Hacker News
points by darkwater 18 hours ago | 0 comments
The issue seems serious but the part about Australia and 000 that would ban an attacked device seems the typical LLM-being-too-anal paragraph, and completely lacking common sense.

Maybe I'm wrong and naive but given that the AU law was done to force people move forward from 3G only phones because the network was being shutdown and 000 moved to 5G (I believe), it's a law for operator to contact their customers still using an old phone and migrate them to a newer one. I doubt they will block automatically the number if you are under that DOS for a few days in a row.

[–] erebussss 16 hours ago
Australia has laws that require companies that provide a cellular service to follow, not fixing such a exploit would breach these laws. Under no circumstance can a telco, phone manufacturer or intermediary restrict or knowingly allow the restriction of access to Emergency Services. Google in this case would be considered as knowningly allowing the restriction as they're refusing the acknowledge this as an issue, something I'm sure ACMA could act upon or compel Google into fixing.
[–] dools 16 hours ago
> I doubt they will block automatically the number if you are under that DOS for a few days in a row.

You doubt correctly. The law is about blocking IMEI numbers of phones that use the 3g network to dial 000 despite being 4g devices.

[–] chinathrow 17 hours ago
How can 000 move to 5G only?
[–] dools 16 hours ago
It didn't. The 3g network was shut down. There were several older devices that were 4g but still used 3g to call 000, so they had to be blocked from connecting.