RFC 7375: Secure Telephone Identity Threat Model
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
As the Internet and the telephone network have become increasingly interconnected and interdependent, attackers can impersonate or obscure calling party numbers when orchestrating bulk commercial calling schemes, hacking voicemail boxes, or even circumventing multi-factor authentication systems trusted by banks. This document analyzes threats in the resulting system, enumerating actors, reviewing the capabilities available to and used by attackers, and describing scenarios in which attacks are launched.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7375
- Published
- October 2014
- Authors
- J. Peterson
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- art
- Pages
- 13
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7340Secure Telephone Identity Problem Statement and RequirementsCurrent
September 2014
- RFC 8224Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Updated
February 2018
- RFC 9060Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) Certificate DelegationCurrent
September 2021
- RFC 8396Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, and Registering Telephone Numbers (MODERN): Problem Statement, Use Cases, and FrameworkCurrent
July 2018
- RFC 8850Controlling Multiple Streams for Telepresence (CLUE) Protocol Data ChannelCurrent
January 2021
- RFC 7345UDP Transport Layer (UDPTL) over Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)Updated
August 2014
- RFC 7295Report from the IAB/IRTF Workshop on Congestion Control for Interactive Real-Time CommunicationCurrent
July 2014
- RFC 7248Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): PresenceObsoleted
May 2014
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?