Eavesdropping

[Whyzman]

We've credible evidence that my father's cordless 5.8 mhz phone is being listened to by a neighbor. My Google search turned up some interesting yet confusing information. Some it appears is misleading advertising tauting security that is actually pretty Swiss cheese.

The Uniden my father has was FCC approved December of 04. The application was for a 5.8 mhz analog device. Some information that I read discussed "dual band" analog phones that actually proclaimed 5.8, yet also utilized an extremely susceptible 900 mhz band. When I took a closer look at the manual for his phone it listed two different bands, one in the 900 mhz range the other in the 5.8 mhz.

Is anybody familiar with these 5.8 mhz analog phones, and how susceptible to eavesdropping are they? Are the 5.8 mhz communications between the handsets and the 900 mhz from base to handset?

[PrntRhd]

Model number would help.

[sassie05]

I have a friend who has a "Police Scanner" which can pick up any frequency and does listen to his neighbors.

I would say all cordless / wireless / cellphones are very susceptible to eavesdropping.

Some cordless phones will constantly change channels to prevent this.

[YODA74]

Since 1994 it's been illegal to make or sell scanners that can, or can be easily modified to, pick up calls on the 869-894 MHz sliver of the spectrum. But some scanners can be modified (which is illegal) Older scanners that can do it without modification are still available. I would set the neighbor up, Have a conversation on the phone with someone and say I'm getting a shipment of drugs in on a certain date when the cops show up explain the situation to them see if they arrest your neighbor? And actually how did you find out it is your neighbor??
We've credible evidence that my father's cordless 5.8 mhz phone is being listened to by a neighbor.

Does your father have a wireless router (if your hearing clicking)?

[mjc]

Personally, I'd make an 'endless' loop of the Barney song and then make a call to my cell phone...do it at least once a day, at a random time.

Actually, you can get a full digital cordless that encrypts the signal between the handset and the base unit...research the model to make sure that it is going to be fully digital all the time and doesn't fall back to analog or an unencrypted mode for some stupid reason.

[sassie05]

...full digital cordless that encrypts the signal...

I'll have to look into those being the paranoid freak that I am.

[123456]

I think it's 5.8GHz.

[Whyzman]

Actually, you can get a full digital cordless that encrypts the signal between the handset and the base unit...research the model to make sure that it is going to be fully digital all the time and doesn't fall back to analog or an unencrypted mode for some stupid reason.Looking into the cordless world has been a bit eye opening. Here's a quote from Consumerreports.org on a MySimon.com page:http://www.mysimon.com/4002-9375-6308225.htmlAnalog phones

These are the least expensive type and tend to have better voice quality than digital models, though their range is somewhat shorter. They are also unlikely to interfere with other wireless products. But analog transmission isn't very secure; anyone with an RF scanner or comparable wireless device might be able to listen in. Analog phones are also more likely than digital phones to suffer occasional static and RF interference from other wireless products. Also, multiple-handset-capable phones can't conference handsets with an outside party, and the number of handsets that can be supported by the base unit is typically limited to two.

Digital phones

These provide an added measure of security and are more immune to RF interference. Their range might be slightly better than that of analog phones. Note that some phones—usually the 2.4-GHz or the multiple-handset capable phones with handset conferencing capabilities-use such a wide swath of the spectrum even in standby mode that they might interfere with wireless LAN, baby monitors, and other wireless products operating in the same frequency band. The latest phones use a technology called Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunication, which addresses the interference problem by using the 1.9-GHz frequency band that was recently reserved by the FCC for voice-only applications. DECT phones also tend to have the longest talk time. Some digital models support up to 12 handsets from one base and allow conferencing of handsets.

To be sure you're actually getting a digital model, check the packaging carefully. Look for wording such as "digital phone," "digital spread spectrum or DSS," "frequency-hopping spread spectrum or FHSS," or digital enhanced cordless telecommunication or telephone or DECT. Phrases such as "phone with digital security code," "phone with all-digital answerer," or "spread spectrum technology" (not digital spread spectrum) all denote phones that are less secure. Phones that use dual-band transmission might indicate the higher frequency in a larger print on the packaging. (italics mine) If you want a true 5.8- or 2.4-GHz phone, check the fine print. If only the frequency is prominently shown on the package, it's probably analog.

I'll post my father's model number as soon as I can. I was not able to find it searching Uniden's website, but rather had to use the FCC registration number to find it on the governments FCC website. Listed there on the site was a link to the manual. It was there I found the listing of the dual bands. His appears to fall under the above italicized quote where the higher frequency was being tauted, but in actuality it used both a 900 and 5.8 mhz band.

I see that our conversation is crossing into the cell phone realm. I'd like to keep focused in on what we commonly know as cordless rather than wireless i.e., cell phone technology. ;)

DSS or DECT appear to be the way to go for cordless convenience. It also appears that the technology to hack into calls using these technologies is extremely expensive...beyond the means of most middle-class folk??

How do we have credible evidence? There were conversations around the kitchen table at coffee that were repeated on the cordless phone. Those privy to the actual kitchen conversations never talk with this neighbor. In a couple email communications with my father, the neighbor mentioned a number of things that we might want to further investigate as he "heard them from his conversations" with undisclosed neighbors.

Yoda, no wireless router.

[Whyzman]

Ah, here's the article that directed me to the "dual-band" situation:

http://community.livejournal.com/phreaking/28672.html

I would caution you to read the whole article so this is not completely taken out of context...

It turns out the 5.8 Ghz. cordless phone feature is simply a marketing ploy. Check the FCC ID of any low-end and most mid-grade cordless phones and you will find out that they are not only good old analog FM, but also operate split-band. The handsets run on 5.8 Ghz., but the base station remains on the easily monitored 902-928 MHz band that is shared with wireless speaker systems, upgraded baby monitors, spread spectrum data communications, and ham radio operators. In fact, it turned out that the frequency of 927.500 MHz used as a national simplex channel by hams is also popular with cordless phones and baby monitors! While some manufacturer's attempt to obscure aspects of a product's operation by claiming it's a “trade secret”, you can still find the frequency band a device operates on, and in some instances find the actual frequencies of the device in the technical documentation the company submits to the FCC. Even if specific frequencies are unavailable, bringing the phone off hook and searching 902-928 MHz will quickly find you a dial tone on your receiver.

[Whyzman]

Sorry, you're correct 123456, it is 900 Mhz and 2.4, 5.8 Ghz ;) Not enough coffee yet this morning...or just old age! :D

[PrntRhd]

So time to get the dad a new phone, one with the higher frequencies.
;)

Or put up a grounded wire screen trellis between the two properties to block transmissions.

[Whyzman]

The very Uniden phone that the above dude tested is the same as my Dad's phone: http://www.uniden.com/products/productdetail.cfm?product=DXAI5588%2D2

So time to get the dad a new phone, one with the higher frequencies.Oh yeah... Two reasons for the post. One, hopefully to let others know they may be vulnerable to...let's say voyeurs. Second, to look at the new technology and make a "secure" choice.

[Whyzman]

Some cordless phones will constantly change channels to prevent this.Yes, and no...depending on the marketing. Some of the older cordless phones promoted this concept, but only actually had the capability of reselecting from 25 channel options. A scanner could just pick up on the new frequency...

The other thing is that we think we're secure due to the limited range...yet the phones are marketed to us with distance as an acceptable feature, e.g., you can talk with someone from the comfort of your backyard gazebo with clarity. Many of these phones have about a football field range. That could translate into a few "possibilities" if you live an an inner city. Or, for that matter if you live in an uncluttered area, devoid of trees or buildings...

The new Digital Spread Spectrum is one I'm researching.

[Whyzman]

My own cordless, I find, is one of the first Digital Spread Spectrum V-tech phones put onto the market. It also uses two frequencies. Although it clearly states that it is 5.8 Ghz...it also broadcasts using 2.4 Ghz. Upon closer look, one frequency is used broadcasting from the base and then receiving on the handset. The other is used broadcasting from the handset and then receiving on the base.

In my case I'm fairly secure because mine is using the DSS technology. However, if someone has purchased a phone with the idea that they want to avoid 2.4 Ghz to minimize interference with other 2.4 Ghz items in their home... I guess I failed to read the fine print! :D