Slashdot Mirror


Skype Protocol Has Been Cracked

nsrCZ writes "The Skype core protocol has been reverse-engineered by a Chinese company. The interesting thing is, that although the protocol is closed, it is not patented and thus it is not against the law to crack it. If it's true, then it could affect the whole eBay/Skype business in many ways, including that they might not get their piece of the emerging Chinese cake." From the article: "By cracking the Skype protocol, the company claims it can also block Skype voice traffic, Paglee said. 'They could literally turn the lights off on Skype in China very, very quickly,' said Paglee, who is also a lawyer and engineer, speaking from California on Friday. The company could transfer the technology to the Chinese government, which has continually sought ways to tighten its filtering and control over the Internet. So far, the company doesn't have any plans to market its blocking capabilities, Paglee said."

17 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Innovation by SleeknStealthy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love how the Chinese innovate. Corporate espionage, reverse engineering and overall IP infringement...Skype should have patented its technology, but it's not like the Chinese respect IP anyway.

    --
    Math
    1. Re:Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love how the Chinese innovate. Corporate espionage, reverse engineering and overall IP infringement...

      Yes, the US have been a good master.

    2. Re:Innovation by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks for sharing your generalizations about the most populous country in the world. Obviously every aspect of China meets your concise description.

    3. Re:Innovation by JPribe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And patenting their protocol here in the States would have what effect in China? Please share, as I seem to have forgetten and am in need of a reminder.

      --

      Why go fast when you can go anywhere? O|||||||O
    4. Re:Innovation by sholden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the US respected all the British IP in its early days.

    5. Re:Innovation by IAmTheDave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you - not to mention that every true innovation stands on the shoulders of giants who came before. Want to know why patents/copyrights are killing innovation? Because there are now police lines around those proverbial shoulders.

      True, groundbreaking innovation is rarely anything more than a modification of an existing process or practice or idea or thought. An ingenious one, yes - but without the work that came before, there would be nothing. Stopping the work that can come after is nothing short of criminal.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    6. Re:Innovation by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um hello, IBM PC clones anyone?

      Oh that's right you were born in the 90s and don't remember the 80s.

      Kids these days...

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    7. Re:Innovation by Em+Ellel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Skype should have patented its technology, but it's not like the Chinese respect IP anyway.

      Erm, ok, if they patent it, don't they have to disclose details of it? Kinda defeats the purpose of having a secret closed protocol that Skype wanted. I think there might be a better way to protect IP, via "trade secret" or something like it, but I am no specialist in the area :-)

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    8. Re:Innovation by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if our ancestors were also "wrong". . .

      IF our ancestors were also wrong. . .

      It remains to show they were wrong, and in doing so you necessarily question the legitimacy of the USA's sovereignity. We were signatory to no treaties to "respect" British IP and our ip laws still differ. It took a special act of Congress to partially respect the British copyright of Peter Pan (which is, in effect, in perpetuity, forbidden by the US Constitution).

      If and when China does not respect American ip they are wrong because we are both signatory to the Berne Convention treaty, even if we were both wrong to do so.

      And bearing in mind that the current administration has declared that treaties it has willfully signed are not binding upon it, as that violates American legal sovereignity. Yes, the Supremes have recently bitch slapped them over that, but the current adminstration seems to be gearing itself up to treat that as a legal opinion not actually binding upon it.

      And herein lies the real damage that has been done to America's international standing in the past few years. If we declare null and void international law to which we are signatory on war, torture and due process why the fuck should anyone respectfully decline to copy Pauly Shore movies, no matter how cruel that is?

      KFG

    9. Re:Innovation by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And so is reverse engineering skype. I don't see why everyone is harping on China here. It's not like their the only country to do this.

      It's just ignorant xenophobia that allows people to bad mouth an entire nation based on what are essentially standard operating practices anywhere else.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  2. Does it really matter? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Closed Skype protocol gets cracked in X months == Skype releases a new version with a new closed protocol that'll take X more months to crack. Big deal...

    Anyway, Skype is a big no-no for me. I don't like software that connects to who-knows-what and uses bandwidth all the time without any way to know what the heck it's doing.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  3. Wouldn't it depend on perspective? by Timex · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The interesting thing is, that although the protocol is closed, it is not patented and thus it is not against the law to crack it.

    I'm sure Skype's lawyers might see this differently.

    If this happened in the US, lawyers would be crying "foul!" on the basis of the protocol being a Trade Secret, and they would have something to say about the agreement that one sees when installing the software. I believe I remember seeing a "no reverse-engineering" clause in there.

    This being a Chinese source, though, means that US rules don't necessarily apply.
    --
    When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
    1. Re:Wouldn't it depend on perspective? by vertinox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure Skype's lawyers might see this differently.

      I'm sure the Chinese authorities might not care what they see differently.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  4. Closed Protocol != Security by Penguin+Programmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Closed protocols are not a substitute for security. Any traffic that goes over the internet can be intercepted. Once you have the packets, it's just a matter of figuring out what they mean. This certainly does raise concerns that tapping into Skype conversations may become easy, but this was bound to happen eventually and should be no surprise to anyone.

    Besides, who really cares? Phone conversations can be tapped into. Cell phones, too. Everyone knows not to transmit confidential information over the phone.

  5. Re:Open Source? by BioCS.Nerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the hell is that supposed to mean? First of all, let's address this statement:

    I can't do anything useful with it except when I use their crap.

    Perhaps you wrote this incorrectly, but, by definition, nothing is useful unless you use it. Would you care to elaborate why you think their service is useless crap? Oh yes, this nugget of gold:

    ... I hate Skype just because their protocol is closed.

    (emphasis mine)

    What you're saying, implicitly, is that you have no real qualms against Skype aside from their lack of openess with respect to their protocol. That's absurd! I could understand if you disliked this about their service, but to actually hate their service because of this one fact is borderline stupid.

  6. Re:DMCA? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    as a previous poster pointed out, it interoperability didn't stop the MPAA suits against DeCSS.

    The DMCA also prohibits the construction, possession, and/or use of a device to defeat copyright infringement. In a case where the law contradicts itself, the people with the most money win.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Re:Hmm by flooey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's to stop them from changing the protocol now?

    The several million people whose copies only support the current one.