Skype For Microsoft Edge Will Work From the Browser, No Plug-Ins Required 89
We mentioned a few months back Microsoft's beta of a browser-based intrerface to Skype. Now, reports Engadget, Skype will be able to work without a plug-in (as was required for the beta). However, it will work -- at least at first -- only with Microsoft's Edge browser. The latest Windows 10 Insider Preview build comes with Object RTC API. That's the element that allows real-time audio and video communication without the need for any installation not just for Skype for Web and Outlook.com, but also for other WebRTC-compatible services. To note, Chrome, Firefox and Safari all support WebRTC standards, but it's unclear if and when Skype will enable a plug-in-less experience for those browsers, as well.
Separate code from data (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't run executable code inside my document viewer.
kthxbye
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
This is why. [blogspot.com]
Do you think that sort of vulnerability can't be exploited from Javascript? Oh yes it can.
Re: (Score:1)
Please don't run executable code inside my document viewer.
kthxbye
A built in Skype client? Sweet! Now when a vulnerability is found in this or the Object RTC API implementation, everyone using the Edge browser will be vulnerable by default, and without a way of disabling it.
Building extra crap like this directly into the browser is a horrible idea. People were rightly upset when Firefox tried to pull that nonsense, and MS should be discouraged from going down that road as well. They should focus on building a robust plugin framework (just use Chrome's, and you'll get
Re: (Score:3)
Plugin Framework??? That is sooooooooo last millennium. We've killed off Flash, Java and the Acrobat Plugin because they were security nightmares.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire reason we want these things as plugins is so that I don't have to have them installed if I don't use them. Turning executable code a plugin does NOT make it insecure. The only thing a plug-in does is to make that code *optional* for each user. You want a minimal default attack surface, and adding built-in extras broadens that surface unnecessarily.
The reason Flash, Java, and Acrobat Reader plugins are insecure is because they were written long before internet security was a thing. Even today
Re:Separate code from data (Score:4, Insightful)
Because with plugins you're relying on a separate sandbox model from the rest of the browser.
I'd sleep more soundly at night knowing that the executable code used to make video calls through webRTC was running through exactly the same sandbox as other executable code such as asm.js. or that the inbuilt pdf viewer in Firefox (dog slow that it may be) was running with the same javascript security execution model rather than relying on an external engine (and yes Mozilla do have a flash implementation that works in a similar way to PDF.js)
There will be security holes in any implementation but there's one attack surface for the entire web platform rather than one for each browser plugin. And at the end of the day I'd rather trust Mozilla or Google to release timelier fixes for their web-browsers than rely on Microsoft's skype plugin to be updated.
So broadly I'm in favour of cross platform technologies such as video chat 'bloating' the HTML5 spec rather than relying on proprietary browser plugins.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Apparently Microsoft looked at the way Mozilla is handling Firefox and thought now was the time to throw their hat into the ring by including more crap into the broswer. Even though, as already pointed out, they should know better by now because of things like ActiveX.
There really needs to be a solid basic web browser with no cruft. Perhaps allow a plugin system for features users want on a per user basis, but nothing built in. That browser should then be promoted everywhere by everyone as a good alter
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't run executable code inside my document viewer.
Welcome to......Javascript? It's a little late for that, really.
Re: (Score:3)
>Please don't run executable code inside my document viewer.
The mainstream web browser ceased to be a simple document viewer a long time back. The browser is an ananomoly
Re: (Score:2)
an ananomoly
A what?
Re: (Score:2)
HTML is executable code.
Re: (Score:2)
HTML by itself is not Turing complete. You need CSS for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are out of luck. The new kids (the new generation of developers) thinks convenience is more important than security or stability.
Same as it always was.
But does it run Linux? (Score:1)
But does it run Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
Hope that helps.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Skype servers all run Linux. I guess Microsoft finally got burned enough times trying to make IIS do what Linux does, to stay well enough away from that. But they did reconfigure the server topology to make it easier to spy on corporate traffic for example, or anything else they feel like.
Interesting for UI fans (Score:2)
Since the release of Skype 7.0 (actually the preview version, 6.22), the largest thread on the the Skype community forum has been about one request - can we have our screen space back?
(My take on this at great length at http://moteprime.org/article.p... [moteprime.org])
This news gives me some hope that, with appropriate HTML and RPC chops, we will see third-parties allow users some measure of customization of the Skype UI.
mmm surveillance. (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect well be getting the always on, talk to your web browser functionality so you dont have to click anything when you want ot make a call. You can just say "skype, call my mom" and and bing, skype will inform microsoft, the nsa, and your mom that you want to talk. And when you dont want ot talk to mom, skype will make sure any naughty keywords you use while sitting at your computer are also promptly forwarded to the NSA as well.
Black tape over the camera works fine.... (Score:1)
At least black tape over the camera works.
Bad news though, tape over the mic holes on a modern tablet DOES NOT WORK, I've tried recording with several layers of tape over every hole and the audio is still pretty damn good. Enough sound gets in to tablets/laptops/etc via the case and any socket holes to let built in mic work.
Scotch/Cellotape doesn't work over the camera either, it sees through it and focusses beyond the fuzziness of the tape. Has to be black tape.
There's a lot to be said for fridges. If you
Re:mmm surveillance. (Score:5, Funny)
And when you dont want ot talk to mom, skype will make sure any naughty keywords you use while sitting at your computer are also promptly forwarded to the NSA as well.
As long as the NSA isn't forwarding the naughty keywords to my mom....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I lost my self respect long ago.
'stupid people' want to interact with me and Skype was there to facilitate that.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that ORTC is an open standard, that is being pushed by both Microsoft and Google because it's better / easier to use than WebRTC. WebRTC could be extinguished but no harm is done except to early adopters (and even they could just plug in a shim.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Pushed by Google"? Last I heard, Google was for WebRTC over ORTC.
Re: (Score:1)
They're for both [youtube.com]. WebRTC and ORTC are to merge. There's also a talk by Trent Johnsen from Hookflash about the confusion around ORTC [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
You are partly correct.
WebRTC has 2 parts: protocols & codecs (RTCWeb WorkingGroup at the IETF) and the browser API (WebRTC at the W3C). Al lot of the people are the same people.
All parts of WebRTC was already being worked on before Microsoft really got involved. And Microsoft wanted a more low level browser API than the other WebRTC browser API that was already being worked on. Microsoft wanted this for things like Skype.
Eventually a new community group (not workgroup) was formed at the W3C to work on
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, I checked:
The W3C Working group has NOT yet committed themselves to adopting the ORTC API from the community group.
So basically, Microsoft is still on their own. The browser API is not a standard yet and it might still change before it is part of the real WebRTC standard.
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:1)
When i read "Skype" i read "NSA surveillance".
Once i was laughed at for being paranoid.
I always knew i was Cassandra [wikipedia.org] instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The text client does have one cool feature... you can correct mistakes in your last posted line using sed syntax. How geeky is that?
Of course, that just shows where Skype came from. I'm sure Microsoft would have come up with a much clunkier way of doing the same thing, or just not do it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Microsoft has completely ruined Skype, and they will probably never be able to recover the users they lost. My grandparents got locked out when Microsoft started requiring a Microsoft ID, so I switched them to gchat. Plugins are easy enough to install and unless Microsoft fixes the ridiculous Microsoft ID requirement, I can't see many people using Skype ever again. Let's face it, Microsoft is just not competive with the new generation of tech companies and the only reason they lasted as long as they did is because they had a near monopoly, maintained by compatibility issues, for decades.
I've multiple Skype accounts since ages. Never been forced to require a Microsoft ID. Stop spouting bullshit.
Re: Too late (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why use a proprietary technology?.
This is microsoft we're talking about, proprietary is what they do best.
Not gonna help Edge get market share (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
With Windows 10 at ~9% market share of desktop OS's, Edge is currently at ~2%.
For the moment, running behind Linux desktop. Of course, completely clobbered by Linux Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Another thing: Microsoft, why don't you make Windows 10 so that people like it? Then maybe they'd use it willingly and you wouldn't have to resort to desperate moves such as installing malware that constantly pesters you to "upgrade" on previous versi
Two purposes (Score:2)
1) A document browser.
2) An app-runner.
As much as I hate it, there is huge demand for an app-runner, so that use case is not going away. The mistake was to try to tie both of these things into the same web-browser framework. We could have had a document viewer separated from an app-runner, but instead we have them both mixed together, with all the complexity that entails. It's not a problem that's going away, and expect Javascript exp
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I hate it, there is huge demand for an app-runner...
You mean a crapp-runner. Browser native apps are nearly always strangely worse than native with fewer features, more bugs, more security holes and slower response. Being able to incorporate into your browser-based workflow is a plus, but usually that is botched too so that essential browsing functionality you would expect just doesn't work. For example, you should be able to open any link in a new tab but that just doesn't work in a lot of the fancy stuff.
Not that Microsoft is the only offender, far from it
New Microsoft? (Score:1)
At least New Microsoft has learned from the mistakes of Old Microsoft, which habitually produced services that only worked with their web browser....</sarcasm>
Seriously, who cares? (Score:2)
Whether a plugin is needed , or not?
Re: (Score:3)
Short version: Microsoft is going to bake in the security holes so low that it will be exploitable in epic ways.
Just like every time Microsoft decides to embed this stuff at a level nobody else can ... and there will be much pwning.
No plugin? (Score:2)
I don't think I consider building the code into the MS browser as being cause to celebrate that no plugin is needed.
Not Safari (Score:2)
I know it's easy to simply cut and paste from the original article (heck, it's one way to get people to actually read part of the article), but why not make corrections to gross errors?
Apple is not supporting WebRTC and has not implemented any of the features necessary for it. Not in desktop nor in mobile.
Such innovation (Score:2)
It looks like Microsoft Corporation just invented Firefox Hello, or Facebook Video chat.
eeeee (Score:1)
Edge Enables Embrace, Extend, Extinquish
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care, it's garbage (Score:2)
Pidgin plugin (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
An entirely new case of... (Score:2)