User comments on ISPs
  >> TalkTalk Broadband


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | [5] | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User bobble_bob
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 24-Oct-15 16:01:23
Print Post

Re: Full statement on Talktalk attack


[re: Oliver341] [link to this post]
 
Like you say a very strange idea whats in it for TT?
Standard User Oliver341
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 24-Oct-15 16:10:26
Print Post

Re: Full statement on Talktalk attack


[re: bobble_bob] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by bobble_bob:
Like you say a very strange idea whats in it for TT?

Card processing fees!

Oliver.
Standard User edwincluck
(regular) Sat 24-Oct-15 17:14:43
Print Post

Re: Leaving TalkTalk


[re: knicol46] [link to this post]
 
make sure you tell the national press as that's the only way they listen.

You're crediting the media with credibility it just doesn't have. To date, the victim stories carried in the press are beyond preposterous. These are the three main anecdotes that the meeja has run with, to set the scene..

International Business Times and other outputs are reporting with a completely straight-face on Ian Frater, the confused gentleman below. Worryingly, Ian, a trainee doctor from Glasgow, reckons that the "jihadi" TalkTalk hackers targeted his PC with a DDOS, bringing his browsing to an abrupt halt.

Read all abaaaht it -- TalkTalk hackers hit my sync rate! From the IBT:
It also emerged that on Wednesday (21 October) before details about the hack became known, Ian Frater, a trainee doctor from Glasgow, believes his broadband was hijacked and he then spoke to someone he believes was a hacker. "They slowed my internet down – which I imagine could be a denial-of-service attack or something – then phoned pretending to be TalkTalk support, who were being proactive in helping their customers," said Frater. "They had all the details you would expect TalkTalk to have at hand, including name, address, phone number and TalkTalk account number. The guy really sounded like he was in a TalkTalk call centre."

Am I missing the point? If the above is accurate - which it surely ain't - how are these mythical hackers linking our TalkTalk account details to our IP addresses? Surely they'd need our IP addresses to screw us over like that? These jihadists -- who clearly hate us for our freedoms -- must have real-time access to TalkTalk RADIUS server logs as well?! Maybe best not to think too much about this; letting the facts spoil a good story!
----

The Independent lifted another scare-story straight from the Twitosphere without verifying even the most basic facts. The twitosphere now being the epicentre for investigative journalism donchaknow! In truth, nothing pertinent at all to see:

Donna Kinnear, from Dingwall in Scotland, actually tweeted that she had been targeted before TalkTalk revealed the cyber attack had taken place. She praised her bank, Santander, for blocking the hack, writing: “Some a****** hacker tried to purchase something using my bank details. Ha ha thanks to Santander he got f*** all. Thieving ***.” Ms Kinnear later tweeted that she believed she had her “identity stolen” in the raid on TalkTalk’s databases and, like Ms Foster, was critical of the company’s response. She said: “Can’t get through to them or the fraud squad. Don’t know what to do.”

Hark at foul-mouthed Donna from Dingwall! Offering not a jot of proof of TalkTalk's culpability; but no problem - the hysteria she generates is all that matters!

Another silly season story, This time of a blonde office clerk who reckons her bank account was looted of £600 by The TalkTalk "Hack1n6 Cr3w":

Miss Hilly Foster, another confused customer of TalkTalk PLC, simply saw transactions on her bank statement that she didn't recognise. But don't we all find those from time to time? Nevertheless, overwhelmed by the hysteria on the idiot box, furious Miss Foster swiftly put two and two together, blamed TalkTalk and bared all to the media, which dutifully lapped up her tale, fuelling the hysteria! Hilly's story has since gone viral; carried in the Independent, the Mail, ITV, Telegraph, Sky News, Evening Standard and more! Again, the reality is irrelevant.
-----

Irregardless of facts, TalkTalk shares "have fallen almost a fifth this week" reports the Financial Times. Interestingly, we can see from the charts that the share price was "on the slide" even before these hysterical "hacker" reports. The result of insider-traders taking their profits early; in the knowledge of what was about to unfold?!

Yet three days later, and the meeja now reveals that the scale of the "hacker attack" is much smaller than initially supposed. How much smaller? Vanishingly small?!

In the Pastebin "Message from TalkTalk Hackers" we count less than 100 compromised customer records; none with identifiable bank details. But, get this -- maybe they weren't even real customer records?? But no matter! The damage to the TalkTalk brand, as intended, is already done.

Now this from Bloomberg:
The attack was on TalkTalk’s website and not its core systems, the London-based company said Saturday in an e-mailed statement. “We now expect the amount of financial information that may have been accessed to be materially lower than initially believed,” TalkTalk said.

A case of quite literally, "nothing here to see" ?

Nevertheless, a 2014 research paper by Ponemon Institute explored the typical cost of a corporate data breach -- whether real, imagined or grossly exaggerated. The authors estimate the damage at US$246 per customer; with abnormal customer churn rate soaring to 15 percent.

TalkTalk is probably the most vulnerable of the big four communication providers to these types of assault on its reputation - whether the attacks are real or not. In fact, TalkTalk is looking increasingly irrelevant in the broadband and entertainment market. The provider has none of the broadcast nor broadband infrastructure that Sky, BT and Virgin can boast. Turning it more into a virtual provider; just another ISP piggy-backing on BT's monopoly MSAN kit in the street.

As broadband provision shifts away from older exchange-based LLU equipment - increasingly obsolete kit that TalkTalk currently owns and manages - with provision shifting to the newer, faster, VDSL-based equipment in street cabinets, all under BT ownership - what point to TalkTalk?

So will this attack be seen as one of the straws that, by design, finally breaks the camel's back? Sounding the death knell for TalkTalk as one of the most competitive providers in the marketplace? Only time will tell.

--

Edited by edwincluck (Sat 24-Oct-15 21:03:56)


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User edwincluck
(regular) Sun 25-Oct-15 17:23:40
Print Post

Re: Leaving TalkTalk


[re: edwincluck] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by edwincluck:
In the Pastebin "Message from TalkTalk Hackers" we count less than 100 compromised customer records; none with identifiable bank details. But, get this -- maybe they weren't even real customer records??

On closer inspection, this does seem to be the case. The leaked "TalkTalk" records may well be fake. The clowns in the media obliquely admit as much today. The TalkTalk data "leaked" on pastebin "cannot be verified" we are told now. A sleuthing child could have worked that out in minutes. But that wouldn't have suited the agenda. It wouldn't have whipped-up all that hatred and hysteria towards TalkTalk, nor that customer stampede, nor that financial heartache for this embattled company.

That sample set of "compromised customer records" on pastebin appears to be comprised of data drawn from elsewhere; obtained from sources outside TalkTalk. And then badly cobbled together.

Interestingly, there is now at least one hoaxer further fuelling the FUD by actually claiming to be one of the TalkTalk customers on that fake list! What exceedingly bad luck for him to be one of just 43 alleged customers in that leaked sample, out of a customer-base of four million! But how fortuitous, in a sense, that he should be aware of it, and so vocal about it!

Here's a couple of examples from this hoax (if that's what it is..):

A Ben GALLOWAY is listed on the "TalkTalk" pastebin list. Born 1992; Ben is shown as living at an address in Crumlin Co Antrim (BT29 4xx). There is indeed a Galloway family (Kenneth & Sharon) living at that address; although Ben himself is not on the electoral register for the property. However, a Mr Ken Galloway is listed online as secretary of the Crumlim & District Homing Pigeon Society (!). Indeed both Ken Galloway and son Ben - are identified online, receiving awards for their pigeon fancying (!) Is that where the TalkTalk "hackers" actually got Ben Galloway's details?! Not from TalkTalk but from innocuous sources elsewhere?!

Even more curious, the mobile number listed in the pastebin records for young Ben GALLOWAY is not his own. What's listed beside Ben's name is actually the mobile number for a Miss Nikita BRIDEN, a graphic designer from Whitehouse, Ipswich.. Nikita's number is also published online. However it's published by another source. Bizarre, huh?! Is that how that telephone number for "Ben Galloway" (actually Nikita Briden's number) was obtained by these supposed "hackers"? Just from trawling the net?

More evidence of this mindless harvesting and cobbling together of unrelated online data, to form the supposedly stolen, so-called "TalkTalk" customer database records?

----

Here's another example..

The unusually-named Luisa GEFFERT is listed in the same pastebin records, along with her hotmail email address, as another compromised customer of TalkTalk. Yet Miss GEFFERT, a video-game animator from St Helens / Knutsford, readily put those personal details on the internet herself. Plus much more besides, including her CV and her mobile number, which is not listed in the pastebin records. Again, is that where the "hackers" actually obtained her data? Not from hacking TalkTalk's system but from harvesting personal data, in this case data the "victim" published herself elsewhere on the internet?

----
Someone else sceptical and suspicious of these supposed hacked "TalkTalk" records notes the following:
There are also some Unix timestamps in there e.g. 1311343301 = Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:01:41 UTC
So why would they show data that is over 4 years old? Surely they would use current data to show how powerful and recent they are. It looks like some user data and some registration journal stuff. Maybe they didn't hack it at all, and the hacker has shown them old data that was nabbed years ago (probably when Tiscali and TalkTalk merged) and did a DDoS attack to get themselves noticed.

What's often true in these financial hoaxes - or 'psyops' as they call them - if indeed this is a hoax - is that the hoaxers aim, where possible, to stay within the spirit of the law. Just in case they are rumbled, and the whatnot 'hits the fan'. They don't actually need to hack TalkTalk system to create mass panic and hysteria. They just create that impression; by using complicit associates in the crooked media to "report" on a successful hack, when in fact there was none... And if ever finding themselves grilled over their activities - they can just point to the "stolen" data as being faked, or based on data already published online any way. Food for thought?

Edited by edwincluck (Sun 25-Oct-15 17:55:38)

Standard User baby_frogmella
(fountain of knowledge) Sun 25-Oct-15 20:01:30
Print Post

Re: Leaving TalkTalk


[re: edwincluck] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by edwincluck:
The provider has none of the broadcast nor broadband infrastructure that Sky, BT and Virgin can boast. Turning it more into a virtual provider; just another ISP piggy-backing on BT's monopoly MSAN kit in the street.


Eh? TalkTalk has the largest IP network backbone in the country bigger than that of BT & Sky, as proven by 96% of exchanges having TalkTalk ADSL2+ availability. Quite often TalkTalk will LLU exchanges which BT & Sky won't touch with a bargepole wrt bringing their own IP network to it, so TalkTalk is far from a virtual ISP. The same backhaul used for TalkTalk ADSL2+ services is also used for Talktalk FTTC services from the exchange > WWW.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
TalkTalk Business Fibre 79999/20000 kbps
Powered by Linksys EA8500
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Edited by baby_frogmella (Sun 25-Oct-15 20:15:17)

Standard User edwincluck
(regular) Sun 25-Oct-15 23:44:40
Print Post

Re: Leaving TalkTalk


[re: baby_frogmella] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:
Eh? TalkTalk has the largest IP network backbone in the country bigger than that of BT & Sky, as proven by 96% of exchanges having TalkTalk ADSL2+ availability. Quite often TalkTalk will LLU exchanges which BT & Sky won't touch with a bargepole wrt bringing their own IP network to it, so TalkTalk is far from a virtual ISP. The same backhaul used for TalkTalk ADSL2+ services is also used for Talktalk FTTC services from the exchange > WWW.

Agree with your sentiment re: TalkTalk's expansive backhaul. But what value all that infrastructure? What use to a consumer-facing telco that, more than ever, is battling BT's market dominance?

If it can't attract more punters of its own - yet more of us fleeing in droves from the latest TalkTalk scandal -- contrived or otherwise -- what traffic left to route over those capacious backhauls? Traffic from a declining niche of TalkTalk resellers? Sounds like an overprovisioned telco.

Furthermore, TalkTalk is saddled with obsolete and depreciating* LLU kit in the exchange; kit limited to ADSL2+; technology ratified in 2003 and now out-of-date. Consumer expectations and demands are for much higher bandwidth than ADSL2+ can deliver. Streaming HD video over a mediocre ADSL2+ connection is painful, yet that's TalkTalk's bread and butter.

That's why TalkTalk is looking so vulnerable. Relegated in the marketplace to that of budget re-seller of BT's own superior FTTC services; vulnerable to every margin-squeeze pulled off by the incumbent; its profits capped through reliance on BT infrastructure; little to no control over BT's broadband access delivery, its market consigned to rural backwaters where BT's FTTC has yet to reach; its entertainment packages inferior to its rivals. TalkTalk is greatly limited in its prospects for future growth. It's a dying telco; or that's what I see.

As for TalkTalk's backhaul plant - speaking hypothetically, if TalkTalk were to be wound up - broken by this latest scandal - with its assets sold off - who would actually buy them? And at what price? Wouldn't it be a buyers' market; very few takers; just its former rivals cherry-picking the best of its chattels at fire-sale prices?

* And speaking of TalkTalk's assets, it strikes as odd that in the latest "financials" it actually places an *increased* value on its assets. The balance sheet for this fiscal year values its assets at £1.463bn, compared to £1,323bn for 2014. An astonishing 10 percent increase of £140m. Really? How is that explained, when its legacy LLU kit must be greatly depreciating. What major assets, if any, has TalkTalk acquired since last year? Its 2015 Annual Report attributes much of those asset gains to newly acquired customers, goodwill, and other intangibles (£43m). Is that realistic, or rather inflated and optimistic? Masking major depreciations in its tangible assets - all that legacy LLU kit?

----
Returning to TalkTalk's latest hacking scandal. The Metro newspaper estimates - without offering a shred of evidence - that:
"TalkTalk is set to face devastating losses of £75 million as the fallout from the cyber-attack on the network continues."

More bad news. Losses of £75m would wipe out all the pre-tax profits made by TalkTalk over the whole of the last two years. Rubbing further salt into the wounds for this troubled telco is Daniel Thomas of the FT. Citing (anonymous) "legal experts" who have estimated -- i.e. plucked a figure from thin air - that compensation claims alone "could total more than £20m."

Interestingly, the same FT article, alludes briefly to the role of hedge funds in this hacking scandal:
Investors are likely to be worried about the impact on its share price. The company has already been targeted by short sellers, which bet on share prices falling, such as Odey over worries about competition in the British broadband market.

Odey was one of the Hedge Funds identified in May of this year, short-selling TalkTalk stock back then too. When apparently 15% of TalkTalk equity had been loaned out to Hedge Funds, explicitly for shorting the stock. Though, unsurprisingly, we're not told which of TalkTalk's shareholders were loaning their stock to those short-sellers. But presumably they shared in the (greater) profits from manipulating the price of their own shares downwards. Here's a list of the major TalkTalk stock holdings. Any of the same suspects involved this time around too?

From that FT article of May 14 2015:
Nearly 15 per cent of TalkTalk’s shares are on loan to short sellers, up from around 2 per cent a year ago, with Odey Asset Management and Ricky Sandler’s Eminence Capital among the hedge funds to disclose bets against the stock.

In this latest scandal, it would seem that the hedge funds once again are working with a collusional media to manipulate the price of TalkTalk stock - for their own personal profit - by engineering a campaign of media hysteria, greatly exaggerating any true risk to customers, and spreading widespread FUD.

The hedge funds then profit from their market pre-positioning; so-called short-selling with foreknowledge of the hacking psyop about to unfold; cashing in their bets on a dramatic (if only brief) slump in the stock price. And don't rule out the involvement of the TalkTalk board itself in this latest psyop targeting the telco. They're all in on it, imho.

Edited by edwincluck (Mon 26-Oct-15 00:11:44)

Standard User baby_frogmella
(fountain of knowledge) Mon 26-Oct-15 01:12:08
Print Post

Re: Leaving TalkTalk


[re: edwincluck] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by edwincluck:
Agree with your sentiment re: TalkTalk's expansive backhaul. But what value all that infrastructure?


TalkTalk have got 4 million plus customers so they've got plenty of users making use of their infrastructure. I certainly won't be leaving them after this 'scandal' which has been blown out of all proportion by the tabloids & i suspect many other TT customers feel the same.

In reply to a post by edwincluck:
If it can't attract more punters of its own - yet more of us fleeing in droves from the latest TalkTalk scandal -- contrived or otherwise -- what traffic left to route over those capacious backhauls?

TalkTalk's FTTC traffic goes over their own backhaul once Openreach terminate TT's FTTC customers at the exchange. You do know that Openreach FTTC traffic has to be connected to a backhaul right? And TalkTalk have the most expansive all-IP network in the country which is necessary for FTTC/P connections & I don't see that disappearing anytime soon.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
TalkTalk Business Fibre 79999/20000 kbps
Powered by Linksys EA8500
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Standard User sor
(newbie) Mon 26-Oct-15 12:14:59
Print Post

Re: Leaving TalkTalk


[re: baby_frogmella] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:
In reply to a post by edwincluck:
The provider has none of the broadcast nor broadband infrastructure that Sky, BT and Virgin can boast. Turning it more into a virtual provider; just another ISP piggy-backing on BT's monopoly MSAN kit in the street.


Eh? TalkTalk has the largest IP network backbone in the country bigger than that of BT & Sky, as proven by 96% of exchanges having TalkTalk ADSL2+ availability. Quite often TalkTalk will LLU exchanges which BT & Sky won't touch with a bargepole wrt bringing their own IP network to it, so TalkTalk is far from a virtual ISP. The same backhaul used for TalkTalk ADSL2+ services is also used for Talktalk FTTC services from the exchange > WWW.


That's possibly a red herring though.

Around here at least, BT seems to be putting all its effort and money into FTTC and FTTP. Why spend the money on ADSL2 equipment when it's pretty old technology and you're already deploying something that supersedes it?

That means that BT doesn't need the 21CN to be at every exchange, only the ones where the "headend" is. Ditto TalkTalk/Sky - they only really need to be where the headends are

BT could also choose to start offering ADSL2+ from the FTTC cabinets instead of ADSL2+ from exchanges.

Some exchanges, like mine, only got 21CN ADSL and TalkTalk LLU only after BT decided to deploy FTTC/FTTP in the area (even though the network is run from the town exchange a few miles away, not the local one).

Presumably TalkTalk are doing LLU in exchanges like mine for voice more so than the ADSL (or to take the exchange out of market 1 status and get lower rates out of BT?). As and when BT decides to rip out and replace its PSTN, we'll see action there - whether that's a brand new MSAN in every exchange or getting the FTTC cabinets/G.FAST DSLAMs/FTTP ONTs to do it all

Edited by sor (Mon 26-Oct-15 12:26:58)

Standard User baby_frogmella
(fountain of knowledge) Mon 26-Oct-15 14:33:15
Print Post

Re: Leaving TalkTalk


[re: sor] [link to this post]
 
At present ADSL2+ is a far from obsolete technology. Just a couple of reasons why ADSL2+ will be around for a bit longer:

1) Not everyone wants or needs superfast 80mb/s speeds. Eg your 98 year old biddy who has no interest in watching Ben Dover videos grin online may be perfectly happy with 15mb/s on ADSL2+. Its all about giving customers CHOICE.

2) Those on Exchange Only lines who cant get FTTC/P will find ADSL2+ a godsend, provided they dont live too far from the exchange. Yes there are lines in FTTC areas being converted from EO to cab based, but this is mainly being done in BDUK funded areas only.

Anyway the main point I was trying to make to edwincluck was that TalkTalk are far from a 'virtual ISP' as he implied, TalkTalk have the largest IP based network in the country used for both ADSL2+ and FTTC connections.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
TalkTalk Business Fibre 79999/20000 kbps
Powered by Linksys EA8500
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Edited by baby_frogmella (Mon 26-Oct-15 14:34:41)

Standard User Futaura
(experienced) Mon 26-Oct-15 19:01:47
Print Post

Re: Leaving TalkTalk


[re: baby_frogmella] [link to this post]
 
Am I the only one to feel sorry for TalkTalk? I'm sure people must remember the Sony PSN hack that affected 77 million users, and Sony took over 2 weeks to acknowledge the hack. TalkTalk have been unfairly lambasted for taking 36 hours to acknowledge the issue, which is pretty quick, especially as it was a pre-emptive announcement before the investigation had really concluded anything.

Are people naive enough to think changing to another ISP is a solution? Whose to say other ISPs like BT or Sky are hack-proof. I'm more than happy with TalkTalk service... Why would I change back to a sub-standard and more expensive ISP?

The amount of misinformation I've seen is unbelievable. I'd bet some of these people blaming the hack for money going missing from their bank accounts have have had their email accounts compromised via dodgy websites, malware and such like - there are more ways for scammers to find your account number (which TalkTalk put in their bill notification emails) than hacking TalkTalk.
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | [5] | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to