” for an increasing array of services are on the rise; intrastate rates, which encompass the vast majority of calls from correctional facilities, remain very high in many states; and, most importantly, site commissions – payments required by correctional institutions from ICS providers for the privilege of serving those facilities – continue to be demanded and appear to be the driving force behind increased rates and ancillary fees. There are some positive signs that reform of interstate rates has resulted in reduced rates and increased calling, but absent a comprehensive solution to the problem we will continue to find ourselves in a never ending game of ICS rate whack-a-mole.”

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn stated, “The impact of the first phase of reform of our nation’s inmate calling regime has been tremendous. Our decision shows that doing the right thing can have reverberating benefits. Since February, when the interstate rate caps of $0.21 for debit/prepaid calls and $0.25 for collect calls went into effect, call volumes across state lines have increased nearly 70% in some facilities, and over 300% at one state department of corrections.

These are not just empty statistics. More affordable rates can help bring about increased and regular contact between inmates and their families. Studies show that having meaningful communication beyond prison walls can make a real difference when it comes to maintaining community ties, promoting rehabilitation, and reducing recidivism.”

The post FCC Seeks To Kill Prison Payphone Site Commissions appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. The term is used to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in a new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market.

Characteristics of a Disruptive Innovation:

• Its performance attributes meet the unfulfilled needs of an emerging market’s customers. These same attributes are not initially valued by the mainstream market, which instead value different performance attributes and initially see the innovation as substandard.
• Emerging market adoption enables the innovation to increase its performance and to begin overlapping with the performance expectations of the mainstream market.
• Awareness of the innovation increases as the innovation develops, influencing change in the mainstream market’s perception of what it values.
• The change in the mainstream market’s perception of what it values enables the innovation to disrupt and replace the existing offerings in the mainstream market.

In the prison payphone industry, it is clear that the high call prices and low availability of the traditional wall phones in prisons and jails are not meeting the communication desires of detainees and their families. As a result, the demand for contraband cell phones has soared. Prison administrators, and the prison payphone companies themselves, have focused on strategies to reduce the supply of smuggled mobile phones through the deployment of expensive managed access systems, cell phone detection technologies and specially trained K9s.

However, none of these strategies address the fundamental demand (and associated corruption of guards and staff supplying the phones) of detainees seeking lower cost and more frequent access to telephone services.

In mature industries, such as the prison payphone industry, the risk for incumbents is the danger of dematuring. Dematuring happens when a stable industry with known competitors begins to be dynamic and new again.  If an industry is dematuring, the chances of getting hit with a disruptive innovation are much greater and  established players lose their hegemony while value in the industry can move to entirely new players or parts of the value chain.

An industry is in danger of dematuring if two or more of the following four things happen simultaneously:

1. customer’s core requirements change;
2. the core technologies used to produce the product or service change;
3. the number of large competitors interested in the same market is on the rise;
4. significant regulation, deregulation, or re-regulation is coming down the pike.

In the prison payphone industry we see commissary companies such as Keefe entering the market as well as new initiatives by the FCC and state regulatory commissions to lower the high cost of prison phone calls.

We are also seeing the adoption of mobility technologies such as RFID, GPS and handheld devices. The very first payphone was installed in a bank in 1889 (and probably in a jail not too long after). Yet the inmate communications service providers such as Global Tel*Link and Securus Technologies are still using this basic device (admittedly with very sophisticated back-end controls) over 120 years later!

There is no denying the pervasive and rapid adoption of wireless technologies in the the consumer market has begun to seep into prisons and jails. Add to this the desire of prison administrators to deploy on-line forms, books, MP3 players and commissary access and one quickly comes to the realization that voice communications can be an important component of this move to individualized, utilitarian and portable access devices to educate, rehabilitate and manage detainees.

With meshDETECT, we are leading the charge to disrupt the prison payphone industry by providing a secure prison cell phone solution that provides the controls and security required by prison administrators while offering enhanced communications opportunities to detainees and their families thereby reducing recidivism and the demand for contraband cell phones.

The post Why The Prison Payphone Industry Is Ripe For Disruptive Innovation appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

The FCC has released its order (FCC 13-113) detailing the rules associated with the regulating of prison payphone interstate calling rates. This is the culmination of FCC Proposed Rule Making 12-375 (The Wright Petition – follow the link for to see the new proposed rates) in which the Federal Communications Commission proposed to lower rates charged to prison inmates for long distance telephone calls by considering changes to its regulations governing rates for interstate inter-exchange inmate calling services (ICS), after studying the issue for nine years.

The ruling effectively guts the per minute LD rates and one-time per call fees companies such as Global Tel*Link and Securus Technologies can charge imates and their families as well as the commissions paid to Federal, State and County prisons.

The FCC claims that commissions are “not recoverable through interstate ICS rates because the record makes clear that they are not a direct cost of providing interstate ICS.”

It also sets the ground work for a similar action on intrastate rates. Relevant excerpts from the ruling relating to one time fees and to the payment of commissions to jails and prisons by the prison payphone providers are below. Securus has previously stated that it will go to court to stop the implementation of these rules.

As the prison payphone companies and prisons grapple with the challenge of recovering the revenues associated with this order, we suggest they consider meshDETECT Secure Prison Cell Phone Solutions™ as a potential new service offering that also reduces the demand for contraband cell phones while reducing recidivism.

Commissions

The Commission has previously held that site commissions are-for purposes of considering ICS rates under section 276—an apportionment of profit, not a cost of providing ICS.In the 2012 ICS NPRM, the Commission sought comment on its prior conclusion that site commission payments, or “location rents are not a cost of payphones, but should be treated as profit.” Site commission payments are not costs that are reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS because they are payments made to correctional facilities or departments of corrections for a wide range of purposes, most or all of which have no reasonable and direct relation to the provision of ICS. After carefully considering the record, we reaffirm the Commission’s previous holding and conclude that site commission payments are not part of the cost of providing ICS and therefore not compensable in interstate ICS rates.

In this Order we find that site commissions are not recoverable through interstate ICS rates because the record makes clear that they are not a direct cost of providing interstate ICS. If commissions or other payments from ICS providers to correctional facilities reflect costs of providing ICS, providers have several avenues available to them.

Although it is clear that site commissions are a revenue stream to the correctional facility, we cannot foreclose the possibility that some portion of payments from ICS providers to some correctional facilities may, in certain circumstances, reimburse correctional facilities for their costs of providing ICS. As a result, we provide several avenues for exploring this issue further. First, we set the interim safe harbors and interim rate caps at conservative levels above costs in our record. Second, any ICS provider seeking a waiver of the rate cap or seeking to justify costs between the safe harbor and the interim rate cap may provide specific details about payments to correctional facilities that it contends are compensable for costs meeting our cost standards through interstate ICS rates as articulated in this Order. Third, as part of the mandatory data collection we initiate below, we will seek further information on payments to correctional facilities and whether they cover any costs of service. Finally, in our accompanying Further Notice, we seek comment on whether we should categorically find that payments to correctional facilities are not compensable costs, or whether there are certain compensable costs that those payments can legitimately address. In his Dissent, Commissioner Pai notes that this Order recognizes that excluding sitecommissions from cost data used to develop our safe harbor benchmark and rate cap may be an “underinclusive approach given that correctional institutions themselves often incur costs to provide ICS and those costs may need to be included in any costs-of-service estimates.” While it is correct that the rates and cost studies that the Commission used as a basis for the safe harbor benchmarks and the interim rate caps do not includesite commission payments, the Commission did not exclude them. Rather, the rates used to establish the safe-harbor benchmarks are rates for service in states that have prohibited site commission payments. Also, the ICS provider cost studies that we use as a basis for the interim rate caps adopted in the Order were prepared by the ICS providers to show costs of service excluding site commission payments. Furthermore, we do not remove costs or adjust inputs from the data used to establish the interim rate caps. For example, both cost studies used to establish the interim rate caps use an 11.25% rate of return to determine the cost of capital. We do not opine on whether this input is appropriate in this context. Instead, we accepted the figures in the cost study, as asserted, without considering whether they represent accurate levels of costs that are reasonably and directly related to provision of interstate ICS and, therefore, are appropriately recoverable thought interstate ICS rates. Consequently, it is likely that these cost figures are overstated, but we accept that possibility as part of our decision to set conservative interim rate cap levels.

We also disagree with ICS providers’ assertion that the Commission must defer to states on any decisions about site commission payments, their amount, and how such revenues are spent. We do not conclude that ICS providers and correctional facilities cannot have arrangements that include site commissions. We conclude only that, under the Act, such commission payments are not costs that can be recovered through interstate ICS rates. Our statutory obligations relate to the rates charged to end users— the inmates and the parties whom they call. We say nothing in this Order about how correctional facilities spend their funds or from where they derive. We state only that site commission payments as a category are not a compensable component of interstate ICS rates. We note that we would similarly treat “in-kind” payment requirements that replace site commission payments in ICS contracts.

Per Call Fees

We are concerned about the evidence regarding current per-call rates and associated practices. In particular, we are concerned that a rate structure with a per-call charge can impact the cost of calls of short duration, potentially rendering such charges unjust, unreasonable and unfair. We have particular concerns when calls are dropped without regard to whether there is a potential security or technical issue, and a per-call charge is imposed on the initial call and each successive call. As a result, we conclude that unreasonably high per-call charges and/or unnecessarily dropped calls that incur multiple per-call charges are not just and reasonable

Our interim rate structure will help address concerns raised about unreasonable per-call charges while we consider further reforms in the Further Notice. As described above, we adopt interim safe harbor rate levels and interim rate caps to ensure the overall cost of a 15-minute call is just, reasonable, and fair. ICS providers have the flexibility to satisfy the safe harbor either through a certification that the per-minute rate is at or below the safe harbor, or by demonstrating that the cost of a 15-minute call (including any per-connection charges) is at or below the safe harbor per-minute rate times 15.Thus, where an ICS provider elects to take advantage of the interim safe harbor rate levels described above, we allow the provider flexibility to determine whether its rate structure should include per-call charges. Specifically, we allow ICS providers to calculate whether their rates are at or below the interim safe harbor levels or the interim rate caps by calculating their compliance on the basis of a 15-minute call. Because our interim safe harbors constrain the cost of a 15-minute conversation to a level we find to be just, reasonable, and fair, we find it is appropriate to afford ICS providers such flexibility

Although we are unable to find ancillary charges per se unreasonable based on the record,
we have sufficient information and authority to reach several conclusions regarding ancillary charges. First, as stated earlier, interstate ICS rates must be cost-based, and to be compensable costs must be reasonably and directly related to provision of ICS. Ancillary service charges are no exception; they also fall within this standard and the Commission has the jurisdiction and authority to regulate them. Section 201(b) of the Act requires that “all charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with” communications services be just and reasonable. Section 276 of the Act defines “payphone service” to encompass “the provision of inmate telephone service in correctional institutions, and any ancillary services,” and requires that providers be “fairly compensated.” The services associated with these ancillary charges are “in connection with” the inmate payphone services for purposes of section 201(b) and “ancillary” for purposes of section 276. As such, they fall within the standards we articulate above for determining which costs are compensable through interstate ICS rates. Therefore, even if a provider’s interstate ICS rates are otherwise in compliance with the requirements of this Order, the provider may still be found in violation of the Act and our rules if its ancillary service charges are not cost-based.

The post FCC Releases Order (FCC 13-113) Regulating Prison Payphone Costs and Commissions appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Epilogue: In December of 2017, Securus Technologies and Global Tel*Link  reached a confidential settlement to end their long-running infringement dispute over patents used in prison phone systems, according to a joint motion for dismissal filed in Texas federal court.

As detailed in depth below, the two rivals have for years engaged in litigation over their various patents, accusing each other of infringement and alleging that the other’s patents should be invalidated at the USPTO’s PTAB. Each side finally ended the patent war and agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims in the latest and last iteration of the dispute. In 2016, Securus estimated that the companies had spent more than $40 million suing each other in this contentious IP battle.

Although Securus still has a sizable advantage in intellectual property, several PTAB decisions stripped Securus of key patents for call-monitoring technology. These rulings paved the way for GTL to file a massive infringement suit against Securus in 2017, seeking $115 million and an injunction against the use of technology integral to Securus. In December 2017, before trial, the companies reached a confidential settlement to end their litigation battle.

Update (7/20/17): A turning point in this long running patent battle? GTL has announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) validating all claims of GTL patent 7,853,243, which protects GTL’s technology for biometric and voice validation of inmate calls – widely used features of inmate calling systems and a requirement in many U.S. county jails and state prisons. The Federal Circuit decision clears the way for GTL to request a Texas Federal judge to restart GTL’s pending $100M infringement lawsuit against Securus Technologies involving ‘243 and two other GTL patents, where GTL seeks past damages and an injunction to prevent Securus from using the technology on its platforms at all facilities where infringement is occurring.

GTL is asserting the following patents in its Texas suit against Securus:

United States Patent No. 7,853,243, “Telecommunications Call Management and Monitoring System” (filed Dec. 17, 2007; issued Dec. 14, 2010)

United States Patent No. 7,783,021, “Digital Telecommunications Call Management and Monitoring System” (filed Jan. 28, 2005; issued Aug. 24, 2010)

United States Patent No. 7,551,732, “Centralized Voice over IP Recording and Retrieval Method and Apparatus” (filed Dec. 7, 2004; issued Jun. 23, 2009)

Securus initiated the patent litigation between the companies in 2013, filing an infringement suit against GTL, followed by two more infringement suits, while seeking $115M from GTL to license Securus’ patents. After spending four years and admitting to spending at least $15M in legal fees, Securus has not collected a single dollar in damages. Securus has publicly and repeatedly implored GTL to mutually walk away from all patent cases at no cost to either party and urged “patent peace forever.”

Whether this proves to be the turning point in this patent war remains to be seen, but it will be interesting to see if the patent litigation battlefield instead widens to include the emerging and high growth prison wireless voice communications opportunity as well.

Update (3/22/17): In the latest salvo in what is now a four year patent battle, GTL has countersued Securus Technologies for infringing three GTL patents covering wireless services, voice messaging, and biometric capabilities. The suit seeks monetary damages and an injunction to prevent Securus’ continued use of the patented technology on its SCP Inmate Telephone system, used by 99.6 percent of all Securus customers, and Securus’ Offender Voice Mail System.

In the countersuit just filed, GTL asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,509,856; 8,515,031; and 9,521,250. In addition, GTL previously filed complaints in Texas federal court against Securus alleging infringement of four other GTL patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 7,783,021; 7,853,243; 7,551,732 and 7,256,816 — which also implicate the Securus SCP platform and cover services that include call management, voice authentication, VOIP calling, and scheduling video/audio communications for inmates. Securus attempted to invalidate each of these four patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) during the past two years, but failed to do so.

Update (6/6/16): Securus continues the patent war against GTL with two recent announcements. First, it has filed additional patent invalidation requests (a.k.a. Inter Partes Reviews or IPRs) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the following GTL patents:

Patent No. 8,630,726 – “System and Method for Detecting Three-way Call Circumvention Attempts” and Patent No. 7,403,766 – “Telecommunication Call Management and Monitoring System with Voiceprint Verification”

Second, it has filed an additional four patents in a new patent infringement lawsuit against Global Tel Link:

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357 (Inmate Management and Call Processing Systems and Methods);
2. U.S. Patent No. 8,340,260 (Inmate Management and Call Processing Systems and Methods);
3. U.S. Patent No. 7,916,845 (Unauthorized call activity detection and prevention systems and methods for a Voice over Internet Protocol environment); and
4. U.S. Patent No. 8,180,028 (System and method for called party controlled message delivery)

In the press release Securus’s CEO states that, “I estimate based on our licensing agreements with other carriers is that GTL will owe us approximately $115 million in license fees – and I expect to collect that, and we have sought a permanent injunction, that if granted, will prohibit them making, using, selling, or offering for sale, any of their products and/or services that fall within the scope of the claims in these 4 asserted patents. This will in all likelihood involve key products and features that they presently are offering. ”

Update (5/4/16): In a case of is the glass half full or half empty, both Securus and GTL have issued dueling press releases concerning a recent PTAB decision invalidating all claims of patent 7,551,732 it had undertaken for review.

At the institution of the PTAB review on 5/1/2015, Securus requested all 27 claims be reviewed for validity. The PTAB board agreed to review claims 1–8 and 11–27, or 25 out of the 27 total claims.

Securus’s press release trumpets, “The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision on April 29, 2016, and found that all instituted claims were invalid, because each such claim was disclosed in Securus’ Patent Number 7,899,167.”

The press release finishes with a quote from Securus’s CEO, “When my investors (equity and debt) ask me why GTL continues to tilt at our formidable advantages in patents, my response is that I believe they have no options left and are desperate. I win business from them, I have much better technology, they refuse to take my ‘Technology Bake Off Challenge,’ I use my own/better people to take good care of my customers, I operate at a much higher level of integrity, my investors like what we do more and are transparent in the way we do business, and I could go on – so desperation I think on GTL’s part.”

GTL’s press release on the final outcome of the case states, “the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) had completed its review of GTL patent 7,551,732, preserving two key elements protecting GTL’s technology for connecting voice streams to storage devices – an essential component for storing inmate call recordings, which is required in nearly every jail and prison in the U.S.  The decision enables GTL to pursue claims now pending in Dallas federal court that Securus Technologies infringes the ‘732, and where experts in the case have estimated Securus could be liable for more than $100M in damages for past use.”

Interestingly, the two claims GTL states that the PTAB “preserved” (claims 9 and 10) were known to be preserved since the PTAB institution decision on 5/1/2015…

Update (4/13/16): Global Tel*Link recently announced that it has prevailed against Securus Technologies in the Inter Partes Review (IPR) of GTL patent 7,853,243, which protects GTL’s technology for biometric and voice validation of inmate calls – widely used features of inmate calling systems and a requirement in many U.S. county jails and state prisons. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) confirmed the validity of all of the ‘243 patent’s claims, clearing the way for GTL to move forward with a pending infringement lawsuit against Securus involving the patent.

GTL has asserted the ‘243 patent against Securus as part of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, targeting alleged infringement by Securus’ “Secure Call Platform,” which Securus has described as the “heart” of its centralized communications management systems. GTL is seeking an injunction from the Texas court to prevent Securus from using its patented technologies, in addition to monetary damages for past infringement.

GTL is currently asserting the following patents in its Texas suit against Securus:

• United States Patent No. 7,853,243, “Telecommunications Call Management and Monitoring System” (filed Dec. 17, 2007; issued Dec. 14, 2010)
• United States Patent No. 7,783,021, “Digital Telecommunications Call Management and Monitoring System” (filed Jan. 28, 2005; issued Aug. 24, 2010)
• United States Patent No. 7,551,732, “Centralized Voice over IP Recording and Retrieval Method and Apparatus” (filed Dec. 7, 2004; issued Jun. 23, 2009)

Update (3/3/16): On February 19, 2016, GTL announced that the PTAB had found invalid all claims in Securus patent 7,805,457. In the press release, GTL states, “The PTAB process and litigation have revealed that Securus misled patent examiners while seeking patents, sought patents for products already in the market, like Apple’s FaceTime, and misled its customers about the capabilities of its products. GTL has challenged the validity of seven additional Securus patents before the PTAB, and the PTAB has already determined that there is a reasonable likelihood GTL will prevail.”

Securus quickly responded with its own, rather lengthy, press release in order to rebut what it called GTL’s, ” grossly inaccurate press release.” Some highlights from the David Letterman-like top ten list shows no punches are being pulled in this ongoing patent and PR war:

Update (1/28/16): On January 22, 2016 Global Tel*Ling announced that it had another win before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), as the PTAB issued two final written decisions invalidating all 36 claims of Securus’ U.S. Patent No. 7,860,222 (‘222 patent).  The ‘222 patent discloses systems and methods for monitoring inmate communications via phone calls, video calls and emails and identifying items of interest, such as keywords, during a call.

In the press release, GTL stated. “As of today, Securus has failed to receive any of the “$50 million” it claims it is owed under the infringement lawsuit filed against GTL. Continued victories at the PTAB clearly validate GTL’s position that assertion of these patents is no more than an overused bullying tool employed by an industry competitor in search of a leg-up. Even in light of the overwhelming evidence, Securus refuses to admit loss, claiming that their patents are still valid due to pending appeals in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  This is empty rhetoric by Securus. The Federal Circuit has yet to reinstate a single claim invalidated by the PTAB since implementation of the current patent review system established by the America Invents Act of 2011.

Further exposing the weaknesses of Securus’ patent portfolio, GTL has filed a second set of post-grant challenges at the PTAB.  Trial has been instituted on all claims challenged in nine out of the 10 proceedings, with the Board determining that there is a reasonable likelihood that all claims are unpatentable.  In the final written decisions received to date regarding Securus and GTL, 95 claims were held unpatentable out of 130 challenged, giving GTL a 73 percent win rate. Yet, another indication that Securus can expect more losses in its patent portfolios in the future.”

Update (1/6/16): On December 29, 2015 Securus announced that it has had two (2) recent wins from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) related to patent invalidation filings by Global Tel*Link (GTL). Despite GTL’s contentions that two (2) Securus patents should be invalidated – the court sided with Securus on these two (2) patents:

1. U. S. Patent No. 7,529,357 – which discloses a system and method for controlling inmate access to a telephone carrier network using voice over internet protocol data packets exchanged between call processing gateways;
2. U. S. Patent No. 8,000,269 – which discloses systems and methods for processing voice over internet protocol calls originating within a prison facility that include an unauthorized call activity detector.

In the press release Securus’s CEO stated, “GTL has filed twenty (20) Inter Partes Reviews to attempt to invalidate Securus patents but has only been successful on invalidating two (2) patents to date. My estimate is that they have spent over $10 million in that effort – so not a very good return on that money for them,” said Smith. “At that rate, they will have to spend in excess of $200 million attempting to invalidate all of our patents – and that effort clearly will not be successful.”
Update (11/19/15): On November 4, 2015, Securus Technologies announced that it has had three (3) recent positive rulings from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Court related to patent infringement cases and Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) between Securus and Global Tel*Link (GTL).

The decisions are summarized below:

1. Despite GTL’s challenge to the validity of Securus’ 7,324,637B2 patent, in an IPR proceeding, Securus successfully retained 2 of 8 claims of the patent with its key elements determined by the PTAB to be patentable. So the Securus patent continues to stand (Note: IPR Case Number IPR2014-00810);
2. GTL sought damages and attorney’s fees in another patent case in which it alleged Securus had filed improperly – but the Court denied GTL’s request in that case, finding that GTL had been unable to prove any of its damages claims;
3. Two (2) other patents, that GTL claimed were infringed upon by Securus, were found by the Court not to be patentable, because the claims of both patents were too abstract and lacked the “inventive concept” necessary to make them eligible for patent protection.

Update (10/13/15): On October 7, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office – Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) ruled in favor of Securus and against Global Tel*Link’s (GTL) petition to invalidate a Securus patent. The disputed patent was Patent: 6,636,591 B1 “System and Method for Affecting Inmate Conduct with Good Behavior Discount Telephone Rates.”

Update (9/14/15): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on Friday issued final written decisions granting Global Tel*Link’s request to invalidate two Securus Technologies patents:

• Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,577,003 (Centralized call processing), Case Number: IPR2014-00749

And

• Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,899,167 (Centralized call processing), Case Number: IPR2014-00493

Friday’s decisions are the first Final Written Orders issued from the 19 patent petitions GTL filed at the PTAB Between March 2014 and May 2015, in which GTL targeted a broad cross section of the Securus portfolio, alleging that the Securus patents mimic available consumer products, like Apple’s FaceTime.  The rulings also signal the imminent demise of Securus’ pending claim in a Dallas federal court that GTL infringed the invalidated patents.

Update (7/2/15): A U.S. District Court judge in Dallas granted GTL’s request to immediately halt proceedings in Securus Technologies Inc.’s patent infringement suit against GTL until after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) decides whether three patents in the case are invalid. For its part, GTL voluntarily agreed to stay its counterclaims for patent infringement in the case so that the lawsuit would be halted in its entirety. Additionally, GTL has claims remaining in two separate cases alleging that Securus infringes a total of five GTL patents. Those cases are proceeding on schedule for trial in Dallas in February 2016, and if GTL is successful, Securus faces the potential of millions of dollars in past damages and the risk of injunctions preventing its use of GTL-patented products or future royalty payments to GTL for use of its technology.

Separately at the PTO, GTL has challenged the validity of 17 Securus patents across a range of technologies, comprising a cross-section of Securus’s patent portfolio. In its petitions to the PTO, GTL has asserted that Securus inflated its intellectual property portfolio by filing duplicative patents with minor changes, obtained patents covering a wide range of technologies already in the public domain and patented by other companies, made misleading statements to a patent examiner and secured patents without inventing any new technology.  Decisions on these patent challenges are expected starting later this summer and continuing through 2016.

Update (6/4/15): According to a new press release, Securus expects some patents challenged by GTL to be invalidated by the PTAB. The release also estimates the cost of GTL’s patent offensive from $18 million to $27 million for those IPRs filed to date.

Securus CEO Richard Smith is also quoted saying, ‘”I can justify a GTL payment to Securus of $115 million, with a 10 to 25 year payment plan – based upon existing, pending, and future patents – for a license granting GTL access to all existing and future patents into perpetuity.  On a net present value basis, that is $61 million – which is at the low end of what other licensees have paid on a percentage basis, so that is an okay deal for GTL.”

One wonders if GTL and Securus, with their frequent, dueling press releases on these cross patent challenges, are negotiating a license deal via press release.

Update (5/19/15): Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL) today announced that it had filed 10 more petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as part of an expanding effort to invalidate the core of Securus Technologies Inc.’s patent portfolio.

From the press release, “GTL is determined to end Securus’ legacy of patent litigation,” Oliver said. “We are committed to exposing their baseless claims in court, to end their harassing lawsuits, and to stop the fear tactics that have been a plague on this industry for a decade.”

In these new filings before the PTAB, GTL alleges that 9 additional Securus patents and 209 additional patent claims are invalid. The patents that GTL has challenged include:

Update (4/03/15): In this ongoing patent war, Global Tel*Link has filed a total of 10 IPR’s of Securus’s patents, while Securus has filed three IPR’s against GTL. Additionally, Securus recently issued a press release stating that after a recent federal court ruling cleared the way, Securus Technologies has refiled its federal patent infringement lawsuit against Global Tel*Link (GTL) seeking damages from September 18, 2014. (The original lawsuit is described in detail in our original post below.)

According to the press release, Securus’s CEO estimates “GTL will owe us approximately $50 million in license fees – and I expect to collect that, and we have sought a permanent injunction that will deny them access to key products and features that they presently are offering.”

Here are the USPTO IPR case numbers and the current case status for each:

GTL Inter Parties Review case number & status:

IPR2014-00749, Instituted

IPR2014-00493, Instituted

IPR2014-00824, Instituted

IPR2014-00825, Instituted

IPR2014-00810, Instituted

IPR2014-00785, Instituted

IPR2014-01278 Instituted

IPR2014-01283 Instituted

IPR2014-01282 Instituted

CBM2014-00166 Not Instituted

Securus Inter Parties Review case number & status:

IPR2015-00153 Not Instituted

IPR2015-00155 Instituted

IPR2015-00156 Instituted

Update (7/15/14): According to a Global Tel*Link press release issued today, the original patent lawsuit filed by Securus Technologies (see original blog post below) has been decided in GTL’s favor with the judge dismissing with prejudice all of the claims asserted by Securus Technologies against GTL and barring Securus from filing the same claims. The court also ordered Securus to pay GTL’s costs in the case.

Update (6/3/14): Global Tel*Link has filed with the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of six Securus Technologies’ patents. Introduced by the America Invents Act (AIA) as a counterpart to post-grant review, it is a procedure to challenge the validity of patent claims based on patents and printed publications. A petitioner for inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims of a patent on a ground that could be raised under section 35 U.S.C 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.

The six patents being challenged are:

• Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,340,260 (Inmate management and call processing systems and methods), Case Number: IPR2014-00824

• Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,529,357 (Inmate management and call processing systems and methods), Case Number: IPR2014-00825

• Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,324,637, (Resource allocation system and method), Case Number: IPR2014-00810

• Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 6,636,591 (System and method for affecting inmate conduct with good behavior discount telephone rates), Case Number: IPR2014-00785

• Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,577,003 (Centralized call processing), Case Number: IPR2014-00749

• Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,899,167 (Centralized call processing), Case Number: IPR2014-00493

Update (5/6/14): Yesterday, Securus filed suit against Global Tel*Link and its Chief Executive Officer, Brian D. Oliver in response to the press release GTL filed on 3/11/14 (link to the press release in the update below). In its complaint, Securus claims, “Recently, unable to beat Securus fairly in the marketplace, GTL has embarked on a campaign to defame Securus in an attempt to damage its reputation in the eyes of its customers, culminating in its issuing a press release in which GTL and its Chief Executive Officer, Brian D. Oliver, egregiously and maliciously published numerous false, misleading, disparaging and defamatory statements about Securus’ products, services, intellectual property, and business practices.”

Update (10/21/13): Global Tel*Link has responded to Securus Technologies’ patent infringement lawsuit and this case is turning into a barn-burner. In a press release issued today, GTL unsurprisingly denies infringing the Securus patents, but also goes on to claim that “Securus is barred by contract from bringing patent claims against GTL, that Securus’ patents are invalid and were obtained through false statements and that GTL does not use Securus’ patented technology in any event.” It has also responded with filed claims of its own alleging that Securus has systematically infringed on GTL’s patented technology and asked the court to stop Securus’ unauthorized use.

Of particular interest is GTL’s claim that Securus’ patents were obtained by false statements. In its response to the court, GTL states that Securus patent 7,899,167 for Centralized Call Processing was obtained through “a knowing and deliberate misrepresentation” of U.S. Patent No. 7,505,406 in a response to a final rejection of the ‘167 patent application by the USPTO as being unpatentable over patent 7,505,406 and that this misrepresentation was made “with the intent to deceive the PTO for the purpose of obtaining allowance of the patent application.” As a result, GTL claims that “the ‘167 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the PTO.” The added wrinkle in all this, besides the very serious charge of misrepresentation, is that the ‘406 patent is also owned by Securus (via its predecessor company Evercom). It will be interesting to see how this all plays out…

Update (10/4/13): In our original blog post below, we asked the question whether this law suit was filed “to extract royalties from GTL thereby adding to its cost of doing business (and competing against Securus for lucrative prison telecommunications and video visitation business) or if it is intended to hamstring GTL in the deployment of its competing services by forcing them to work around the patents.” We have some additional insight via a press release Securus issued today.

The press release states, “In the lawsuit, Securus also seeks an injunction permanently enjoining GTL from continuing to infringe Securus’s patents. Securus believes that the requested injunction would significantly impede GTL’s ability to exploit its current products and services in order to serve its existing or prospective clients in the inmate corrections industry. Securus intends to pursue the suit aggressively to a successful conclusion.”

Richard A. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of Securus Technologies comments, “It is well known that Securus Technologies has by far the largest patent portfolio in the corrections industry and we have spent in excess of $200 million developing sophisticated technology – and we have solid patents. You cannot operate in our industry legally without having a patent license agreement with us and GTL’s license agreement expired in early August, 2013 – they did not renew the license agreement so we had to file this lawsuit.”

“Without an agreement, GTL cannot legally provide the Securus patented services to prisons and jails – so they cannot run their business and we will ask the Court to stop them,” said Smith. “If I was a GTL customer, I would be very concerned that they may not be able to continue my services – inmate calling is important to facilities and they cannot operate without this method of communication.”

The Original Post:

In a move reminiscent of the patent battle between Apple and Samsung, the two biggest players in the inmate communications services space are squaring off over patents.

Securus Technologies has sued Global Tel*Link (GTL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas for infringing on four of its patents. At this time, it is unclear whether this is a strategy simply intended to extract royalties from GTL thereby adding to its cost of doing business (and competing against Securus for lucrative prison telecommunications and video visitation business) or if it is intended to hamstring GTL in the deployment of its competing services by forcing them to work around the patents. The patents cover services for centralized call processing, analyzing investigative information, identifying members of a gang, and visitation terminal user identification. So Securus is going after GTL for processing detainee phone calls, video visitation services and investigation tools.

The four patents at issue are:

1.) 7,899,167: “Centralized call processing” which includes 21 claims (2 indep.). It was filed 8/15/2003 & granted 3/1/2011.

Systems and methods which provide a centralized architecture for call processing. Embodiments utilize voice over Internet protocols (VoIP) to carry calls from a location at which calling services are provided to a centralized call processing platform providing call processing functionality, such as calling party identification, call validation, call routing, and connection to the public switched telephone network (PSTN). Call processing gateways may be utilized to provide plain old telephone service (POTS) analog line interfaces for use with a plurality of telephone sets disposed for use at a location and at least one wide area network (WAN) interface for providing high speed data communication to a centralized call processing platform. PSTN interfacing by a call processing platform may be provided as a VoIP connection to the PSTN and/or as POTS trunking. Call processing platforms may provide for data sharing, aggregation, and/or analysis across multiple facilities served.

2.) 7,860,222: “Systems and methods for acquiring, accessing, and analyzing investigative information” Includes 36 claims (2 indep.). Granted 12/28/2010.

Disclosed are systems and methods which provide availability of information on a network wide basis, with the network or information technology (IT) fabric spanning a wide range of institutions and other sources of information, including correctional facilities, without regard to which jurisdiction the source of information belongs, e.g. police, courts, federal investigation agencies, public databases etcetera. Embodiments provide an electronic based capability to identify useful information and for locating, collecting, compiling, aggregating, distilling, and/or reporting robust data.

3.) 7,805,457: “System and method for identifying members of a gang or security threat group” Includes 17 claims (4 indep.). Granted 9/28/2010

System and method for monitoring activity of detainees comprising identifying a detainee who is affiliated with a gang, searching one or more databases for information associated with the detainee, and correlating the information to identify individuals who may be affiliated with the gang. The databases may include call record databases, and the information associated with the detainee may include individuals called by the detainee, individuals who visit the detainee, telephone numbers called by the detainee, and sources of funding for the detainee’s calls voice and/or facial biometric identifiers. An alert may be triggered when the detainee calls a specified individual or telephone number.

4.) 8,031,850: “Systems and methods for visitation terminal user identification” Includes 46 claims (3 indep.). Granted 10/4/2011.

Systems and methods which collect information regarding users of controlled environment visitation terminals for identification of one or more parties to a visitation conversation are shown. Identifying information may be provided by various means, such as entry of a PIN, RFID, biometrics, etcetera. Embodiments provide a closed circuit visitation communication system in which a single port of a communication control system is used with respect to a pair of visitation terminals. Embodiments operate to prevent communication between a resident of a controlled environment facility and a visitor while identifying information is collected and verified. Thereafter, the resident and visitor may be placed in communication, whilst the identifying information may be utilized for such purposes as associating a recording of the conversation with the resident and/or visitor, issuing an alert to appropriate individuals that a conversation by one or more parties of interest is being conducted, collect investigative information, etcetera.

The timing is interesting given that the FCC has recently signaled that it will be moving to reduce the cost of interstate long distance calls in prisons and jails as as a result of Proposed Rule Making 12-375. If the FCC does so, this will potentially significantly reduce both companies margins for the highly lucrative detainee long distance calls thereby dealing GTL a one-two punch in its margins and service offering capabilities.

The post Securus Technologies Sues Global Tel*Link For Patent Infringement appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

With Global Tel*Link all but announcing at the recent Corrections Technology Association Annual Meeting its intention to offer mobile services in prisons, now may be the time to consider the best technology architecture for such deployments for those prison administrators who see the potential benefits of a secure prison cell phone solution.

There are essentially two ways to provision wireless personal communication devices, such as prisoner tablets, in a prison environment. In its presentation, Global Tel*Link stated that it has chosen to deploy service using WiFi to provide wireless connectivity. We think there are some significant operational challenges and, more importantly, serious security risks in this approach.

Security Risks

There are two main security risks, as highlighted by the recent news articles below. The first is the potential for intentional hacking of the system, either internally by tech savvy prisoners, or externally by those determined to defeat the WiFi security controls in order to gain or grant unfettered access to Global Tel*Link services, connected prison systems (commissary and trust accounts, etc.) or the unfiltered internet. A very real challenge with the decision to deploy a prison WiFi network is external hackers “wardriving” the system from outside the prison facility in order to accomplish this.

The second risk is the unintentional granting of access to the internet due to incompetence, human error and service misconfiguration.

In either case, the deployment of a local access wireless network via WiFi means that a single security breach, password hack or incompetent admin may result in unsecured and unmonitored access to internal prison systems and the outside world for all devices on the network.

In contrast, meshDETECT uses the traditional telco mobile network to provide secure voice and media services. Any breach, should it occur, is limited to a single device. If a device is hacked, a risk Global Tel*Link will also have to manage, one detainee may benefit; but no one can hack AT&T, Verizon, etc. in such a way to give all the meshDETECT mobile devices deployed in a prison unfettered access to the internet, or unmonitored calls to harass outside parties and plan crimes.

Technology choices in the deployment of a secure prison mobile access network service must focus on security, not profitability.

Operational Challenges

Now lets look at the operational challenges associated with deploying WiFi within a prison facility:

• Low powered – hand held devices maximum output is normally 0.4 Watt.

• Signal can suffer interference from other devices such as two way radios used by staff.

• Best when there is line of sight between transponders.

• Does not penetrate solid mass – concrete, brick, metal – the less porous the material the shorter the range and the slower the speed. Prison construction is high density blocks and cell doors are often clad in metal with metal surrounds.

• Tinted / reflective glass contains metal fragments resulting in drop in signal strength.

• Security fencing can act as a Faraday cage and ground the signal.

It is clear that achieving adequate WiFi signal coverage and application data throughput at a reasonable cost of installation is a challenge in this unique environment. Ongoing equipment maintenance expense as well as repair cost due to vandalism must also be considered when looking at the total cost of this approach.

In contrast, as evidenced by the high number of contraband devices and continued use of smuggled cell phones in jails and prisons globally, cellular signal strength and coverage is typically more than adequate, with no onsite equipment required. Additionally, 4G LTE (and soon 5G) cellular may be much faster than a WiFi network with an undersized or overburdened connection to the Internet (designed for coverage versus designed for capacity).

Real World Examples

Securus Finally Admits The Risks Of WiFi Deployment In Prisons

With the recent launch of Securus Technologies’ new inmate tablets utilizing a nationwide cellular network, their press release confirms our analysis and assertions regarding the operational inadequacy and security risks  of deploying WiFi in prisons detailed above. This blog post was written eleven years ago on June 6, 2013.

From the press release:

“Because of the complex implementation requirements in corrections settings, deploying tablet technology can take months, quarters, even years to fully implement, but the infrastructure with our new tablet technology allows for quicker and cost-effective deployment”

“Currently, tablets rely on a complex, on-site setup to connect to cloud-based services, which is costly and time-consuming. EVOTAB and Officer T80 tablets directly connect to a cloud platform using a secure cellular network, which is faster, more secure, and less hardware intensive.”

Source

Mich. DOC updates policy after inmates rig tablets to conduct ‘criminal’ activity

Overall, since October 2024, the Department of Corrections has found that about 5% of the 24,000 JPay tablets, or about 1,200, were compromised after inmates enabled Wi-Fi on the devices, had them in an unauthorized unit or had unauthorized apps.

“(Inmates are) watching movies. They’re watching pornography. They’re communicating with family and or gang members outside the prison system,” Osborn told The Detroit News. “With these tablets in this jailbroke status, they can do whatever the hell they want.”

The Department of Corrections works to find and remove compromised tablets and identify contraband, such as Wi-Fi sticks, used to rig them for internet access.

Source

New Wi-Fi Takeover Attack—All Windows Users Warned To Update Now

Microsoft has confirmed a new and quite alarming Wi-Fi vulnerability in Windows, which has been rated 8.8 out of 10 in terms of severity using the Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vulnerability, assigned as CVE-2024-30078, does not require an attacker to have physical access to the targeted computer, although physical proximity is needed. Exploiting this vulnerability can allow an unauthenticated attacker to gain remote code execution on the impacted device. What’s perhaps most concerning, though, is that this Wi-Fi driver security flaw affects all supported versions of the Windows operating system.

Source

WiFi vulnerability may leave millions of devices open to ‘frag attacks’

A security researcher known for pointing out faults in WiFi security has discovered another vulnerability. The newly unearthed flaws, known as “frag attacks,” are believed to be widespread as they stem from the WiFi standard, with some bugs dating back to 1997. While several additional vulnerabilities are caused by programming mistakes in WiFi products and affect every WiFi device, Belgian security researcher Mathy Vanhoef wrote on his blog.

Theoretically, if exploited, the vulnerabilities would allow an attacker within radio range to steal user information or attack devices. But, the chances of the flaws being abused should be low as the attacks require user interaction or uncommon network settings.

Breaking down how they work, Vanhoef explained that several of the flaws can be abused to “easily inject” plaintext frames into a protected Wi-Fi network,” along with certain devices accepting “plaintext aggregated frames that look like handshake messages.” This can be used to intercept traffic by tricking the victim into using a malicious DNS server, the researcher noted. In experiments, Vanhoef found that two out of four tested home routers were affected by this vulnerability, along with several IoT devices and some smartphones.

Other vulnerabilities are linked to the process by which the WiFi standard breaks and then reassembles network packets, allowing an attacker to siphon data by injecting their own malicious code during this operation.

Source

A Flaw in Billions of Wi-Fi Chips Let Attackers Decrypt Data

Billions of devices—many of them already patched—are affected by a Wi-Fi vulnerability that allows nearby attackers to decrypt sensitive data sent over the air, researchers said on Wednesday at the RSA security conference. Affected devices include iPhones, iPads, Macs, Amazon Echos and Kindles, Android devices, and various Wi-Fi routers.

The vulnerability exists in Wi-Fi chips made by Cypress Semiconductor and Broadcom, the latter a chipmaker Cypress acquired in 2016. The affected devices include iPhones, iPads, Macs, Amazon Echos and Kindles, Android devices, and Wi-Fi routers from Asus and Huawei, as well as the Raspberry Pi 3. Eset, the security company that discovered the vulnerability, said the flaw primarily affects Cypress’ and Broadcom’s FullMAC WLAN chips, which are used in billions of devices. Eset has named the vulnerability Kr00k, and it is tracked as CVE-2019-15126.

Manufacturers have made patches available for most or all of the affected devices, but it’s not clear how many devices have installed the patches. Of greatest concern are vulnerable wireless routers, which often go unpatched indefinitely.

Source

Serious flaws leave WPA3 vulnerable to hacks that steal Wi-Fi passwords

The next-generation Wi-Fi Protected Access protocol released 15 months ago was once hailed by key architects as resistant to most types of password-theft attacks that threatened its predecessors. On Wednesday, researchers disclosed several serious design flaws in WPA3 that shattered that myth and raised troubling new questions about the future of wireless security, particularly among low-cost Internet-of-things devices.

Every Wi-Fi network at risk of unprecedented ‘Krack’ hacking attack

Every Wi-Fi connection is potentially vulnerable to an unprecedented security flaw that allows hackers to snoop on internet traffic, researchers have revealed.

The vulnerability is the first to be found in the modern encryption techniques that have been used to secure Wi-Fi networks for the last 14 years.

In theory, it allows an attacker within range of a Wi-Fi network to inject computer viruses into internet networks, and read communications like passwords, credit card numbers and photos sent over the internet.

The so-called “Krack” attack has been described as a “fundamental flaw” in wireless security techniques by experts. Apple, Android and Windows software are all susceptible to some version of the vulnerability, which is not fixed by changing Wi-Fi passwords.

“It seems to affect all Wi-Fi networks, it’s a fundamental flaw in the underlying protocol, even if you’ve done everything right [your security] is broken,” said Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey’s Centre for Cyber Security.

Source

Wi-Fi software security bug could leave Android, Windows, Linux open to attack

In an e-mail today to the Open Source Software Security (oss-security) mailing list, the maintainer of wireless network client code used by Android, the Linux and BSD Unix operating systems, and Windows Wi-Fi device drivers sent an urgent fix to a flaw that could allow attackers to crash devices or even potentially inject malicious software into their memory. The flaw could allow these sorts of attacks via a malicious wireless peer-to-peer network name.

The end result is that an attacker could corrupt information in memory, causing wpa_supplicant and Wi-Fi service to crash; a crafted SSID could essentially be used as a denial-of-service attack on affected devices simply by sending out responses to Wi-Fi probe requests or P2P network Public Action messages. But it could also expose memory contents during the three-way handshake of a peer-to-peer network negotiation (the GO negotiation) or potentially allow for the attacker to execute code on the target.

Source

Military Cuts Guantanamo Bay WiFi After Alleged Threat by Anonymous

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is losing all access to wireless internet and social networks due to hacking threats.

U.S. military officials have blocked access to wireless internet and social networks like Facebook and Twitter at Guantanamo Bay because it fears that international hacking group Anonymous will launch an attack to disrupt services at the naval base.

Anonymous launched a global online protest to mark the 100th day of the hunger strike by Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The detainees have been protesting their living conditions and indefinite detention at the base.

The U.S. military said it has been receiving online hacking threats amid the hunger strike, which were allegedly from Anonymous.

Source

Prisoners Accessed Internet Through Faulty Computer Kiosks

Prisoners in privately run Mt Eden Corrections Facility were able to access the internet through faulty computer kiosks a security review of public sector computer systems has found.

The security breach was one of 12 “weak points” identified in Government Chief Information Officer Colin McDonald’s review of the security of 215 publicly accessible state sector agency IT systems released this morning.

Serco, the company which operates Mt Eden said that on November 26 last year, “an administrative error made it possible to open a web browser session” on kiosks provided to prisoners to allow them to “take responsibility for organizing their day-to-day lives and helps to develop literacy and numeracy skills”.

Serco’s Director of Operations Scott McNairn said the error “allowed for limited access to the internet, policed by a web filter which blocked access to inappropriate sites”.

“No email, social media or adult sites were accessed.”

The internet access was “limited” and “at no time was it possible to access any other systems or information”.

Serco has not said how long prisoners were able to access the internet for.

Mr McNairn said the company had improved security for the kiosks and was “confident” that the likelihood of further problems was “extremely low”.

Source

Jailed Hacker Hacks Prison Network

It’s almost comical, but an incarcerated hacker has hacked into his prison’s computer network.

According to Naked Security (Sophos), Nicholas Webber, who operated the GhostMarket.Net cybercrime website, signed-up for the prison’s IT class. Webber, who was 18 at the time of his arrest for bank frauds and identity theft scams, apparently go onto the network but was unable to access personal information files.

The prison issued a statement to the Register: “At the time of this incident in 2011 the educational computer system at HMP Isis was a closed network. No access to personal information or wider access to the internet or other prison systems would have been possible.”

The incident, which occurred in 2011, only came to light because of a wrongful termination suit by the instructor leading the class.

Source

The post The Risks Of WiFi Deployment In Prisons appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

We post this summary of Global Tel*Link’s upcoming presentation “Mobility In Corrections” at the Corrections Technology Association (CTA) 2013 Annual Technology Summit, without comment…

It is a question of when, not if, are secure mobile phones and/or tablets are used by inmates in a correctional setting. There are natural applications for the use of secure mobile phones include; telephone calls, video calls, music and email using the embedded capabilities of today’s mobile phones. Additional applications could include secure text messaging. What if tablets were introduced to inmates? The potential for positive use is greatly enhanced when considering education and training curriculum is downloaded to the tablet. Administrative functionality such as commissary ordering or kites is also within the realm of possibilities.

Clearly, technology is available to integrate all of these applications and more on today’s mobile phones and tablets. The larger question, though, is what are the security and policy implications from introducing mobility in corrections? Could the phones be used as weapons, trade and/or commerce? Are all inmates eligible to use a mobile phone or just select inmates? Are inmates required to purchase a mobile phone or tablet or are they provided at no cost to the inmate? What are the infrastructure requirements for supporting mobile phones such as power outlets for recharging? What types of batteries are required so as not to thwart drug sniffing dogs? Are there additional revenue generating opportunities for correctional facilities such as a limited selection of downloadable movies the inmates may rent? How do these offerings co-exist in an environment where contraband cell phones are not permitted?

A workshop to openly discuss the questions above and many more is the purpose of this overview and discussion. Technology, however, cannot function alone without well thought out policy and guidelines. The potential exists to enable the simultaneous missions of incarceration, rehabilitation and reduced recidivism while ensuring the safety of staff, the inmates and the outside world. Through a successful partnership between corrections and the private sector, these challenges can be achieved.

Source (Page 20)

(For more information on this strategy, see our whitepaper “Reducing the Demand for Contraband Cell Phones in Correctional Facilities” which can be accessed by clicking on the download link to the right.)

The post Mobility In Corrections appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Update (10/19/12): The Avanal cell phone Managed Access System (MAS) system is scheduled to go live on Monday October 22nd. Very soon, inmates at Avenal won’t hear a dial tone if they try to make an outgoing call. Instead, they’ll hear: “The cellular device that you are using at Avenal State Prison has been identified as contraband. It is illegal to possess.”

Avenal flips the switch Monday, and will be the first facility to block cellphones. In the next three years, all 35 institutions in the California are expected to have the technology installed.

Staff numbers are programmed to work, but all other cellphones inside the prison will be blocked.

It will mean that prisoners can no longer make voice calls, send emails, text messages (or) access the Internet.

Source

Original Posting:

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) plans to implement a Managed Access System (MAS) at Avenal State Prison on or about October 1, 2012.  According to CDCR, an MAS is “a system which deploys a secure cellular umbrella over a specified area generally within the bounds of a facility, to either permit or interfere with transmissions from mobile wireless devices.”

According to the Association of California State Supervisors blog, the MAS test phase at ASP will run from approximately October 1st through October 15th.  At the end of the test phase, ASP will go live with MAS. CDCR eventually will be implementing the MAS at all institutions statewide.

On September 25, 2012, ACSS conducted a meet and confer with CDCR Labor Relations staff and MAS subject matter experts to ensure that your career will remain productive and protected.

ACSS:   Who is responsible for monitoring the MAS system?
CDCR:  MAS is a hosted system.  The system will be monitored and installed by a third party, Global Tel*Link (GTL).  CDCR will be responsible for the authorization process for mobile devices.

ACSS:    Will the MAS be used to track employee arrival to work, and/or exit from work times?
CDCR:    No.

ACSS:   When will MSA be implemented at other institutions?
CDCR:   The MAS implementation is scheduled to complete within 36 months following Contract effective date of May 31, 2012.  The CDCR has identified a phased approach and plans to finalize the implementation schedule, that includes: Phase 0, one (1) facility to be completed within 5 months of contract award; Phase I, 17 adult facilities to be completed within 18 months of contract award; Phase II, 19 adult facilities to be completed within 36 months of contract award.  Future Phases/Sites currently in the design, construction and/or planning stages are to be completed within 6 months of the State’s request to GTL.  Implementation of Phases I, II, or Future Phases/Sites will not begin without CDCR’s acceptance of Phase 0 test results.

ACSS:    What devices will be authorized?
CDCR:   At each institution there will be a process to submit a request to authorize a mobile device.  Once the device is approved to have authorized access it will be entered into the MAS system as an authorized device.  At this time, CDCR anticipated that only those mobile devices that are necessary for state business will be authorized, i.e. state issued cell phone.  Personal cell phone will be considered on a case by case basis.  CDCR anticipated that authorization of personal cell phones will only occur in extraordinary situations.

ACSS:    Will employees be able to use their personal cell phones in non secure areas like employee parking lots, break areas, etc?
CDCR:   CDCR is making an effort to configure the MAS system to allow personal cell phone use in employee parking lots.  However, due to the nature of the MAS system that may not always be possible.  CDCR provides payphones in institution administration buildings and Visitor Processing area that can be utilized by employees.  In addition, CDCR employees are allowed to use state phones to call home if they are going to work late.  Furthermore, MAS does not affect the ability of incoming callers to leave a voice message on unauthorized devices.

ACSS:    Will CDCR track or monitor personal phone calls, local or remote whereabouts or other activities while on or off duty employees use authorized devices? 
CDCR:    MAS is able to block calls from unauthorized devices within the radio frequency umbrella. MSA will capture information regarding unauthorized devices such as the cellular phone number, mobile device hardware ID, telephone number called, as well as the date and time of the call.  Tracking will only occur on outgoing communications.  Incoming communications are blocked and not captured.  Authorized devices will not be tracked by MAS.  The information captured and tracked by MAS is not under the control of CDCR.  The MAS information that is captured and tracked is managed by the third party monitoring the system and only made available with a valid warrant.

Under Penal Code Section 4576 (e) “the department shall not access data or communication that have been captured using available technology from unauthorized use of a wireless communication device except after obtaining a valid search warrant.”  Under Penal Code Section 4576 (f) “the department shall not capture data or communications from an authorized wireless communication device, except as already authorized under existing law.” (Cal. Pen. Code, sec. 4576)

ACSS:    What is the cost to the state?
CDCR:   There is zero cost to the state for the MAS system. Global Tel*Link (GTL) be responsible for all costs associated with implementation of the MAS services, including costs associated with new installation of MAS equipment and services.  The costs of implementing Managed Access System services at all CDCR institutions are provided by GTL with the revenue generated by the Inmate/Ward Telephone System.  There are no additional costs incurred by California taxpayers or inmate/ward families and friends.

Source

The post Avenal State Prison Cell Phone Jammer Test appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

This article discusses the TDCJ’s decision to investigate the viability of managed access contraband cell phone jamming. California, Mississippi and Maryland are also testing the technology. The impact of smuggled contraband cell phones in prisons has been significant. As the article states, “A couple of years ago, there were long lines at the pay phones—hours long. By this year, no one was using them, there were so many smuggled cell phones.”

“These two prisons have had the most significant ongoing problems with (smuggled) cellphones, and that’s why they were selected,” Livingston said. “There are no plans at this time to go beyond these two units.”

California and Texas may be considered opposites on the political spectrum, but the two states do have the same philosophy when it comes to cell phones in state prisons.

California got the ball rolling when Global Tel Link agreed to pay millions to install technology in state prisons to block web searches, text messages and phone calls by inmates using smuggled phones.

Texas also saw a problem with its inmates smuggling phones into prison and has recently confirmed working with CenturyLink, a private company that operates pay phones inside Texas’ 111 state prisons, to evaluate installing a similar system in Texas.

“The system would be a managed-access system and does not jam cell phones,” said Jason Clark, spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

“Managed access intercepts the outgoing calls and only allows calls from approved numbers. This is legal,” Clark said, noting that the Federal Communications Commission prohibits jamming.

Inmates’ access to cell phones in prison can have extreme consequences. Some inmates have used cell phones to run criminal enterprises from behind bars and organize assaults on guards and intimidate witnesses, California prison officials said.

“This groundbreaking and momentous technology will enable [the prison system] to crack down on the potentially dangerous communications by inmates,” said Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Matt Cate.

In 2011, California prison guards confiscated more than 15,000 contraband phones. In the same year, Texas prison officials seized 904 cell phones.

The first prison in California is expected to receive Global Tel*Link’s technology by October 2012, according to Dana Simas, information officer for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

When the system is installed, each prison will get its own cell tower that will allow prison officials to control all incoming and outgoing calls. All other calls will not go through within the confines of the prison.

“After this system goes in, smuggled cell phones will be nothing more than glorified paperweights,” said Simas. “A couple of years ago, there were long lines at the pay phones —hours long. By this year, no one was using them, there were so many smuggled cell phones.”

Source

The post Texas To Invest in Cell Phone Blocking Technology appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

On March 1, 2012 the FCC issued a public notice seeking comments “on concerns and issues related to intentional interruptions of Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS or “wireless service”) by government authorities for the purpose of ensuring public safety.” (GN Docket No. 12-52)

As the notice states, “While the important function that wireless service plays in protecting public safety is undisputed, some commentators, including some law enforcement personnel, have raised concerns that wireless networks can be used in ways that put the public’s safety at risk. Concerns, for example, that wireless service could be used to trigger the detonation of an explosive device or to organize the activities of a violent flash mob have led public authorities in the United States and abroad to consider interrupting wireless service. Last summer, a public agency temporarily interrupted wireless service on parts of a mass transit system based on stated concerns about public safety.”

“Any intentional interruption of wireless service, no matter how brief or localized, raises significant concerns and implicates substantial legal and policy questions. The service interruption last summer drew sharp criticism, and state and local governments have recently grappled with how to address possible future events. We are concerned that there has been insufficient discussion, analysis, and consideration of the questions raised by intentional interruptions of wireless service by government authorities. In this Public Notice, we seek comment on the legal constraints and policy considerations that bear on an intentional interruption of wireless service by government actors for the purpose of ensuring public safety.”

Not surprisingly this request for comments received many responses from public and private organizations both for and against such action and policy. Included amongst the comments submitted were those provided by Global Tel*Link (GTL) and Tecore on the use of managed access technology in prisons to jam contraband cell phone signals.

As we have written previously, GTL and Tecore have partnered to install managed access in the CDCR’s prison facilities across the state of California as part of GTL’s recent contract to provide prison inmate telephone service.

What is interesting about GTL’s comments to the FCC is its recommendation that the FCC require that entities seeking to deploy a wireless interruption system must provide their services through an authorized provider of telecommunications services selected by the correctional facility. That is, that prison payphone companies be the sole provider of such systems to prisons.

GTL’s logic is as follows,”Through judicious application of existing or enhanced standards promulgated by the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Commission can ensure that any system will be installed and operated in the public interest. Permitting entities with no known qualifications to interact with telecommunications service providers or law enforcement agencies, to install and operate sensitive telecommunications infrastructure, borders on the reckless and irresponsible. To this end, the FCC can require that entities seeking to deploy a wireless interruption system must provide their services through an authorized provider of telecommunications services selected by the correctional facility. Such authorizations carry with them financial and technical evaluations, and provide wireless consumers with points of contact for regulatory redress. Coordination with law enforcement and correctional officers – of the sort pursued in the Maryland, Mississippi, and South Carolina tests – should also be required, culminating in written approval from the institution administrator and a contract with the correctional facility.”

Not surprisingly, Tecore has concerns with GTL’s attempt to corner the market on managed access systems deployment within the prison prison industry. In their subsequent comments to FCC they respond to this initiative: “Tecore most strongly disagrees with the portion of GTL’s comments wherein it urges the Commission to use its regulatory authority to “require that entities seeking to deploy a wireless interruption system . . . provide their services through an authorized provider of telecommunications services selected by the correctional facility.”

“Tecore agrees that, given the technological complexities of managed access, “[p]ermitting entities with no known qualifications . . . to install and operate sensitive telecommunications infrastructure” would border on the “reckless and irresponsible.” However, this does not warrant the requirement that corrections officials be precluded from deploying managed access directly, or through any competent contractor, so long as the system can be effectively deployed and managed. Indeed, the upcoming Maryland deployment of the Tecore Managed Access solution would be precluded under GTL’s proposal because the deployment is not being implemented through an inmate telephone service provider. As Tecore has advocated to the Commission in pioneering managed access, the attraction of including an inmate telephone services provider in the equation is that it presents a vehicle for funding the deployment, which is useful for cash-strapped corrections departments. Inmate telephone contractors, nor indeed any other corrections contractor, should not be a required part of any deployment. This is an administrative decision best left to each corrections department.”

With partners like these, who needs enemies?

(Separately in this same submission to the FCC, Tecore also responds in detail to the findings of the recent highly critical CCST report on the CDCR plan to deploy managed access systems.)

The post Global Tel*Link Tries to Corner The Market On Prison Managed Access Systems appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.