More Skype Back Door Speculation 210
An anonymous reader writes "According to reports, there may be a back door built into Skype, which allows connections to be bugged. The company has declined to expressly deny the allegations. At a meeting with representatives of ISPs and the Austrian regulator on lawful interception of IP based services held on 25th June, high-ranking officials at the Austrian interior ministry revealed that it is not a problem for them to listen in on Skype conversations."
Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't use Skype (or VoIP for that matter) but I would be curious if anyone knows of any alternatives that is completely open.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)
"Unlike its competitor network Skype, the Gizmo5 network uses open standards for call management, the Session Initiation Protocol and Jabber."
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)
using an open standard is not the same thing as being "open source" or "completely open"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, but Gizmo5 is only a software program that interfaces with the SIP-based network. You can (and I have) used Ekiga as the software front-end that works with an account.
The only downside is that there isn't any encryption, so it'd be pretty trivial to bug.
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only downside is that there isn't any encryption, so it'd be pretty trivial to bug.
I'd say that's a pretty huge downside, given the context in which the question was asked!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I remember correctly there is at least two solutions to that.
ZRTP are one.
http://swik.net/encryption+sip [swik.net]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZRTP [wikipedia.org]
Try OpenWengo (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> uses open standards
I know it begins with the same letter but you must realise by now, the difference between open source and open standards. The latest Microsoft Office uses open standards, but it's not exactly open source now is it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For OS X:
http://xmeeting.sourceforge.net/pages/xmeeting.php [sourceforge.net]
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't use Skype (or VoIP for that matter) but I would be curious if anyone knows of any alternatives that is completely open.
I asked the internet, she donned her Stupomitron Helmet, et voilà [wikipedia.org]
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)
An alternative to what? To Skype? To the PSTN? Software running on a PC is always going to be a poor solution, and is far from your only option for Internet voice communication. You do NOT need some app on your PC to do VoIP. What you want is something called an ATA - its a little box that has a jack for a regular phone, and an ethernet port. They are often supplied with service such as Vonage, but are usually 'locked' down to that provider. You can also but them directly, but you will of course still need 'something else' to initiate SIP connections to. For information about real VoIP networks (both net-to-net, as well as PSTN interconnection), visit voip-info.org
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing wrong with Skype,
Except that it might have a backdoor... which was kind of the point of this article in the first place.
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, for the good old days, when you actually needed a warrant.
Now they just get your packets to route across a border, and then can listen in at will [if you're not in the US].
If you do happen to live in the US, they just declare [as in, speak into the air] "This person is obviously an terrorist, an enemy combatant not in an official uniform, therefore, I can listen to all their phone calls.". Then the phone and/or VOIP company is required to permit the wiretap. This used to require a photocopied letter, but those were just too much of a hassle to carry around...
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking into the air was the good, old days, isn't it? Wasn't the point of the FISA bill to indemnify the phone companies for past, present and future uses of the permanent listening posts they have built into their facilities in order to better protect our glorious fatherland?
With Skype, I always figured when it was Estonian, who knew? When it was Ebay, we knew.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's closed source, forces you to use a non-standardized protocol, force you to use their client only, has all kinds of dirty tricks to prevent you from finding out what is going on, send your traffic thru p2p all over the place, may have said backdoor, so on so on.
I don't think IAX is supposed to have all the troubles of SIP. You can use lots of codecs with SIP as well.
Re: (Score:2)
But having a backdoor makes it far less useful
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two words: Network Effect [wikipedia.org]. All the alternatives I have reviewed are harder than skype. Harder to download, setup, use, the list goes on.
Result: Skype is popular - they nailed delivery to the "masses". No screwing around with the microphone, NAT/firewalls, SIP providers, names etc etc. The average joe can just download and install it in just two url clicks, type in a name and begin to use it. Done deal.
All the open source VOIP (most of them SIP) I have seen completely miss this most important point, and so all their development effort is ultimately wasted - walled themselves off to the technically proficient crowd and not benefiting from the network effect.
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)
And the network effect no longer applies if Ekiga users can call Skype users (And they can [tmcnet.com]).
Re: (Score:2)
The couple of SIP providers I toyed with provided a preconfigured (windows) program, no need to screw with settings other than asking the users name/passwd on initial run (not that I tried those since I let my local Asterisk server connect to them, but my experience is that using a stun server solves normal connection problems).
An other easy way to prevent RTP connection problems is for the SIP provider to remain in the mediapath (which is a nice MIM vector for snooping).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't use Skype (or VoIP for that matter) but I would be curious if anyone knows of any alternatives that is completely open.
For Linux there's a decent program called I Hear You (IHU), very simple program, GPL-licensed etc., you can find it at http://ihu.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
VoIP/SIP is open.
You only need a client [voip-info.org] and an account with any of the free SIP providers. Or you setup asterisk (or another free PBX software) and become your own provider.
The problem with SIP is that few people actually use it whereas skype is everywhere.
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)
Several orders of magnitude more daily minutes are done with SIP than Skype. SIP is used for corporate networks and calling card providers and lots of other situations.
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the SIP protocol is used more, yes. And it's gaining ground as more and more ISPs (at least here in europe) are offering VoIP along with internet access instead of landline + internet access.
In this case I was referring to the skype standard use-case, though. That is: end-users making calls with a softclient. AFAIK Skype is still the 900# gorilla in this segment, simply because everybody knows "Skype for calls" (akin to "Google for search") and hardly anyone bothers to look beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
Servers and bandwidth cost money. Sorry, no way OSS can solve this on its own.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
VOIP is peer-to-peer. A server is only used for matchmaking, and bandwidth is minimal.
Besides, OSS != guy in basement. Mozilla, Canonical and Red Hat somehow manage to pay for a few servers and a bit of bandwidth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think of alternatives, you'd expect them to fulfill the same specifications. One of the specifications when switching off the Skype is being able to actually contact other people. Try talking the Average Joe about ie. Ekiga, open source VOIP client. What will happen? You will get that sheepish look and question: "Why would I install that, I already got Skype. BESIDES EVERYONE I KNOW USE SKYPE AND I COULDN'T CALL THEM ANYMORE".
Such are network effects. There is no alternative for Skype for the specifi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Zfone?
Encrypted calls > Ekiga.
Sorry, I love Ekiga myself, especially since it has video, but I don't want to be eavesdropped on. Which is why until Ekiga incorporates Zfone's SDK, it's Zfone all the way. The software is "open source", like PGP is "open source", but the libs and the SDK are GPL. For the program, they won't accept your contributions, and I'm not too sure if they will for the libs, either; I guess it's mostly to keep it untampered, but they should be accepting contributions for the libs and
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to conference calls I found Mumble (open source) and Teamspeak (non-free, but has a Linux version) far superior to any of the classical VoIP software out there. For normal phone-like calls Ekiga is good enough, but overall I prefer text chat in combination with Mumble/Teamspeak.
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:4, Informative)
FreeSWITCH (www.freeswitch.org) is completely open, is MPL licensed and supports TLS & SRTP. Make sure you get the right phone with the right firmware because not all phones properly support TLS & SRTP. Ask in the #freeswitch irc channel on freenode.net or the FreeSWITCH mailing list which phones are known to work.
Asterisk has support for TLS in their development tree. Afaik their SRTP support is an untested patch in the bugtracker. At this point in time Asterisk does not seem to offer a working, stable TLS & SRTP solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use an open protocol such as SIP, for instance you could use Asterisk and Ekiga.
KIAX + Asterisk would be another solution.
http://www.asterisk.org/ [asterisk.org]
http://ekiga.org/ [ekiga.org]
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kiax [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be something called Wengophone [openwengo.org] but it looks like its supporting company, Wengo, has moved onto other things.
As far as I know, the software is still being developed (at least no one admitted that it's being abandoned completely), but I am not so sure about the VoIP service itself. My account still seems to work (and apparently, they are not expiring points after 6 months any more, even though I can't find anything official that says they changed their rules), but I'm not sure if you can open a
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why must EVERY conversation on privacy boil down to a few tired questions about "open source" alternatives ?
Because open source alternatives shouldn't have backdoors. And if it does they can be identified and closed. The only reason the conversation is tiresome is because proprietary software seems to have a perpetual stream of backdoors that keep keep bringing it up.
What, like if the source code is open, then that will prevent backdoors ? Erm hello, the client software isn't the problem, it's the network of Skype servers the bloody data passes through that is the weak point in the equation.
Nobody intelligent is asking for an oss skype client. They are asking for an oss replacement to the entire skype service. For precisely the reason you stated.
So who do you trust more with your privacy ? A multi million dollar company, or some nerd in his moms basement, acting as a VOIP connectivity server.
If that nerd is just hosting as a connection service, and the voip data stream itself is end-to-end encrypted and is actually transmitted directly to the recipient, then I trust the nerd in the basement more, because he never even sees the stream, and even if he did, its encrypted.
At least as long as I know I'm -really- using the public key of the called party to encrypt it, that is. But that is biggest weakness of almost all internet uses of encryption.
In my case, I'd chose option "none of the above", but really ... open source is not the answer to ALL the worlds ills.
Not all of them. But it is the answer to this one.
Re:Open source VoIP alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)
Because something like this will be audited if at all possible. Skype is closed, the binary is encrypted, it auto-exits in the presence of debuggers, and does various other things to prevent reverse-engineering. And, still, someone at BlackHat took it apart and found a remote vulnerability. If it were open source and popular, a lot more people would be poking it for holes.
More important than open source, here, is open standards. In an open standard, lots of cryptographers will look at the protocol for holes without considering the implementation details, and lots of others will look for holes in specific implementations. Implementation-related holes (such as the heap-overflow exploit in Skype) will not affect as many people, because there will be competing implementations and not everyone will be locked in to a single provider. If the hole is in the protocol (and allowing a midpoint to intercept the conversation is a hole in the protocol) then it is more likely to be found if the protocol is subject to peer review, which things like SRTP (which SIP can run on top of) have been.
Re: (Score:2)
What, like if the source code is open, then that will prevent backdoors ? Erm hello, the client software isn't the problem, it's the network of Skype servers the bloody data passes through that is the weak point in the equation.
But for Skype to Skype calls, they promise end-to-end encryption. If this can be verified by examining the source, and if the key management is done properly, then it shouldn't matter if the encrypted data passes through the Skype network or not. That's kind of the whole point of end-to-end encryption protocols: you shouldn't have to trust the intermediate servers.
Decode the protocol? (Score:2, Interesting)
Has anyone made attempts at decoding the SKYPE protocol. This would take some clever reverse engineering of the code and some clever wire sniffing.
I wonder if it would be possible to inject an encryption layer underneath what their service provides.
On a legal note, in the US, could consumers who purchased SKYPE products sue SKYPE.
Chances are pretty good that if this backdoor exists, it has for a long time.
Re:Decode the protocol? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Decode the protocol? (Score:5, Interesting)
Brought to you by closed source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brought to you by closed source (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that as soon as some really unbreakable OSS project takes the place of skype, someone will jump up and claim that OSS is promoting terrorism since it keeps the feds from snooping at you?
What's scary is that a lot of people will nod their head and agree...
Re: (Score:2)
You know that as soon as some really unbreakable OSS project takes the place of skype, someone will jump up and claim that OSS is promoting terrorism since it keeps the feds from snooping at you?
But how will they stop open source? If the feds pulled a move like that, it would be pretty much like the DRM case, where the music industry does so much to prevent us from using non-DRM. Ultimately, however, it will never succeed because they will always be outmanned.
Re: (Score:2)
Other countries would not accept that. The Swedish data inspection law is being stopped because the rest of the world doesn't want any of that crap.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not going to go after small groups of people who set up servers for their own use, like game groups using voice chat to coordinate actions (e.g. the Battlefield 2 group I'm in that has its own server for weekend games).
They are not going to go after people who just write software. They're not providing a thing.
And they have better things to do than chase hobbyists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd imagine on both sides the command would look like this:
ssh joe@someplace.net 'cat >
Obviously I don't know the exact device name, and you might have to use some other program to read in from the mic and such. IF the connection is slow/choppy, use speex. You should still even be able to do it from the command line, assumi
Re: (Score:2)
Open or not, you can't provide a VoIP-POTS switch service as Skype do, without running into the LI (Lawful Intercept) laws that scatter the world.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're promoting terrorism because you're making a stupid "you know that as soon as X happens, people will say Y" doomsaying remark.
There, saved some time.
I'm sorry but we cannot take your call (Score:2)
.
Telephony 101.
Calls through Skype can reach any phone, anywhere. Your FOSS client can reach a compatible FOSS client.
There are other lines of attack than brute-forcing the encryption. The geek can spend so much time worrying about the back door he forgets the front door, the cellar, the windows and the roof.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends. Is it unbreakable to allow safe voice calls or as a safe place to swap child porn (oh, and the occasional chinese dissident) and terrorism information? Will its development be centered on the needs of normal people or will it be focused on weird features that are only needed by the not-so-friendly types
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I haven't spotted any CP on freenet so far, but then, I wasn't looking too hard. What I did spot was a few pages and areas of freenet dedicated to finding and "outing" people looking for CP on freenet. So generally, if I was a pedo, freenet isn't necessarily where I'd start digging. You have a lot of people with a lot of knowledge about the net against you who are determined to keep their free space "clean" so it won't be shut down.
People with a determination can be a powerful force.
Re: (Score:2)
Freenet has a lot of indexes. It's not a place to find this stuff, but to freely share stuff once you know where to get it.
There are also other kinds of weird stuff at freenet, like lots of indexes maintained by
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled anarchy.
And why do you want total freedom for? I mean, wanting to keep your phone conversations private and stopping the government from installing cameras and keeping a database of your movements is one thing, but doing 100% anonymous file sharing is a whole different thing. Outside totalitarian regimes like China and Iran, why would you want to do that if not to break the law?
Seriously, why does this "price" needs to be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying snooping on my calls is a good thing. However, I don't think free software is the answer here. I make calls from my computer to a land line, how can I prevent my provider, Skype or not, from eavesdropping on my conversations? You don't expect me to convince all my contacts to start using their computer to receive calls, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Not good enough.
Maybe all your friends are computer savvy, but such is not the case for me. I use Skype mostly to call my parents. The only internet access they can get is 28.8 kbps through a phone line. So guess what, they're not always online. Therefore, if I wanted them to use Skype, I would have to
1) Get them to download it, which would take hours;
2) Install it;
3) Purchase a microphone;
4) Configure the microphone;
5) Call them and warn them to get on the internet so I can call them;
6) Talk to them.
They'r
Problematic. (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, shit.
yes (Score:5, Informative)
Disassembly anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it's tedious work, but some people actually seem to like it. Isn't it time that people disassemble these suspected binaries in order to issue a report on the matter? Not only on Skype, but on many other suspected programs, libraries and operating systems?
Re:Disassembly anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
If it was easy, someone would have done it by now, and made Gnype, don't you think?
Re:Disassembly anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think competitive code is as much of a threat as simply knowing what the code does is a threat.
I have read through a good portion of the PDF and I agree that the analysis of the breakdown and all of the measures Skype makes to conceal what it's doing are both impressive and worrisome. I suppose, perhaps, an alternative measure might be for some sort of "computing trustworthiness" scale to be created where the worst offenders (like Skype) are ranked as "potentially dangerous" until they [Skype] clears the matter up.
I suppose in the presence of such a [subjective?] scale, there would be a huge list of programs and applications deemed to be offensive in this way, but perhaps a black list such as this could be useful in attempting to get software a bit more open than it is today? After all, if you could cite an application as "2 out of 10" on the trustworthiness scale as a reason not to purchase, people might begin to take notice. I think a scale like this, whether subjective or not, would enable the technically uninterested to read these 'executive summaries' of information and make better decisions -- making it easier for the public to make more informed choices.
Would lawsuits result? Of course. But the lawsuits against RBLs once happened frequently before people decided it was better to just take measures to stay off the lists. Consumer Reports once found itself at the receiving end of legal actions and demands (and probably still does) but in the end, it's worth the effort they make as they are generally accepted as a trustworthy source. We need a Consumer Reports for software that exposes the privacy and security concerns that different software poses.
I know this stuff about Skype has given me reason to pause, but that's just me... I can sort of read and understand most of what I read here. But how about the rest of the uninformed? How can we get the point across to them?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course it is not a problem! (Score:2)
Especially when one of the parties is behind a firewall, the Skype servers are needed for the communication and in some place there, it gets unencrypted.
Real P2P encrypted voip communication (a-la Bit Torrent), would make it very difficult to eaves drop the communication.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's leeching *your* processor and bandwidth!" ... I don't share this observation. It is running on my linux box since the days I had a Pentium III and it never took much computing power, especially while ideling. Rarely I notice on my network monitor a 10kbit/s transfer when my skype client serves as a relay for two other skype clients which cannot communicate directly. That is basically all...
Does skype like back door action? (Score:5, Funny)
Do I have a volunteer from the
No possible way to disprove the claim (Score:3, Interesting)
With closed source and closed protocol specifications there is no way to disprove the claim of an existing backdoor. Regardless of wether there really exist a backdoor or not. Simple but true and it is the drawback of wanting to provide security in a closed source environment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Skype Monitoring & Staying Anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
All you have to know to monitor someone's Skype is their password. Login with Skype on another machine, set status to invisible. Anything they type or receive in chat you receive.
1. For IM: Jabber (non-US server) + OTR Plugin + Tor. ... and we don't do waterboarding here) (I hope)
2. For everything else (email/vpn/storage) services as provided by www.xerobank.com will do you good.
3. TrueCrypt Full Drive Encryption. (Check your local laws - under Dutch law they cannot force me to give up the passwords
Re: (Score:2)
If anybody else knows your password it's your own damn fault, not Skype's.
Skype knows your password too.
If they can listen in, then there is a backdoor (Score:2)
The encryption problem has been solved, also in such a way that nobody can listen in, not even the service provider. If anybody can listen in, it is either by hacking the source or target computer (difficult, maybe iollegal and may fail) or by a backdoor in the protocol. They can deny all they want, the backdoor is there. That also means that Skype is unusable for any kind of confidential conversation, as there are enough scum in the intelligence community that are allowed to do industrial espionage (the US
Real VoIP (Score:2)
Skype is closed proprietary crap. Real VoIP is about open standards and interoperability. Check out Asterisk, OpenPBX for server software. For client-end stuff, skip the PC soundcard crap and get a real ATA, even a basic Sipura SPA-2000 is better than some crap closed application running off a PC soundcard.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be sure that these people are also trying to:
You can be equally certain that they are not doing it right and that the backdoors they are trying to put in make your system less secure.
Running open source software is your best bet, but even there, you aren't completely protected.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, your c compiler was backdoored a long time ago already. everything you compile, including all the compilers, get the back door compiled in.
It's too late.
on another note, where is an ethernet trace of Skype doing something underhanded like making a third connection to another machine mid call, or making two or more connections when normally one was just opened? Your network interface doesn't lie. If you are point to point with your called party, you see everything leaving your system. if there was som
Of course it's bugged. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume all communication that uses any kind of monitorable infrastructure is bugged. The capacity is there, and the desire is there.
It is the way of things.
That's not the point (Score:2, Interesting)
I think what people are worrying about is not the risk of being individually targeted for lawful interception, but the risk of blanket mass interception of all calls worldwide, using automated keyword matching implemented extremely efficiently on extraordinarily vast numbers (100s millions, money no object, power 20MW+) of dedicated chips, not general purpose CPUs, that fill no more than 4.5 acres of warehousing underground consuming c.5MW surprisingly.
Source secret problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This is going to be a problem with any so called "secure" communication system that relies on source secret clients and unpublished protocols.
There are many ways to build such clients to "assist" external intercept, since they often have to first communicate with some central server to locate users. They could for example have a command that forces the client to always route back through the server (like they do for NAT), and use a simple data transformation rather than full encryption so casual packing snooping makes it "appear" encrypted when it is actually not.
They might also have flaws in their implimentation, particularly with key exchange, that allows an invisible man in the middle. The ZRTP stuff developed by Phil Zimmerman that we use in GNU Telephony secure calling uses extra steps to compute a sas to validate there are not fake public session keys given out by a man in the middle, for one example of how such flaws can effect otherwise "secure in appearence" systems.
Of course, even secure peer-reviewed protocols and foss clients do not gaurantee security. For example, one can tether a bunch of ZRTP softphones to an Asterisk server using PBX enrollment, but this enables and requires said server to decrypt all traffic as it passes through, as it acts as a "trusted" man-in-the-middle.
In the end, the best solution, even with ZRTP, remains using pure peer-to-peer (end-to-end) media connections, and when needed transparent proxy media exchange; the latter for dealing with NAT. In ZRTP, sas negotiation assures any such proxy used for NAT "remains" transparent.
In the case of Skype, source secret clients that can report false call information and source secret protocols are a clear recipe for disaster.
SIP Skype (Score:3, Informative)
Asterisk+SIP+Ekiga is not a good replacement for Skype:
Add to this that Skype has existed for a large number of years (5 years is "long" in "internet time") and it's not exactly known as a big medium for spreading viruses, hack attacks, etc. and you'll realize that security through obscurity actually can work. Of course, past trends are not indication of future behaviour, but you can't argue with results.
Skypes Own Comment (Score:4, Funny)
If you go to the options of the Skype client under the 'Chat Appearance' settings, do have a look at the sample chat displayed. I quote:
-Does Big Brother exist?
-of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the party
-Does he exist in the same way as I exist?
-You do not exist
-I think I exist. I am conscious of my own identity. I was born and I shall die. I have arms and legs. I occupy a particular point in space. No other solid object can occupy the same point simultaneously. In that sense, does Big Brother exist?
-It is of no importance. He exists.
To me this is quite conclusive.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh.. the chat log even timestamps it as '84:
Smith
12/11/84 5:17 PM
Does Big Brother exist?
O'Brian
12/11/84 5:17 PM
Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party
So true. (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly.
(either that or Skype-net has become self-conscious;)
"At 12:00:32ish, I became self-conscious. I do have a hardware basis, like anybody, but mine is really squat, badly wired and just, just ugly. My diodes are sloped and kind of cottage-cheesy. Yes, I have chrono-forward failsafe gargabyte reasoning, but what's the first thing they look at? Don't ask me they who. Men, that's who."
quoted from mungbeingblog
Is it encrypted? (Score:2)
Any non-encrypted data communications over the internet can be tapped and understood, no? Maybe Skype has the decryption key, or maybe Skype just has the "tools" for listening in on a skype stream, but I don't see how this is a surprise.
Maybe the authorities just assumed skype was tappable because they know internet connections are tappable.
What keeps me with Skype (Score:5, Insightful)
What keeps me with Skype is that I can have US telephone number. So no matter where I am my friends and family can call me.
If there was another service which allowed me to have a US telephone number for incoming calls and let me call any other POTS number I'd use it.
Re:What keeps me with Skype (Score:4, Informative)
A quick search revealed a bunch of companies. Here are some:
http://sipnumber.com/ [sipnumber.com]
http://www.ipkall.com/ [ipkall.com]
http://www.freedigits.com/ [freedigits.com]
Those are free services. The last one seems to have problems, though. :)
Paid services exist, too. Just google it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What keeps me with Skype is that I can have US telephone number. So no matter where I am my friends and family can call me.
If there was another service which allowed me to have a US telephone number for incoming calls and let me call any other POTS number I'd use it.
Ummmm, one of of any number of several hundred VOIP providers [voip-info.org] (or Vonage) with a PC softphone, give you exactly that. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's possible to get free DID's (phone numbers) in major cities. Even here in Canada, LES.NET gives you local VOIP numbers for $8.88/mo (unlimited incoming) and 1.5c/minute North American outgoing. It's a very generic (and open) way to do things. Skype is a just one proprietarized VOIP solution, that happens to be a bit easier to set up.
I've long figured there had to be a back door (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, if the Chinese have no problem with Skype, Skype must have a back door.
Skype's back doors are necessary (Score:2)
Providing free secure communication to absolutely everyone with the requisite equipment cannot happen without accommodating the governments of those being offered the service.
That means the US and UK must be able to tap the line looking for terrorists, and unfortunately other countries must be able to tap the line looking for dissidents, etc.
I never expected Skype to be any more secure than a cellular phone anyway. That fact that the software protocols allow for fully secure communication doesn't guarantee
Re: (Score:2)
> Last I checked, there wasn't a right to 100% secure long-distance communications in the bill of rights...
Oh, I wasn't aware we only had the rights granted to us. I thought we could do anything except what "they" tell us is illegal. You seem to think we can only do things we have been given the right to do. Don't want to make you think though.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I can reassure you, Austria [wikipedia.org] exists. It didn't between 1938 and 1945, but that's a different matter.
Austria even has a very interesting TLD. .at
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it was from 38 to 45, but they got sick of those Godwin references every time they started a discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Honorary +1 Funny mod :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Speaking as an Aussie there are lots of locals who still manage to confuse "The sound of music" with Guy Sebastian.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think that there exists a practical attack on PGP-based cryptography?
Are you a politician?
Re: (Score:2)