Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Skype Addresses Visibility Concerns

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the slow-on-the-uptake dept.

An anonymous reader writes "TechWorld is reporting that VoIP pioneer Skype has finally decided to buckle down from their startup mentality and address some of the concerns about the 'visibility' of Skype by network admins. From the article: 'Problems started around the time that the version 2.0 beta appeared last year, the moment when a handful of software engineers started to assess a troubling issue thrown up by the program's new and evasive design: it was incredibly hard to detect using perimeter security systems. Skype's unofficial explanation for its extreme stealthiness has always been that this was necessary to avoid telcos threatened by its business model from blocking it. While this presents no issues for a home user, using "invisible" software capable of making and receiving voice calls, opening instant messaging sessions and exchanging files on a corporate networks, caused some to ponder whether the ever-more-popular Skype hadn't just turned itself into a huge security risk.'"

1 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Re:blocking skype is easy by arodland · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Wow. Is this a troll or are people really so ignorant?

    Long story short, you're dead wrong. A hack that only screws you over some of the time is not the same as an advantage.

    Point by point:
    1. IPv6 is coming along plenty well, thank you.
    2. Yes, NAT sort of works like a cheap hardware firewall. So does a cheap hardware (or free software) firewall.
    3. Ever hear of a router? There isn't a dichotomy between a NAT router and an "old style hub."
    4. Insults to intelligence aren't a good idea here. And "open a port", despite being common terminology, is wrong. It's establishing a static route. Actually static NAT. It's allocating a scarce resource. And it shouldn't be necessary.
    5. Same goes for UPnP. It doesn't solve any real problems, it just hides them from the user. It's also lousy for security (wait, I thought NAT was great for security?). It also shouldn't be necessary.
    6. Screwing with the assumption that devices are routable, and that you can reach me at the same place you see me coming from is not a good idea

    Short story short: NAT sucks.
    Short story even shorter: idiot.