You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
My skim of the documents suggests that the U.S. government is still not issuing numbers in the 900s. Should we perhaps consider including that in the if statement (instead of only rejecting '666')?
Revisiting this one. Confirmed in both branches: area >= 740 || area == 666 (src/operators/verify_ssn.cc in 3.x, apache2/re_operators.c in 2.x). Since SSN randomisation in 2011 the Social Security Administration assigns all area numbers except 000, 666 and 900-999, so the check should be area == 0 || area == 666 || area >= 900. One-line fix in each branch plus a test; I can open the PRs.
Activity
Update verify_ssn.cc to fix new format
martinhsv commentedon Sep 19, 2023
Hello @jakubsuchy ,
My skim of the documents suggests that the U.S. government is still not issuing numbers in the 900s. Should we perhaps consider including that in the if statement (instead of only rejecting '666')?
jakubsuchy commentedon Mar 2, 2024
This doc says they now issue those I think: https://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html
"Previously unassigned area numbers were introduced for assignment excluding area numbers 000, 666 and 900-999."
fzipi commentedon Oct 12, 2026
Revisiting this one. Confirmed in both branches:
area >= 740 || area == 666(src/operators/verify_ssn.ccin 3.x,apache2/re_operators.cin 2.x). Since SSN randomisation in 2011 the Social Security Administration assigns all area numbers except 000, 666 and 900-999, so the check should bearea == 0 || area == 666 || area >= 900. One-line fix in each branch plus a test; I can open the PRs.