This is a step in the right direction as it makes changing IMEIs for ulterior motives illegal. This shall prevent using of handsets for criminal and terrorist activities with dubious identity by modifying the IMEIs using software and other techniques.<\/p>
However, the notification addresses only one aspect of the issue. No doubt, this is a very serious and important issue concerning security and frauds. Especially, when a lot of digital payments are taking place, the uniqueness of the device through IMEIs becomes paramount for law enforcing agencies to detect the origin of dubious digital transactions. But, the notification does not address three concerns.<\/p>
Ascertaining the genuine one: Suppose there are now two devices on the network with same IMEI. How can the law enforcement agency decide the genuineness of the legitimate one? For this, the agency has to work with the entire value chain, because the operator would not be in a position to help on this. For a simple case where a few devices have the same IMEI, it may even be possible for the investigating agencies to work closely with the entire value chain. But, imagine the real cases where the same IMEI is flashed on thousands of devices. How can the investigating agency decipher which one is genuine?<\/p>
Cleaning the existing system: The notification bars the flashing of unauthorized IMEIs prospectively. How do we clean the system\/networks with the duplicate IMEIs? CMR has done some analysis and as per initial estimates, there are 5-6% duplicate IMEIs in the country of the total subscriber base. It is essential from security as well as sanity purposes that the existing base is also cleaned.<\/p>
After sales: There are instances, for example, changing of the motherboard, where IMEI gets changed during servicing of a phone. As per the notification, the only manufacturer is allowed to assign IMEI and that too in the initial stage during manufacturing. The current notification does not include authorized service centers to tamper the IMEI for legitimate reasons.<\/p>
The present guideline only addresses the issue where for unlawful activities someone tries to tamper the IMEI to disguise the device. Even in this the problem is who will report the tampering as both the parties involved will be having vested interests and nobody would bring it to the notice of law enforcing agencies. Else, there shall have to be very close vigilance mechanism but that would also not be cent percent effective and will be prone to loopholes.<\/p>
So, is there no solution at all? Well that is not the case. There are a couple of solutions available with the industry. I would not go here into the details of the solution, but, would definitely want to highlight that the need is for to have a centralized solution across operators where IMEIs of devices could be compared to find out the duplicates across the subscriber base. Thereafter the solution must have capability to allow the device with genuine IMEI whether already in the network or connecting for the first time. <\/p>","blog_img":"","featured":0,"status":"Y","seo_title":"A stricter regime is required for ensuring uniqueness of IMEIs","seo_url":"a-stricter-regime-is-required-for-ensuring-uniqueness-of-imeis","cms_link":"a-stricter-regime-is-required-for-ensuring-uniqueness-of-imeis\/2620","updated_at":"2017-09-25 11:47:34","time":"2017-09-25 11:47:34","authors":[{"author_name":"Faisal Kawoosa","author_description":"Founder, Principal Analyst, techARC","author_designation":"Founder, Principal Analyst","author_company":"techARC","profile_pic":"retail_files\/author_1509706883_temp.jpg"}],"tags":["DoT","IMEI","Policy","Blog"],"url_seo":"a-stricter-regime-is-required-for-ensuring-uniqueness-of-imeis"}">
需要更严格的制度,以确保imei的独特性
这是一个正确方向的一步,因为它使得改变imei别有用心是非法的。这将防止利用手机犯罪和恐怖活动的可疑身份通过修改imei使用软件和其他技术。
电报
脸谱网
复制链接
一个月的通知点突然得到了媒体的关注。通知说篡改的imei除了分配相同的制造商作为违法犯罪,能够受到惩罚。
这是一个正确方向的一步,因为它使得改变imei别有用心是非法的。这将防止利用手机犯罪和恐怖活动的可疑身份通过修改imei使用软件和其他技术。
然而,通知地址只有一个方面的问题。毫无疑问,这是一个非常严肃和重要的问题关于安全性和欺诈行为。特别是当很多数字支付发生,设备的唯一性通过imei成为至高无上的法律执行机构来检测可疑数字交易的起源。但是,通知不解决三个问题。
确定真正的:假设现在有两个设备在网络上IMEI相同。如何执法机构决定的真实合法吗?为此,该机构与整个价值链,因为操作符将不能够帮助。为一个简单的情况下几个设备具有相同的IMEI,甚至可能为调查机构与整个价值链密切合作。但是,想象真正的情况下,相同的IMEI成千上万的设备上闪过。调查机构如何破译哪一个是真实的?
清理现有的系统:通知酒吧闪烁的未经授权的imei前瞻性。我们如何重复的imei清洁系统/网络吗?CMR做了一些分析和根据初步估计,在全国有5 - 6%重复的imei的用户总数。至关重要的安全以及理智的目的,现有的基础也是清洁。
售后:有实例,例如,改变的主板,IMEI在服务电话得到改变。根据通知,只允许制造商分配IMEI和在制造业也在初始阶段。当前通知不包括授权服务中心夯的IMEI正当理由。
目前的指南只地址非法活动的问题,有人试图篡改IMEI伪装设备。即使在这个问题是谁将报告篡改既是当事人将拥有既得利益,没有人会把它法律执行机构的注意。,必须有非常接近警戒机制,但是这也不是有效的,容易出现漏洞。
所以,没有解决方案吗?这并非如此。有几个可用的解决方案。我不会在这里进入解决方案的细节,但是,一定要强调,需要的是有一个集中的解决方案相比,跨运营商的imei设备可以找出重复的用户基础。之后的解决方案必须有能力允许设备真正的IMEI是否已经在网络连接的第一次。
