Slashdot Mirror


Good Open Source, Multi-Platform, Secure IM Client?

Phil O. writes "I work for a company with 30+ locations across North America. Some offices have hundreds of employees; some only a dozen. We're looking for a secure, multi-platform IM client we could implement across the organization. One group is pushing for Microsoft's solution, but it has a number of drawbacks (including cost). What other options are out there, and what has worked well in similar situations? Security is a big concern for the company."

308 comments

  1. Sametime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IBM's Lotus Sametime is very good I think. No idea how much it costs though, probably not cheap and it isn't open source.

    1. Re:Sametime by enharmonix · · Score: 5, Informative

      We use sametime at my office and it's just like any other IM client I've used. Two points of note - it offers encrypted chats, and the collaboration tools (screensharing, etc.) work better than Microsoft's Messenger products. I don't doubt, however, that OSS can compete with this - I'd only go ST if you're already using Lotus Notes.

    2. Re:Sametime by __aardcx5948 · · Score: 4, Informative

      We use sametime at my company, and it's piece of shit. When it works, it works. Often when someone types something in a chat and I click the minimized sametime window to reply, try to write something in the message box, and sametime freezes. Lots of hdd access of no apparent reason. We experience the same on all our machines (2GB RAM). Don't get me started on Notes 8...

    3. Re:Sametime by SlashDotDotDot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do not, under any circumstances, use a solution that involves Lotus Notes.

      --
      /...
    4. Re:Sametime by Exstatica · · Score: 4, Informative

      no way, http://www.igniterealtime.org/.
      Openfire is amazing and with thier Sparks client it gets even better.
      Includes SSL, open API, different database backend, including LDAP. I've been running it for my office on a linux box connecting to a windows AD authentication. Best part about it is you can manage everyones contact lists. So no more invite this person add this person.
      Openfire (formerly Wildfire) is a real time collaboration (RTC) server dual-licensed under the Open Source GPL and commercially. It uses the only widely adopted open protocol for instant messaging, XMPP (also called Jabber). Openfire is incredibly easy to setup and administer, but offers rock-solid security and performance

      BTW i'm not affiliated with them, i just have used thier projects for years. Go opensource!

    5. Re:Sametime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work for IBM. Sametime works okay, but there are tons of problems with it. Just one, for instance, is that you can "smilie bomb" someone with their default java client. Basically you just up the java max heap size, and then send them 256M of smilies so it fills up their heap and crashes java. Fun stuff. I use Pidgin to connect to sametime using the meanwhile plugin myself.

    6. Re:Sametime by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you kidding? The Spark client is the biggest piece of shit I've ever used. Random freezing (the UI will just freeze for up to a minute on my work PC), stops remembering what group you put buddies into... it blows ass.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    7. Re:Sametime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also use SameTime. The older versions weren't so bad, but starting with SameTime 8, it all went downhill.
      Takes forever to start, it locks up your system when someone sends you a message, crashes often, and the constant HDD access you mentioned.
      Our work machines aren't exactly state of the art (we use ThinkPad T60s) but an *instant messenger* shouldn't bring a computer to its knees.

    8. Re:Sametime by Exstatica · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used to have that issue to, But i updated my java recently and the issue has cleared up.

    9. Re:Sametime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not, under any circumstances, use a solution that involves Lotus Notes.

      ...but with the machine gun, it works pretty well.

      Or so I've heard.

    10. Re:Sametime by devjj · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on this one. Spark absolutely blows. You'd never know Openfire is as great as it is judging from the client designed for it.

    11. Re:Sametime by oatworm · · Score: 1

      I use Openfire/Spark where I'm at - Openfire itself is an absolute godsend. It integrates cleanly with AD, can be used as a gateway for just about any protocol you can think of, you name it.

      Spark, on the other hand... well, it works well enough as long as you don't care about fonts or colors, which Spark won't let you change. For free, it's hard to argue with it, especially since it's the only client that works via Openfire's Disco feature autodiscovery protocol. That said, nobody is going to confuse Spark with a better, more mature internal IM client; by itself, it is a complete dog. Also, as others have pointed out, Spark tends to hang from time to time, even with the latest version of Java (at least in my experience).

      At the same time, it is multiplatform, it is open source, and it even plays nicely with proprietary technologies (using AD and an MS SQL 2005 backend here - works great!). Plus, it has full archiving and all kinds of other good stuff.

      I strongly recommend taking a look at it.

    12. Re:Sametime by garglebutt · · Score: 1

      Gee you can send someone 256MB of data via an IM client (without the server backend barfing and in how many hours) and crash it? Gee no other software would have that problem.

      --
      Do anything, anywhere, anytime.
    13. Re:Sametime by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like you flood it with requests to display an image; and that image gets loaded repeatedly from the local host.

    14. Re:Sametime by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

      We've had pretty good luck using Openfire with Pidgin

    15. Re:Sametime by Tea-Bone+of+Brooklyn · · Score: 1

      I use Openfire with Psi as a client and it's fantastic. Including SSL/TLS connections to the server and PGP keys for individuals.

    16. Re:Sametime by Iaughter · · Score: 1

      no way, http://www.igniterealtime.org/. Openfire is amazing and with thier Sparks client it gets even better. Includes SSL, open API, different database backend, including LDAP. I've been running it for my office on a linux box connecting to a windows AD authentication. Best part about it is you can manage everyones contact lists. So no more invite this person add this person. Openfire (formerly Wildfire) is a real time collaboration (RTC) server dual-licensed under the Open Source GPL and commercially. It uses the only widely adopted open protocol for instant messaging, XMPP (also called Jabber). Openfire is incredibly easy to setup and administer, but offers rock-solid security and performance

      I've got to second parent's promotion of igniterealtime.org. I set it up for a distributed group of IT workers. It's reliable, comes packaged inside Jetty, but runs in a variety of java application servers. Good database abstraction, great ldap authnz and groups integration, client/server encryption via ssl as well as client to client encrypted chat. The best part about it is jabber/xmpp, which means that you don't need to ask about a single multi-platform client. Sure, Pidgin runs on Windows/OS X/Linux/Solaris/etc, but you don't have to limit your users to a single client choice. Adium, iChat, Psi, meebo.com work great! The only problem is that jabber/xmpp doesn't have a mature voice or video component (yet?).

    17. Re:Sametime by a_nonamiss · · Score: 2, Informative

      I administer two Openfire servers at different locations in my company. One runs on a Windows server, the other on a Linux server. One has a mysql backend, the other runs on MS SQL. Both integrate seamlessly with Active Directory, and provide SSL encrypted communications between each other and the clients. Honestly, despite the vastly differing setups between the two sites, it's amazing how easy it was to get them to work with each other. I have to admit that Spark needs quite a bit of work, but there are a million good XMPP clients out there, and all work fine with Openfire. I think this is one of the best open-source projects I've ever come across, and should be a pretty simple one word answer to the post question.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    18. Re:Sametime by revchris · · Score: 1

      We just implemented Openfire server and Spark client at our office and we are loving it. Easy to install and maintain.

    19. Re:Sametime by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      I concur. Lotus Notes is just too large to be a reasonable solution for this problem.

    20. Re:Sametime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Does Meanwhile handle the encryption with Sametime and the Sametime variants like Notesbuddy? Last I tried it with Miranda, it choked. This leads to confusion for non-geeks.

      IBM should just contribute to Meanwhile and release an official version of the library... it'd be so much less trouble. The Java Sametime client is the fattest piece of client software I had ever seen. Heavier than MS Office, heavier than Lotus Notes, heavier than the whole OS.

      It *works*, but OMG.

      The web conferencing works, but don't expect a group of customers to be able to connect at the last minute. It will take an hour-long workshop to lead them through installing the app and running a test meeting. Most will finish in 15 minutes, but a few will require tweaking, others will never be able to connect. It's an embarrassment. I wound up just using Webex. Many customer meetings, all flawless. The money saved in the hours of work to set up Sametime more than paid for the Webex fees.

      It's fine to "eat your own dogfood" but when your customer sees your employees choking and gagging on it, your employees complain LOUDLY, and you still make your employees eat it in front of the customer, it's just NOT HELPING ANYONE.

      All that said. It *does* work. It *does* work well for internal meetings where you're not doing one-time-demos with unconfigured remote customer machines. Internally, aside from the weight of the IM client, I can't think of anything with the same or better feature set.

    21. Re:Sametime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sametime is a pile of crap! I wish we could dump it from the network!

    22. Re:Sametime by Maniacal · · Score: 2, Informative

      We run Openfire as well. Spark is multiplatform (Windows, Linux and Mac) but, as you can read from the other comments, it's not so great. Why an IM client needs 80MB of memory baffles me. I'm sure it's because it's Java but who knows. I've only run it on windows so I can't speak for the other platforms. The openfire server on the other hand is first rate. Not only is it secure, free and integrates with AD but it's Jabber so you can use a number of different clients. I have folks running Psi, Pidgen and Miranda and they all say it works well. MG

      --
      MG
    23. Re:Sametime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that, Spark is complete crap.
      There's no lack of good good free XMPP clients, however.

    24. Re:Sametime by darkpixel2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      We run Openfire as well. Spark is multiplatform (Windows, Linux and Mac) but, as you can read from the other comments, it's not so great.

      I used something similar. A linux box running ejabberd with a script that runs every night to sync accounts with AD. I used the shared rosters to put people into groups (until they support rosters from AD groups). Then I used the spark client because it was the only one I found with an MSI package (the company is almost entirely Windows except for the jabber server), and then I deployed it through Group Policy.

      Finally, I wrote a quick VB Script that runs on login and checks if a user has a .profile or whatever it is in the Spark directory. If not, it pre-populates the file with a username, server connection info, and some sane defaults. Then checks to make sure the spark client is in the Startup group. Finally Spark launches, tries to autologin and fails (because we can't pre-populate the users passwords, they are unknown). Then the user just has to enter their password and hit enter.

      Not the most elegant solution, but once Pidgin has an MSI installer, and an easy way for admins to pre-configure it for massive installs, I'll stick with the Spark client. Of course users can use whatever client they want too.

      Honestly, I've never used the Openfire server or whatever it's called--I looked at the word 'java' and said 'F*ck that. Not on a 500 MHz box.'

      I only have around 250 users connected at any one time, but ejabberd handles it well with very little memory usage.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    25. Re:Sametime by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      When it comes to encrypted chats, there's a very handy security plugin for Pidgin regarding that...

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    26. Re:Sametime by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Business idea: integrate this with a mail server, make a server side app that exports to the propietery Outlook protocol (on two vodkas, cant remember name right now), charge for support. Hmmm, would somebody whine to red hat please? I wanna kill M$es Exchange market, as a favour to the admins out there.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jabber server, pidgin clients, and http://pidgin-encrypt.sourceforge.net/ for security. Really it's a shame this even made it to slashdot. Can't anyone google anymore?

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by Chris+Acheson · · Score: 5, Informative

      OTR is more secure that pidgin-encryption, and works with other IM clients as well.

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      openfire / spark... is the way to go!

    3. Re:Anonymous Coward by 2starr · · Score: 5, Funny

      No kidding. I'm looking for a good open-source web browser. Anyone know of one?

      --

      "Let your heart soar as high as it will. Refuse to be average." - A. W. Tozer

    4. Re:Anonymous Coward by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anyone know a news site for nerds, something with stuff that matters?

    5. Re:Anonymous Coward by johny42 · · Score: 1

      Well, if you are in control of the server, you can use SSL (which is part of the specification, so client support is practically universal) and there's no need to add additional layer of encryption on the client side.

    6. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pidgin isn't pretty good but it seems to have a tendency to get unresponsive on XP machines if it's been running for more than a day or two.

    7. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has Pidgin changed where & how they store the login/password for each account? Last time I checked the L/P was stored in a plain-text .xml files.

    8. Re:Anonymous Coward by Kent+Recal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe try digg?

    9. Re:Anonymous Coward by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Pidgin is a very poor jabber client. It doesn't support transports at all and lacks pretty much all advanced jabber features.
      A better jabber client for linux would be psi (there may be others worth looking at, i don't know) and I'm sure there's something better than pidgin for windows, too.

      Maybe google for "jive jabber". They make an opensource jabber server and I think they have a cross platform jabber client, too.

    10. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have that problem on my XP machines too, only without Pidgin.

    11. Re:Anonymous Coward by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      It's still like that in 2.4.1 at least, but the accounts.xml is only readable by the owner (and root of course). Still, I wonder why it's not been integrated to use something like Seahorse to decrypt the passwords when needed.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    12. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use eJabberD and pidgin/gajim with active directory authentication. It works great for us.

    13. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    14. Re:Anonymous Coward by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it strictly has to be an IM client. What about an IRC server with SSL ? That way you can use a fully-featured IRC client (mirc for windows or I used to hear that x-chat is nice on linux) or an IM client like pidgin/miranda if you really need to.

    15. Re:Anonymous Coward by gluliverk · · Score: 1

      Try lynx or elinks they are re

      --
      JMule user, enjoy it : http://www.jmule.org
    16. Re:Anonymous Coward by marafa · · Score: 0

      notes is something like 50 usd per client i believe the domino server is free but dont quote me.

      my preferred proferred solution is jabber. with jabber ( i read somewhere) you can set it up so that the admin can "talk" to his server and tell it to "do stuff" like reboot, restart the web server etc. via xml.

      --
      _ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
    17. Re:Anonymous Coward by Exlee · · Score: 1

      Slashdotted?

    18. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    19. Re:Anonymous Coward by AeiwiMaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, try out Crowdnews

    20. Re:Anonymous Coward by jujuchef · · Score: 1

      Not all jabber clients are created equal!

      Psi have a fairly solid multi-platform secure jabber client. There are some experimental features that can be enabled under the hood, and security/encryption is addressed. This is not trivial when it comes to group chat, and the last time I looked it is still being worked on as a new feature.

      Also, the head developer has contributed to the xmpp protocol.

      http://psi-im.org/

      --
      Truth is realized, not told...
    21. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP is obviously trolling. Nobody is that dumb and actually HAS a job. :)

    22. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jabber server, pidgin clients, and http://pidgin-encrypt.sourceforge.net/ for security. Really it's a shame this even made it to slashdot. Can't anyone google anymore?

      Google? You want someone who can google?

      Pretty much my job, I get all kinds of people asking me for solutions to stuff, that I find in 5 minutes or less on google. Really amazes me.

  3. There is only one true IM client by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    1. Re:There is only one true IM client by ReverendLoki · · Score: 1

      Ah, I miss the heady days of using talk at a phosphorescent green terminal. Modern IM clients should show text as it is being written! However, my mind shudders at trying to read a screen divided to allow a conversation of even 10 users.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:There is only one true IM client by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      talk requires a terminal that can handle curses (vt100 or similar). This creates a barrier that's simply too cumbersome. I would suggest using write instead.

      If encryption is needed, I would suggest rot13. For double encryption, rot26 can be used. Or, you could do what they did in WWII and "encrypt" by using an obscure language that few outsiders are likely to be able to decode. Since getting your coworkers to learn Navajo is probably out of reach, I suggest Pig Latin.

      Really, I think the submitter is making this harder than it needs to be.

    3. Re:There is only one true IM client by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I know you're kidding, but since the write command does not involve the network in any way, it is precisely as secure as the server admin is trustworthy. No encryption is needed. Now that telnet connection to the server, on the other hand.... :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:There is only one true IM client by Captain+Spam · · Score: 1

      ICQ used to allow that, as I recall. And, coincidentally, I think 10 users was the limit before it would fall to IRC-style multi-user chat.

      Though it had its flaws, definitely. Like how it could mix IRC-style and talk-style users depending on preferences. And how IRC-style users sometimes got half-finished text lines from talk-style users repeatedly. And "phosphorescent green terminal" would've been nice — everyone was allowed to pick their own background and text colors AND change them at will. My eyes hurt greatly past that...

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    5. Re:There is only one true IM client by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Nah, if you're really hardcore you'll tattoo your messages onto the heads of couriers. If you need to make a secure transmission, you just have to wait for their hair to regrow.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:There is only one true IM client by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

      Since getting your coworkers to learn Navajo is probably out of reach, I suggest Pig Latin.

      Or if that's too oringbay maybe 'Ruddfuckers'... that's where you pranstose the first tetler of pomcound words with the next part (also words with frepixes). It takes a while to gifure it out though...

    7. Re:There is only one true IM client by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      Since when are "boring", "letter", or "figure" compound words or words with prefixes?

    8. Re:There is only one true IM client by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Navajo codespeakers did not only use their language, they also spoke in code. That the code was in Navajo gave an additional layer of obscurity as most japanese couldn't have transcribed it halfway accurately, making analysis that much trickier.

  4. Pidgin + OTR by 314m678 · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Pidgin + OTR by TheLink · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pidgin for windows is pretty crappy though

      It hangs quite often (more if you don't use the tab mode, and if you use tab mode, if some spammer spams you, you can't tell from the taskbar who sent you the message - it could look like someone else is sending you a message).

      It often doesn't succeed in sending messages to people on MSN - 5 minutes after I send, it'll tell me it failed. 5 minutes!

      You can't easily filter out "spim", even if you use stuff like bot sentry you still get bugged about it- which completely defeats the purpose.

      The only reason why I'm currently using pidgin instead of "Windows Live Messenger" is the latter doesn't save chat logs if you shutdown/logout without "closing the program properly".

      Would be happy to know if there's something more stable.

      I tried trillian but the interface was terrible.

      Lastly, maybe it's coincidence but my spim rates went up a lot soon after I tried pidgin and trillian.

      --
    2. Re:Pidgin + OTR by magisterx · · Score: 1

      We use Pidgin and have no complaints.

    3. Re:Pidgin + OTR by JCSoRocks · · Score: 3, Informative

      The MSN bug is the only one I've run into. Other than that I've always thought Pidgin was great. I've been forced to switch over to Windows Live Messenger and I really don't like it after using Pidgin. The Outlook integration doesn't make up for the clunkier UI and the inability to connect to other networks.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    4. Re:Pidgin + OTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second you!
      OTR is also available on Adium (same pidgin core) on OSX so even more widespread than previously thought

    5. Re:Pidgin + OTR by srussell · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Note that the OTR plugin is available for several IM clients, including KDE's Kopete, Miranda, mICQ, and several others.

      I'm still waiting for it to show up for the Android chat client, but it is still early days...

      --- SER

    6. Re:Pidgin + OTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get what OTR is useful for.

      If you trust the jabber servers you can just use TLS, OTR does not add any security here.
      If you don't trust them OTR doesn't help you with that either.

    7. Re:Pidgin + OTR by biz0r · · Score: 2

      Pidgin unstable? This is news to me and I use pidgin to connect to AIM, MSN, and Google. And combined have over 150 contacts I converse with...sometimes a dozen at a time.

      I have never had issues sending messages to people on MSN either...are you certain it isn't just the specific computer you are using it on?

      --
      /* sig */
    8. Re:Pidgin + OTR by chissg · · Score: 1

      Pidgin for windows is pretty crappy though It hangs quite often (more if you don't use the tab mode, and if you use tab mode, if some spammer spams you, you can't tell from the taskbar who sent you the message - it could look like someone else is sending you a message).

      I use pidgin on Windows. 2.5.2 is much better for stability than before -- the only crashes I get these days are the occasional confusion caused by standby / resume.

      You can't easily filter out "spim", even if you use stuff like bot sentry you still get bugged about it- which completely defeats the purpose.

      privacy-please pidgin plugin is now built for Windows -- you can set it to ignore silently contact from people not on your contacts list -- they should ask to be your buddy first. I did briefly try telling it to send an automatic message telling the sender to do just that but for spim this fails and you get an annoying dialog box so I turned it off.

    9. Re:Pidgin + OTR by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most likely the MSN bug in pidgin is due to having to reverse engineer the protocol every time it gets changed...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re:Pidgin + OTR by kelnos · · Score: 1

      If you're the kind of person who actively doesn't trust your jabber server, then I imagine you're the kind of person who will actually check OTR key fingerprints, and thus the MITM attack described in your link doesn't really work. (Well, ok, it works, but it's trivially detectable.)

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    11. Re:Pidgin + OTR by KingJ · · Score: 1

      I've been using Pidgin for at least a year now on Windows and it's excellent. Being able to sign into multiple accounts (personal, business etc) is a great advantage. I've had it crash just once. I like the interface, especially chats which do not waste any space by putting name and message on separate lines. Compare this to WLM, which wouldn't even install on my machine.

      --
      I rent game servers, see my homepage for more information
    12. Re:Pidgin + OTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's because you use Windows...

    13. Re:Pidgin + OTR by Wild+Bill+TX · · Score: 1

      This might be off topic, but there's a patch offers a Windows Live Messenger patch that can improve the interface slightly. Works very well from my experiences, and makes Messenger a lot more tolerable when I have to use it.

    14. Re:Pidgin + OTR by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Strongly seconded. I've had Jabber evangelists preaching to me and bought their line ("and until you can convince all your unenlightened friends to use this, you can stay in touch using gateway servers"), forsaking multi-protocol clients for remote transport servers.

      It was absolute hell to use, unreliable, extremely insecure (I was giving my ICQ/AIM passwords to a remote service), feature-incomplete (no AIM exchange rooms), and it was also annoying to my contacts. After bearing that pain for over a year, I finally went back to Pidgin and talking to everyone in the protocol they were using, right from my client. I still use Jabber, but only with other people who are also using it.

    15. Re:Pidgin + OTR by BenoitRen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's XUL MSN Messenger, developed by yours truly. It doesn't support display pictures (yet), but otherwise it's pretty solid. I always use it.

    16. Re:Pidgin + OTR by vbraga · · Score: 1

      Really nice client =) Congratulations.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    17. Re:Pidgin + OTR by rufus+t+firefly · · Score: 1

      Strongly seconded. I've had Jabber evangelists preaching to me and bought their line ("and until you can convince all your unenlightened friends to use this, you can stay in touch using gateway servers"), forsaking multi-protocol clients for remote transport servers.

      It was absolute hell to use, unreliable, extremely insecure (I was giving my ICQ/AIM passwords to a remote service), feature-incomplete (no AIM exchange rooms), and it was also annoying to my contacts. After bearing that pain for over a year, I finally went back to Pidgin and talking to everyone in the protocol they were using, right from my client. I still use Jabber, but only with other people who are also using it.

      Wow, sounds like a really unpleasant experience.

      The last two companies I've worked for have used Jabber (using jabberd2 and Wildfire, which became Openfire), and it was more reliable than using MSN, which had an awful habit of randomly having outages whenever we really needed to communicate.

      The nice part about Jabber is that you have your pick of clients and servers. If you have one that doesn't work, pick another one. You'll notice that the original story was about business use. Most businesses use VPNs for security, so I don't see why encrypted Jabber/XMPP wouldn't be an ideal solution for them. If you just want to chat with your friends, you can always get a free account and use a multi-account client like Pidgin, Miranda, etc, with it, or just grab Google Talk, since more people have Gmail/Google Talk accounts than you know.

      --
      "He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
    18. Re:Pidgin + OTR by javabsp · · Score: 1

      More like due to crappy protocol.

    19. Re:Pidgin + OTR by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Would be happy to know if there's something more stable.

      Try Miranda.. far more stable; very configurable.. http://www.miranda-im.org/

    20. Re:Pidgin + OTR by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      While I wouldn't go so far as to say Pidgin crashes on me constantly, it does seem to pick rather inoportune moments to do so. Also, there are a number of known bugs in the MSN plug-in, particularly when relating to users who are hiding (shown as offline). You can recieve messages from them, but if you wait too long to answer back then Pidgin thinks they're offline and won't even try ot send a reply.

      What's more, Pidgin doesn't do video, and VOIP is very difficult to configure and usually doesn't work.

    21. Re:Pidgin + OTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the latest Office Communicator 2007 and Live Communications Server allowed transports to other networks. Depending on the enterprise's wishes on if they'd want to allow that.

    22. Re:Pidgin + OTR by lunixbochs · · Score: 1

      to combat msn spim, disable receiving messages from people not on your contact list (works in pidgin and msn)

    23. Re:Pidgin + OTR by TheLink · · Score: 1

      In some cases it's useful to allow people not in my contact list to send messages to me, while being able to temporarily block some people.

      botsentry claimed to prevent spim and still allow people not on my contact list to contact me if necessary. Turns out it didn't work meaningfully.

      --
  5. jabber by muckdog · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm betting www.jabber.org will be echoed over and over in the responses. Considering Google uses it to power Gtalk I say its scalable.

    1. Re:jabber by rlp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree - not too hard to set up your own jabber server with an SSL connection. If you REALLY want to be secure, you won't rely on someone elses server.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    2. Re:jabber by Macrat · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:jabber by curtS · · Score: 1

      Agree - my former employer used it successfully with about 3k users. We mostly used the Exodus client.

    4. Re:jabber by Macrat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Sssssh. Sun employees don't know that Java isn't the center of the universe.

    5. Re:Jabber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the warning, when I saw Security.pdf I assumed it was a text document.

    6. Re:jabber by Britz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the clients use end-to-end encryption and share the password through a secure different channel (e.g. encrypted email) does it really matter if the server is your own?

    7. Re:jabber by westyvw · · Score: 1

      Thats the bottom line. You want your own IM server. Use that as a filter before you even get started looking.

    8. Re:jabber by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 1

      Eavesdroppers (say, google marketing department) can still do traffic analysis to find out things about your company. It pays to have your own jabber servers.

  6. http://silcnet.org/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://silcnet.org/

  7. Multi-platform by jkinney3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsofts solution is NOT multiplatform. Anything that runs jabber protocol has a multiplatform client.

    1. Re:Multi-platform by Haeleth · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsofts solution is NOT multiplatform.

      What do you mean? It runs on both kinds of computer, XP and Vista.

    2. Re:Multi-platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 10 type of platforms in the world: microsofts or non-microsofts

    3. Re:Multi-platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is more kind of Operating systems (windows, appel's macOS, linux, ... and more kinds of computers like intel processor powered ones or ibm PPC powered ones.) :p

      Microsoft isn't the only IT company out there.

    4. Re:Multi-platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it runs on Mac as well just fine, and offers easy setup, easy administration, easy encryption, web access options, external party collaboration options through AD federation, and all sorts of other options, including telephony integration, SIP, the list goes on...

      more than one platform = multiplatform

      multiplatform does not have to include Linux

    5. Re:Multi-platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHHH...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

      Might be helpful for you.

    6. Re:Multi-platform by andrikos · · Score: 1

      When Microsoft has to do with IT, the horror reminds me IT by Stephen King!

    7. Re:Multi-platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsofts solution is NOT multiplatform.

      What do you mean? It runs on both kinds of computer, XP and Vista.

      wat

    8. Re:Multi-platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsofts solution is NOT multiplatform.

      What do you mean? It runs on both kinds of computer, XP and Vista.

      Multi-platform means having different versions of the same software for other operating systems, eg. Unix(in general), Linux(different distros) & Windows(be it 95-Vista). XP & Vista ARE still considered as a single, windows platform. Get it?

  8. Pidgin? by yakumo.unr · · Score: 2, Informative

    So how about Pidgin with the OTR plugin? afaik you can't get more secure than OTR with IM, and it's available for a few different clients.

    1. Re:Pidgin? by lunk · · Score: 1

      I agree, Pidgin supports tons of different protocols. I use it with the OTR plugin and can have secure conversations over any service from AOL to Yahoo to Jabber, even IRC.

      --
      http://tf2.digitaljedi.com
    2. Re:Pidgin? by cowtamer · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Pidgin is not as full-featured as MS's IM, but otherwise rocks (esp. wrt security)

    3. Re:Pidgin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you don't ever ask it to save your password. It keeps them all in plain text.

    4. Re:Pidgin? by Liam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kerberos will authenticate without storing or sending passwords. It works for email, remote login (ssh, telnet, rlogin), file service (AFS, ftp) and web as well. Pidgin supports Kerberos, though you wouldn't know it to look at the documentation; it took me a while to realize I needed to load the Debian package libsasl2-modules-gssapi-mit.

      --
      Liam Healy
    5. Re:Pidgin? by DigDuality · · Score: 1

      People need to quit looking at security from an "at home" perspective. The employee's aren't trying to deal drugs over IM without anyone sniffing their traffic. You need to look at it from a legal liability standpoint. Using a public network (such as AIM, MSN, yahoo, icq, myspace, facebook, gadu gadu, etc..) no matter what the application, is a legal liability.

      Try to think of IM like you would email. The MS alternative is integrated into Exchange 2007. There's a log of everyone's chat centrally, just like email, and it can be integrated into Active Directory quite easily.

      The closest thing I know of that even begins to compete with this is Jabber (with a lot of work), IBM's Lotus Sametime, or Openfire.

  9. Pidgin w/OTR by andrewd18 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    You could try recommending Pidgin with the Off The Record plugin. I can't say I've personally gone through the code and verified all of its claims, but the plugin looks promising, and it's easy to install.

  10. Openfire + Spark by mackil · · Score: 5, Informative

    We use the Openfire server (www.igniterealtime.org) with the Spark client over several offices in different states and over 3 different platforms. SSL is available as well (which we use).

    So far no problems beyond user error. I'd recommend it.

    1. Re:Openfire + Spark by SupremeChalupa · · Score: 1

      I'd second this post. We use it worldwide and have found it to be a GREAT collaboration and IM solution. It also includes logging capabilities if you have SOX requirements.

    2. Re:Openfire + Spark by ErnieD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll second that, we use Openfire within our IT department (spanning 3 locations plus accessible via VPN). Spark is the primary client we give to our people but they're also free to use any other Jabber client they want like Pidgin, Miranda, Exodus, etc. We have SSL enabled and message auditing & archiving turned on which is also important for businesses in certain markets. We have it authenticating off our Active Directory via LDAP lookup. There's also a Flash-based web client which simply is a SWF that can be dropped in any web server, but we don't use that at present.

    3. Re:Openfire + Spark by SuperQ · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use openfire for my personal jabber server, it's been reliable, and keeps getting good updates.

      I haven't used the spark client, and I haven't had good luck with the web client. That's probably the biggest thing I wish I could find was a good web client like gmail chat.

    4. Re:Openfire + Spark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use this combination as well. I've found that Spark is a resource MONSTER. This may be because the logfiles are written to a roaming profile but I often have users complain that Spark is slowing their machine down. In addition it tends to eat over 100mb of memory... FOR AN IM CLIENT.

      For those in the know (namely the IT department) we use Pandion. Its Windows only which sucks but it does a pretty good job.

    5. Re:Openfire + Spark by Dark4Sorrow · · Score: 1

      I just installed the Openfire server using the Spark client within the last 30 days and it's working flawlessly. We've tried out a few other solutions over the last few years, but this is the one that everyone seems to love the most. So, this is what I'd recommend as well.

    6. Re:Openfire + Spark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use this combination as well. I've found that Spark is a resource MONSTER. This may be because the logfiles are written to a roaming profile

      No, it's because Spark is a huge java monstrosity of a program.

      It's also very annoying to configure single-signon so that Spark uses your windows login kerberos credentials to log you in automatically.

    7. Re:Openfire + Spark by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      We use Wildfire (a.k.a. Openfire) with Pandion (on the Windows machines) and iChat on the Macs. Some folks use Miranda or other chats. Openfire/Wildfire ties nicely into Active Directory, letting you populate user lists and do authentication against the AD. We're using SSL to secure the transport protocol.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    8. Re:Openfire + Spark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's because Spark is a huge java

      You could have simply said, "spark is a java app" - the rest is implicit.

    9. Re:Openfire + Spark by Chazmosis · · Score: 1

      Throwing my name into the hat on this one as well. Plus it does an Excellent job of LDAP integration, so if you have an existing AD Domain or other LDAP implementation, it will tie right in with SSO capability. I've just rolled it out to all 14 of my branches, and it works like a charm. No problems what so ever.

    10. Re:Openfire + Spark by oatworm · · Score: 1

      Might I suggest "Advanced->SSO" and checking that little checkbox? Works great.

    11. Re:Openfire + Spark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also use Openfire+Spark+FastPath (for unauth'ed web inquiries). We have had it in production for a little over a year. It is amazingly simple to set up, supports external databases, external auth to LDAP/AD.

    12. Re:Openfire + Spark by QuasiEvil · · Score: 1

      Another second for Openfire, but personally I'd combine it with something other than the Spark client (just not my favorite, but if you like it, go for it). I've used it with Pidgin quite successfully, after a little tweaking.

      As for security, you can then either use OTR if you want end-to-end security, or just use XMPP over https if you want transport security and want/need the server to be able to see the messages (such as if you work in an environment where logging/archiving is a regulatory requirement)

    13. Re:Openfire + Spark by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Yeah it works well with our OpenLDAP setup.

    14. Re:Openfire + Spark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to have a look at Claros Chat. Very neat Ajax webchat:

      http://www.claros.org/web/showProduct.do?id=2

    15. Re:Openfire + Spark by harryk · · Score: 1

      I'd have to 2nd this one. We are using Openfire with Spark as well and I have found it very usable. It can also integrate with an Active Directory tree (and OpenLDAP I'm sure)

      I like the ease of use at the administrator side as well.

      2 thumbs up for this set!

      harryk

      --
      think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
  11. Our rollout was not as big, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pidgin + Internal Jabber servers did it for us.

    http://www.jabber.org/web/Servers
    http://arch.jabber.com/archives/2004/04/000096.html

  12. Pidgin with OTR by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Use Pidgin with OTR. It is a good balance of security and convenience, you just need to be careful about not having your hardware stolen (OTR keys are not symmetrically encrypted the way PGP keys are). You might be able to resolve that by also using whole disk encryption...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Pidgin with OTR by lostchicken · · Score: 1

      OTR doesn't actually use the keys it stores for the encrypted message. When you start a new conversation, both sides generate a new set of session keys randomly. The stored key is then used to sign the session keys so that the other party can trust that the session key is valid, and from you.

      If you lose your keys, an attacker can pretend to be you until you update the public keys that your friends will be looking for, but previous messages aren't compromised. In that way, it's a fair bit safer than PGP.

      --
      -twb
  13. Spark IM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spark Client and Openfire Server

    igniterealtime.org

    1. Re:Spark IM by krunchyfrog · · Score: 0

      Openfire was the one I tried really hard to have in our workplace but we got SameTime instead. ugh. But really, go for Openfire. Lots of plugins, lots of flexibility.

      --
      printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
      -- myself
  14. Jabber? by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've never actually implemented Jabber before, but it seems like the obvious answer. You should be able to set up your own server without paying any software costs, and use GAIM/Adium. I think encryption is supported, but it's slightly less of a concern if the traffic never leaves your own network.

    Actually, depending on your requirements, you may not want clients to encrypt traffic, so that you can log and archive it.

    1. Re:Jabber? by infinityxi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jabber is actually a pretty easy set up. You can grab a ejabberd or OpenFire and set your domain up around it. Encryption and retention is also pretty easy to set up. It seems to make the most sense if this is about in house communication on a company level as one can easily make JIDs mirror email addresses.

      --
      Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
    2. Re:Jabber? by krakelohm · · Score: 1

      I second the use of Openfire. I have been using it since it was wildfire, its nice and small on the server, web interface for setup and uses Jabber so you can choose the client that works for you. One note though, I would stay away from their client (spark), it works good but man its a memory hog and slowwwww.

      http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/openfire/index.jsp

      --
      You are all a bunch of idots.
    3. Re:Jabber? by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      I also love openfire, I tuned the java memory usage down a bit, but I guess I don't have enough users to see if it's slow or not.

      How many users and what hardware are you using?

      It supports clustering, so I guess you can always scale it that way.

    4. Re:Jabber? by jherrick · · Score: 0

      may not want clients to encrypt traffic, so that you can log and archive it.

      Be careful with recommendations like that. Our setup has Pidgin clients using TLS/SSL for communication to and from the eJabberd server, but we still log all traffic at the server.

  15. Any XMPP Client by infinityxi · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would go about your problem by first separating the client from the actual protocol. If you are worried about cross platform I would of course go with an XMPP solution. You can do the following:

    - Run an OpenFire server Here
    - Pick from a slew of XMPP clients but I would problem pick the Spark IM Client (Same people as the OpenFire software)

    This way you don't have to worry about Client A working with Protocol B across Windows/Linux/Mac.

    Using XMPP is also an easy way to control your IM facilities as you can create an organizational system for creating names such as using email addresses as screen names and not have to worry about Bob from Accounting using PiMpMaSta23.

    I would evaluate OpenFire and the Spark IM client and see if it fits. The server is very easy to set up and administer. You can also use Pidgin or Psi as XMPP clients although I think Spark is the most professional looking of the three.

    --
    Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
  16. Skype? by BorgAssimilator · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I've heard good and bad things about Skype. They say that they have encryption, but other "security experts" have said that it's not secure enough for businesses (however, I have no sources to that effect). I use it on occasion to talk to fellow employees, and I like the features it brings (such as the video conferencing capabilities), even if the interface is ugly.

    Then again, skype is more voip than instant messaging, so it may not be what you're looking for. Still, I'd consider it (despite its problems)

    --
    "Intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
    -Londo Mollari
    1. Re:Skype? by infinityxi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would really not want to use Skype for anything more than personal use, especially not company use. It might be a good program (matter of opinion) and it might have decent voip but then again the guy asking could have easily went with using AIM, Yahoo, or GTalk. It sounds like he wants to use something more suited to IM and for a company you should really want to have control over accounts, usernames, and compliance and I don't think Skype is good enough for that.

      As for the security issue. I am sure it is decently secure but if this organization as others rely on encryption for sending sensitive messages across the wire (I would really discourage people sending sensitive business information over IM) a third party solution isn't really the way to go. I would say run something in house (or co-located) and get a certificate.

      --
      Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
  17. You'll need a server, too by Yosho · · Score: 5, Informative

    Everybody is saying "Pidgin", but a client won't do you any good without a server to connect to, and if you really care about being secure, you shouldn't trust any third-party server that is publicly accessible.

    You should probably set up your own Jabber server; I recommend Openfire, which is open source, easy to install, and pretty powerful. It is possible to mandate that all clients must use encryption to connect, which will do a pretty good job of keeping things secure, and you can use any XMPP client that supports encryption. If you don't want even the server to be able to read your messages, as others have suggested, installing an OTR plugin for your client is the way to go.

    --
    Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    1. Re:You'll need a server, too by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Niiiice. Web-based administration, supports server-to-server, group chat, handles registrations for you, etc. Nice monitoring and reports.

      Very slick.

    2. Re:You'll need a server, too by arth1 · · Score: 1

      # emerge --search openfire
      Searching...
      [ Results for search key : openfire ]
      [ Applications found : 1 ]

      * net-im/openfire
                  Latest version available: 3.6.0
                  Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
                  Size of files: 49,922 kB
                  Homepage: http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/openfire/
                  Description: Openfire (formerly wildfire) real time collaboration (RTC) server
                  License: GPL-2

      Damn, that's HUGE for a source package. jabberd isn't even an eightyeth of that size.
      But never mind, if it's good, perhaps it's still worth a try.

      # emerge --pretend openfire

      These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

      Calculating dependencies... done!
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/java-config-wrapper-0.15
      [ebuild N ] dev-python/pyxml-0.8.4-r1 USE="-doc -examples"
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/java-config-2.1.6
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/javatoolkit-0.3.0-r2
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/java-config-1.3.7
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/sun-jdk-1.6.0.07 USE="X -alsa -doc -examples -jce -nsplugin -odbc"
      [ebuild N ] virtual/jdk-1.6.0
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/ant-core-1.7.0-r1 USE="-doc -source"
      [ebuild N ] virtual/jre-1.6.0
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/xml-commons-external-1.3.04 USE="-doc -source"
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/bcel-5.2 USE="-doc -source"
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/xml-commons-resolver-1.2 USE="-doc -source"
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/xjavac-20041208-r5
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/xalan-serializer-2.7.1 USE="-doc -source"
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/xerces-2.9.1 USE="-doc -examples -source"
      [ebuild N ] dev-java/ant-contrib-1.0_beta2-r2 USE="-doc -source"
      [ebuild N ] net-im/openfire-3.6.0 USE="-doc"

      Um, thanks, but no thanks. For something as simple as an XMPP server, this is way overkill, and too many things that can break and/or need extra support and/or require new hardware. If you already run a java shop, sure, but if you don't, my recommendation is to stay clear, even if it promises to wash your socks and cook you dinner.

    3. Re:You'll need a server, too by Yosho · · Score: 1

      For something as simple as an XMPP server, this is way overkill,

      Have you ever looked at the XMPP spec? If you try to actually implement all of the provided features, it's not simple at all. It's massive. We actually used to use jabberd at our workplace and constantly ran into unimplemented features, and configuration and administration were both far more complex than they needed to be. To be fair, it was probably at least a year ago, so maybe they've gotten better...

      Most of those requirements are pretty basic things that you would already have if you used any java applications, too. You could also say that jabberd is too complex because compiling it is going to require that you have gcc, libc, make, automake, autoconf, and so forth. And if you're not going to compile it from source (what's the point for a Java app?), all you really need is a JRE.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    4. Re:You'll need a server, too by wzzzzrd · · Score: 1

      oh noes, it uses a language you don't have installed and some libraries. if you have something against java, then say so and be fine, but complaining about developers using opensource libs is kinda funny.

      --
      On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
    5. Re:You'll need a server, too by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      Yea, openfire is huge, but it's probably the most complete open source jabber server out there. The enterprise plugin is also really useful for the corp admin that needs to do evil things like force all messages to be secured to the server, and then log them. The usage stats and clustering stuff is really good. The only thing missing that I want is multi-domain support.. it's on their top-of-the-roadmap feature list.

    6. Re:You'll need a server, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um .... Take another look at Pidgin, XMPP (or jabber,it is the exact same thing) is supported by Pidgin.

    7. Re:You'll need a server, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um .... Take another look at Pidgin, XMPP (or jabber,it is the exact same thing) is supported by Pidgin.

      Do you understand the difference between a "client" and a "server"? You may want to read that post again.

  18. Pidgin performs beautifully cross-platform by Arrogant-Bastard · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pidgin is portable, under active development, works for multiple IM protocols, sports a healthy collection of plug-ins that augment its functionality -- include OTR to provide relatively secure messaging services. It's not perfect by any means, but I've deployed it across a 150-person organization and found that it more than met their needs. So if you're going to spend money -- not that you need to -- one possible course of action is to try pidgin, identify any issues that are causing you problems, and negotiate a deal with the developers: make a contribution to fund the development, which in turn not only benefits you but the entire rest of the user community.

  19. Why IM? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not IRC?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Why IM? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Why not IRC?

      You must've missed the word 'secure' in the headline.

    2. Re:Why IM? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Internally hosted IRC server with only SSL connections.

    3. Re:Why IM? by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have yet to see a reliable working UnrealIRCd server hack.

      As long as they didn't use mIRC and kept their IRC network completely internal (kinda tough to do without some VPN connecting to the other 30+ locations plus password entry into channel (or an allow list) they shouldn't have too much of an issue.

      And of course IRC does have SSL connection capability.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Why IM? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Given -- but to answer the question, you still have the problem of IRC's usability vs. IM clients. Everyone knows how to use an IM client. My wife finds IRC confusing.

    5. Re:Why IM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hurr durr

    6. Re:Why IM? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      kinda tough to do without some VPN connecting to the other 30+ locations

      Uhmm... you are aware that as part of the IRC spec, IRC daemons are to organize themselves in a spanning tree, right? [netsplits happen when an edge gets cut].

      Run one IRC server at every office. They connect together tunneled with stunnel or ssh. Then you have intraoffice communication independent of any other office, and secure interoffice communication when the net is up.

      Most clients support sending un/pw to the server, and most servers support throwing off clients with bad un/pw combos. Or do it the freenode way: tell the identification bot your password and it sets a flag on you visible to everyone else.

      (make sure clients connect to the hosts in a secure way. Hey, stunnel again...).

    7. Re:Why IM? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Some clients are simpler, and I'm sure ChatZilla is easy enough for some corporate person to look at, figure out how it works, change it up some so it simply connects on loadup to the servers and channels. And since Firefox is on Mac/Linux/Windows, it'd be trivial to implement.

      From there, it's just typing your message in a bar and hitting enter, and reading. It's the same as a bunch of people in one AIM chat window, just a different viewing screen and different protocol.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Why IM? by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      'Users', not admins, programmers, or any other geeky kind of people - don't use IRC.
      They think its complicated and stuff, and they usually prefer IM, instead of IRC.

      I don't know why they think so, but they certainly do. I suppose they would adjust if required, but they will always choose IM if they can.

      Also, I, prefer IM for work related stuff. IRC seems ... more interactive. I don't need/want anything more then IM for business (though I still use IRC for some private stuff).

    9. Re:Why IM? by westlake · · Score: 1
      Why not IRC?

      .

      The short answer is that 99% of the general population has forgotten it even exists and the IRC client screams "Geek!" Ca. 1995.

    10. Re:Why IM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been plenty. http://www.securiteam.com/unixfocus/5MP080A6LQ.html for example.

      ircd-hybrid has a much better track record, in addition to complying with the irc specification much more closely.

  20. hmmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd have to say if you are a big company or so it seems, and security is your biggest concern. Wouldn't you mind paying money for a solution that has a company behind it. If microsoft's solution does not provide multiplatforming, look somewhere else. Wouldn't you want to pay a few dollars to have the piece of mind to know that the security of your company is safe.

    1. Re:hmmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you google around you can find server hosting that provides you XMPP hosting. I am sure you can bundle that with third party support. The issue with Microsoft hosting is how much the guy asking cares about cross platform reliability. As I haven't used a Microsoft solution I won't say one way or the other. I'd say as long a company doesn't rely on a consumer grade IM service such as AOL or Yahoo, or even Google Apps, they are pretty good.

    2. Re:hmmm.. by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to pay for IM when there are so many good IM clients and servers you can use for free? It's like paying for a web browser, just doesn't make any sense.

  21. Sametime by chrise123x · · Score: 1

    What about looking at Sametime ? Multiplatform, secure, Java based and supports voip, webconferencing, sharing of apps and a whole bunch of other plugins. www.ibm.com/sametime.

  22. Jabber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jabber Security:

    http://www.saint-andre.com/jabber/Security.pdf (fair warning: annoying pdf)

    ejabberd:
    http://www.ejabberd.im/

  23. Re:skype by Zsub · · Score: 5, Informative

    Skype? Since when is Skype secure man?! Have you read Slashdot?

  24. Re:skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skype has backdoors and Austrian government bragging about how they use it. Why would you think others cannot use these backdoors too?

  25. Openfire and Spark by DnemoniX · · Score: 1

    I have used this combination at two jobs now, it supports multiple offices and also has LDAP integration if you wanted to hook it up with Active Directory. There are also a handy assortment of plugins available.

  26. logs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I set up a truecrypt partition of a few megs to autoload on startup (with password) and then set my pidgin application folder inside that partition so that i can save all my logs, but have them password protected.

  27. Easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ejabberd ( http://www.ejabberd.im/ ) for servers (the service can be clustered), psi ( http://psi-im.org/ ) for clients. Forced TLS and/or (Open)PGP-Keypairs for security.

  28. Finch by orsty3001 · · Score: 1

    Finch is great because it's command line. It supports almost all IM clients even IRC.

    1. Re:Finch by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      IRC clients have been text based for years, text based clients predate all these horrible gui based irc clients and are still widely used.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  29. GroupWise IM by Emrys01 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Novell GroupWise Instant Messenger is secure by default. It has its own client or you can use Pidgin. The server is not hard to set up and get running either. (Disclaimer, I work for Novell.)

    1. Re:GroupWise IM by moderatorrater · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Disclaimer, I work for Novell

      So, you're either Indian or very scared. Got it ;)

      (I work with many, many ex-Novell employees)

    2. Re:GroupWise IM by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Does it use standard protocols (XMPP, or maybe SIP)?
      Does it store it's user data (users/passwords, profiles, logs etc) in standard formats?

      I think it would be foolish to implement something proprietary, because it will restrict your movements in the future.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:GroupWise IM by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Will this automatically hook into the Novell accounts?

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    4. Re:GroupWise IM by Emrys01 · · Score: 1

      It relies on the users being set up in your own private LDAP directory.

  30. Check out SupraBrowser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SupraBrowser

    It's a secure, threaded IM client (all socket communication 3DES encrypted with a zero-knowledge proof SRPP), written in Java, that runs on Linux, Mac, and Windows. It was developed for the hedge fund industry in Boston. I developed it initially, but it's mainly being maintained, not developed further because we don't receive any new feature requests.

    Don't let the extensive features fool you. It's primarily a secure, threaded IM system. The other features were added (email gateway, auto-forwarding to email, embedded web browser with sophisticated tagging engine) based on its being used *very* heavily every day and requests coming from highly advanced users of the system.

    There is also a Firefox plugin that integrates with it, as well as a pure ajax client written in the Eclipse Rich Ajax Platform.

    Feel free to contact me personally for any details or help setting it up. The release on sourceforge assumes fairly good technical abilities (building it from ant, getting xulrunner to work with javaxpcom) and is not a general packaged release. However, it is running many places in production.

    suprasphere@gmail.com

    David Thomson

  31. Why OSS? by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Why does it have to be opensource? Do you intend to develop code/patches for it?

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:Why OSS? by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      Maybe not now, maybe he might later if the whole project goes under.

    2. Re:Why OSS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you know there is nothing fishy going on, and you know exactly how it communicates, and whom it communicates with, etc. Only open source programs make this possible.

    3. Re:Why OSS? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A) If he really wants security he is going to want to look at the code.

      B) Maybe he wants to support the philosophy?

      C) You are protected against forced upgrades.

      D) You will always be able to get support. Worse case that will mean hiring someone to add the feature you want.

      E) Cost.

      F) Longevity.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Why OSS? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Maye be they actually want to trust the software they install.

    5. Re:Why OSS? by Fex303 · · Score: 1

      One could theorise that since there's been cases of IM clients reporting chats/keywords to government agencies (Skype comes to mind), that they wish to examine the source and ensure that such a thing won't happen.

      Of course, the fact that the alternative being suggested is MSN/Windows Live mean that such a theory would be entirely wrong. :P

  32. Secure Internet Live Conferencing (SILC) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    silc is a good fit. Array of clients for Mac/Win/Nix easy to setup and use.

  33. XMPP with TLS and (optionally) GPG/PGP by Enleth · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can setup the thing completely in-house (you don't have to trust a contractor), or you can opt for a canned solution (for example Jabber, Inc., http://www.jabber.com/, they do provide everything for big and small companies, and are backed by Cisco). It uses SSL/TLS for secure connections both between clients and servers (C2S) and between separate servers (S2S), with full support for certificate authenticity checking, and even PGP/GPG encryption between the users, should they need to exchange really confifental data that even a rogue company server admin shouldn't be able to intercept (message encryption, pretty rare among proprietary protocols, but happens), or be sure that joe.the.boss@company.com is really Joe, their Boss, and not someone who just happend to "borrow" their laptop at the airport (signed presence, something, AFAIK, no other protocol provides). There are XMPP servers and clients for almost every platform possible, open-source or commercial, the protocol is open and approved by IETF for IM-style communication.

    I won't give you any specific names, but I believe it wouldn't be very difficult to find a few *very* big companies using XMPP to prove to your boss that it's being used like this by big players in the industry.

    And, frankly, that's the only open solution to your problem.

    --
    This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
  34. Re:skype by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Read? Who reads anything on here? I only post.

  35. Zimbra by sfbiker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Check out Zimbra

    It can replace your Exchange server for email, has an XMLPP IM server built-in, and is much more cost effective and easier to administer than Exchange.

    1. Re:Zimbra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or try Claros, which is under GNU, unlike Zimbra:

      http://www.claros.org/web/showProduct.do?id=1

  36. SSL irc or jabber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not use irc or jabber over an SSL connection? Most clients already support it and it allows you to have as many groups as you want at a time.

  37. SILC offers secured servers by dannys42 · · Score: 1

    When I was considering IM solutions for my company, I was looking into SILC, as that lets me run my own servers in addition to keeping traffic encrypted. I know that wasn't part of your original question. But it may be something you want to look into. Pidgin apparently has SILC client support built-in as well.

  38. SILC by Deleriux · · Score: 1

    Dont know much about it, but it appears to support encryption straight from the transport level with no kludges like OTR.

    Looks open source too.

  39. XMPP by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    Psi and a Jabber server of your choosing would do.

    Psi is fully multi platform, supports various encryption options. It isn't any harder to setup and install than any other corporate instant messaging system.

    Additionally, there is no cost involved.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  40. Re:skype by The+Moof · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "More Skype Back Door Speculation ."

    Not saying Skype is secure or anything, but do you have any hard evidence, or facts?

  41. Re:GroupWise IM - whoa no by poetmatt · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nobody on slashdot would typically suggest Novell for anything. Patent issues, selling their soul to MS, working with mono, You should know better.

    Pidgin + OTR + Jabber server if needed = good solution, open source, no software costs of any kind (only hardware).

  42. OpenFire Jabber server by Nicodemus · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would recommend the open source OpenFire server. Install it on your own server, then set the preferences to force SSL connections. Then communicates passed between clients on any platform are SSL encrypted. Turn off local client logging for better security. Beyond that, it's all client-side stuff that doesn't port as well.

    Nicodemus

    1. Re:OpenFire Jabber server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded. The best way to make sure your IM is secure is to host your own IM server.

      Otherwise, it's difficult to control whether (and where) copies of your messages might get stored, not to mention passing credentials.

      There are plenty of different clients out there that work with Jabber/XMPP, so then it's just a matter of finding one that works for you. I've tried a bunch; I think Psi and Exodus were pretty nice, although I didn't get to test them for long -- in our specific situation, (our Jabber server is set up for internal communications only, and doesn't do transports) we need a multiprotocol client, so we're currently using Pidgin, but we're also investigating Miranda.

      Pidgin is also available for Linux. Neither of those two are available for Mac, but Adium (which is based on the same library as Pidgin) is compatible and arguably the best IM client out there for the Mac.

    2. Re:OpenFire Jabber server by kokoko1 · · Score: 0

      IMO ejabberd and Pidgin is also cool solution, we are using it and have no probblem with it. ejabberd is easy to administrator also "web frontend"

      --
      http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
  43. Re:skype by Zsub · · Score: 1

    Last sentence of my link, next time try to read more than just the title.

  44. on a related topic ... saving audio ? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Can any of the IM save the ENTIRE voice-chat session?

    I need both incoming and outgoing voice saved. (A plain old wav file is fine.)

    Thx

    1. Re:on a related topic ... saving audio ? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Asterisk will do it if you're using SIP...
      It can also compress the voice chat session using GSM compression or similar to save space.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  45. Re:skype by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "More Skype security Speculation."

    Do you have any evidence that the Skype protocol is secure?

    Note, Obscure != Secure.

  46. Re:skype by The+Moof · · Score: 4, Funny

    next time try to read more than just the title

    But my "Slashdot User's Handbook" says I'm not supposed to!

    Anyway, I was wondering if there was any papers or anything to follow up that post. Something that would move it from speculation to truth. There's some papers in the comments linking to notes about obfuscating against reverse engineering. The last sentence just said the Austrians claim they can easily listen into the conversations.

  47. Seriously? Miranda? No. by theantipode · · Score: 0

    How did miranda make it into the tags? I'm in IT at a company of about 270 people, and one single Miranda client is enough to bog down the server thanks to malformed data that it sends.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall
    With your opinion which is of no consequence at all
    1. Re:Seriously? Miranda? No. by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      If one client can do that, then the server seems to have an issue. But Miranda should not be there because it is not cross platform as was requested.

  48. Spark/Openfire? by chiger_bite · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have been a fan of the Spark Client and Openfire Server as an IM platform for quite sometime. They are built on the XMPP and Jabber protocols. After being in a corporate environment before, I know it's hard to convince management to go with an OSS solution as they seem to think that if it doesn't have a price tag, it's not secure. The Spark/Openfire platform come in an 'Enterprise' flavor with support to appease management as well. Both the client and server are built on a plug-in style architecture, so it's pretty easy to include your own software add-ins. There are really too many features for me to really go into though.

  49. gale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Gale -- http://www.gale.org/

    It's secure, easy to set up (including both client and server), and there are multiple clients for it, including both command-line and GUIs, and for both Linux and Windows.

    All messages are cryptographically signed (unless the user chooses to send anonymously), and messages can be either plain-text or encrypted, depending on who they're being sent to.

  50. jabber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i too will say jabber for the mod points

  51. I don't think Pidgin by morgauo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pidgin's a great client for personal use. I use it and like it a lot.

    Sure, they can set up a Jabber server of their own, then connect to it with Pidgin and use one of the encryption plugins for security but I doubt an organization that is concerned about secure IM is going to be interested in a solution with so much possibility for the users to start adding their own personal, outside, public IM accounts.

    I would say Jabber server with any jabber only client which supports encryption and can have it's config locked down. Of course, they can block access to outside Jabber servers with a firewall but why not stop them from trying in the first place too.

  52. Pidgin + Jabber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IM client security? Pshaw. None of the IM client vendors give a whack about security; Viruses and trojans abound.

    What do you want security for? If what you want is corporate security, consider using pidgin, setting up a corporate jabber server, and locking all other IM services out.

  53. Flash-based, secure (SSL) IM client for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://concentric.com/business_messenger_im.php

    If you want an out-sourced solution, Concentric offers this one. Seems to meet your requirements.

    (full disclosure - I work for them)

  54. We use Pidgen by FreeBSD+evangelist · · Score: 2, Informative

    Multi-platform =and= multi-protocol.

  55. Re:skype by philspear · · Score: 1

    I suppose it's a question of "How secure does it need to be?" If it's launch codes, then I would be uncomfortable with any IM type exchanges, send a messenger in a tank for that. If the company we're talking about is "Del Taco corporate offices" then Skype is probably "secure" enough that Taco Bell wouldn't bother.

    I'd be curious as to the general consensus as to what the chances that if say Pfizer were to be communicating trade secrets via skype or messenger, that those messages would be stolen by another pharmecutical or other entity? Or is "secure" more for preventing computer systems from being compromised by hackers or viruses rather than competition? It's all good to say that the australian government can listen in on your skype conversations, but aside from your rights being eroded, what are some of the more tangible risks?

  56. Didn't I read something like this here before?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why Oh Why can't you use Google like the rest of us??? http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/14/0118232

  57. Re:skype by Zsub · · Score: 1

    That's true. I have tried to Google, but that is not really yielding satisfying results. I have come across several sites mentioning backdoors in the protocol or the program exploitable by government or someone else. Those are just rumours. However, via the Skype wiki I found a website detailing the leaking of a German report to the German 'Piraten Partei'. I have read it and it seems to be a quote of sorts for "Skype-Capture-Software" and several options, including SSL decoding and the installation of it all. It also mentions two proxy-servers to hide their own IP adresses, but there is no price given. So all in all, this -- as far as I could find -- is the most concrete evidence supporting that Skype is in fact not secure.

  58. Portable by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  59. Flash based Jabber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone recommend one?

    Would make it simple to role out and update/manage.

    I've seen flash based IRC working ok.

  60. Pidgin vs. XMPP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to mention that unfortunately pidgin doesn't support some of XMPPs more uncommon features very well.

    For instance connecting the same account from different computers at the same time is solved by XMPP via resource identifiers and is incredibly handy, but pidgin lacks the option to set the priority so you can't control where the messages arrive.

    Anybody knows if there is work done in this direction?

    Personally i think the perfect client for XMPP is Psi, the only thing i've missed with it is OTR support. Though it might not be best suited for the average DAU.

  61. jabberd/jabberd2 by defsdoor · · Score: 2, Informative

    I run half a dozen jabberd servers (and one jabberd2) and use PSI on windows machines for clients. I also generate the user rosters myself with some nifty scripts so that users always see everyone else in the companies.

  62. !speculation by tripmine · · Score: 2, Informative
  63. Don't waste your money on open source by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    In this case, for once, I have to say just use a commercial solution. Maintaining your own servers is expensive, and supporting it is a headache your IT people don't need. Just go with Skype if you want video and free phone service as well, that is very multi-platform. It's not open source, I admit, but it works well.

    1. Re:Don't waste your money on open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maintaining your own servers gives you more security. You aren't trusting a third party not to record all your sessions.

    2. Re:Don't waste your money on open source by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Using a third party external server could open up legal implications... You really don't want your private internal correspondence going outside of the company network.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:Don't waste your money on open source by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Then you can't use most IM clients, which are notoriously bad at security for their transactions. Jabber, for example, had 'jabberd' as their archetype installer. That installer used a text file of clear-text passwords, with no encryption of the transaction, as the default server configuration. The time you save using a simple, commercial, well-supported, and well-respected solution can be better applied to securing your backups, making sure your user accounts are Kerberized, making sure former employees don't have privileges that will let them into your buildings or networks, etc.

      I've done several Jabber setups and other IM clients, and most of them had major flaws. Unless Jabber, or some implementation of it, has matured a lot, I just can't see it as robust.

    4. Re:Don't waste your money on open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've done several Jabber setups and other IM clients, and most of them had major flaws.

      Then try doing them right for a change.

  64. SILC, and multiple clients. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If security is of the utmost concern you like imply, then SILC is the way to go: Designed from the ground up with cryptography built into the protocol, scalable and has very easy server configuration. Access can be granted or revoked via public key authentication. Unlike other suggestions I've seen on here, transport security isn't just an add-on to a cleartext protocol, it *is* the protocol. And it's is end-to-end encrpytion, not just client-server. It is supported by Pidgin and numerous clients on most operating systems, and due to it's MIME protocol-support very extensible so it can even support voice, video and picture messaging. As far as clients go tho, Pidgin is not the most secure of them, but it is multi-platform and multiprotocol, and probably the most ubiquitous one as far as multiplatform IM-clients go. However, it's well known that putting all your eggs in one basket, or in this case, one IM-client, can expose your entire organization to problems when one shows up. So from a security standpoint, you might want to consider supporting a couple of clients. My two cent.

  65. Hello? openSIPS by mpapet · · Score: 1

    C'mon now, I can't believe no one has bothered to mention an SIP server.

    Absolutely, positively the way to go because there's multimedia capabilities in there ready to go.

    http://www.opensips.org/

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  66. Psi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Openfire is a great server that we use for our internal IM. As for clients, I personally like Psi. It is cross platform and supports openpgp.

  67. Re:skype by s4m7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But my "Slashdot User's Handbook" says I'm not supposed to!

    Ha! Nobody's read the handbook!

    --
    This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
  68. Jabber/XMPP by mnslinky · · Score: 1

    At our office, we were using IRC for many years. We recently rolled out a jabber/xmpp server, Openfire, and associated clients for the users' platforms. It's secure, and full-featured.

  69. XMPP based by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Anything that is Jabber/XMPP based will support a wide range of clients and has the ability to use SSL. You not only can encrypt SSL traffic, but a good server will allow you to require clients that connect to have a known and valid certificate. And the server must have a certificate that is known to the client. It's only as secure as your process of distributing the certificates.

    For a client there are many. Coccinella has a nice whiteboard features that I have found useful in the corporate world. But Pidgin, Miranda and others are fine too. (I also use centerim in a screen session of all things)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  70. Are you joking? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    Are you serious?? Openfire for the XMPP (aka Jabber) server, and Pidgin for the client. If setup correctly, you can force SSL/TLS encryption. I've implemented this at my company and it's rock solid. Beats the hell out of any proprietary solution you'll find, if IM is your main goal. I'd recommend setting up XMPP service DNS records for your domain for a really slick implementation.

  71. IRC plus ssh/ssl tunneling by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Actually, depending on your requirements, you may not want clients to encrypt traffic, so that you can log and archive it.

    Exactly my thoughts.

    I'd recommend IRC. Set up one IRC server per location and tunnel inter-office connections over ssh or ssl [have a look at stunnel]. Whether to encrypt intraoffice communication depends on local requirements, but again there's stunnel.

    If employees don't trust each other or the sysadmins, your organization probably either has serious problems, or it's the DOD.

    1. Re:IRC plus ssh/ssl tunneling by Binestar · · Score: 1

      If employees don't trust each other or the sysadmins, your organization probably either has serious problems, or it's the DOD.

      Or it's something like a Hospital or Dr office and everyone doesn't need to know that Patient A is being moved by Nurse Station A to Nurse Station B and is his room ready?

      Information wants to be free, but privacy is a good thing. I'm actually in the process of examining various Jabber servers for something that can authenticate to Active Directory and supports encryption for a Surgery Center. We've ruled out any server that isn't in house, so even encrypting things over AIM, etc isn't an option. I've looked at ejabbard and will not start looking at crossfire since I read about it here.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
  72. Jabber... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Use a Jabber server, there are many out there, and it also offers the benefit that you can split the service up into subdomains, ie your larger sites have their own local jabber server but can communicate with the others, so you have for instance:
    user@newyork.yourcompany.com
    user@london.yourcompany.com

    You can also open it up to the outside if you want, and you can also make people's jabber id's match their email addresses...

    For clients, being an open standard you have a huge choice of clients, pidgin is good and cross platform for instance, try a selection and see which one suits you best. Same for the server, try a few and see which works, if you have multiple servers there's no reason for them all to run the same software, and similarly you don't need everyone running the same client.

    And of course, being an open standard you are free to change clients and servers whenever it suits you with minimal disruption, and supporting new devices will give you the widest choice - there are jabber clients for every significant OS and most mobile or embedded devices.

    Incidentally, i doubt microsoft's offering satisfies your "cross platform" stipulation.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  73. How much more ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much more is it secure, dude ? Please explain.

    1. Re:How much more ? by fxkr · · Score: 3, Informative

      You might want to check their homepage and the Wikipedia article.

      OTR works very well for me. I recommend Pidgin as a client and Jabber as a protocol.

    2. Re:How much more ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish OTR was included as default in Pidgin, also Trillian and other IM clients. I guess the one made large corporations won't as they don't want to do up against the government wanting to watch everything.

  74. GroupWise Messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give GroupWise Messenger a chance in your evals, it's a very small server that is very light weight on the hardware and can server millions of users. It has a windows client but works with Pidgin (Linux) and Adium(Mac).

    Made by Novell.

    -JPM

  75. SILC (Secure Internet Live Conferencing) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what http://www.silcnet.org/ is for.

    SILC (Secure Internet Live Conferencing) protocol: designed to provide most rich featured conferencing services and high security.

  76. Re:Google? by joeman3429 · · Score: 1

    I think he means 'Yahoo' it

    Scary story: I was listening to the radio and there was an ad for yahoo homepage, and they claimed that you should use their service because they have "search as you type". Apparently they didn't realize google has this too?

  77. Openfire by requeth · · Score: 1

    I like the Openfire server with Spark client myself.

  78. Sametime is slightly open source by TimTucker · · Score: 3, Informative

    Although Sametime itself isn't open source, the newer versions are based on Eclipse (as are the more recent versions of Notes). Whether or not the overhead of running an instance of Eclipse to handle IM is a good idea or not is up to you.

    1. Re:Sametime is slightly open source by warsql · · Score: 1

      I don't know the specifics of the new Sametime, but Eclipse is now based on osgi, so it is possible to load only what's needed for Sametime, not everything needed for Eclipse.

      --
      878659 - yep its prime.
  79. Google. by cephalien · · Score: 1

    I'm willing to take the -1, Flamebait on this:

    Did you even -think- about trying, oh, say, a web search on this?

    Google is pretty good, I suggest you try it.

    What a pointless Ask Slashdot.

    --
    If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
    1. Re:Google. by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      Goog apps for your domain works really well, and since it supports jabber clients/federation, it's really flexible about what you connect. There are a few enterprise features like "warn user if contact is not on your domain" and forced encryption.

  80. Re:Google? by stonedcat · · Score: 0

    I pitty the foo who don't use Webcrawler!

    --
    You can't take the sky from me.
  81. gale by John+Meacham · · Score: 1

    there is gale which is secure, protocol based, distributed, and quite nice all around.

    --
    http://notanumber.net/
  82. Enterprise environments have different needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like a serious environment. In that case he needs features like screen sharing, multi-way chatting, integration with the email client (setting up meeting also requires other stuff really), and at least extranet user gateway.

    No, there isn't anything open source offering all that. So it's not really matter of "Can't anyone google anymore?". The question is valid, he probably already knew about jabber & pidgin & co, but was hoping for something that actually could be used too.

    1. Re:Enterprise environments have different needs by Daengbo · · Score: 1
      Screen sharing might be sticky, but I've got two answers which cover 90% of what you mention:
      • Google Apps -- not open source
      • eBox platform -- open source, LDAP, file sharing, Jabber, VPN, e-mail.
  83. Re:skype by devjj · · Score: 1

    Does this mean we can finally stop arguing about whether or not Mac OS X's marketshare helps it remain "secure"? I kid...

  84. Video? by miro+f · · Score: 1

    While Skype is a cross platform IM tool, the one shortcoming I find with it is the Linux client does not support Video.

    Is there a solution for cross platform video conferencing?

    --
    being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    1. Re:Video? by rufus+t+firefly · · Score: 1

      While Skype is a cross platform IM tool, the one shortcoming I find with it is the Linux client does not support Video.

      Is there a solution for cross platform video conferencing?

      Yeah, it would be great if they would eventually support video for Linux. Did it take a year for your post to show up? ;)

      --
      "He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
  85. Standardize the Protocol, not the client by shking · · Score: 1

    The goal is for people to have a standard way to communicate, not to pick a standard tool. Standardize on a multiplatform protocol (MSN, Yahoo, whatever) then pick a "best of breed client" for each platform (windoze, mac, linux, etc.)

    Do not force people on different platforms to use the same application. You'll be fitting them to a Procrustean bed.

    --
    -- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
  86. DISA Instant Messaging STIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) publishes security guides on many different subjects, including one on instant messaging. It's fairly generic, and applicable to lots of different protocols and products. If you want to deploy an IM solution securely, then you'll want to consider some of the recommendations as a starting point. About half of the recommendations are DoD-centric, but the rest are generally pretty good for everyone. It's publicly available here.

  87. Re:skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note, Obscure != Secure.

    Tell that to the military. They've been wasting billions on some crap called "camouflage" for years now.

  88. CenterIM is the way by pngwen · · Score: 4, Funny

    I use CenterIM, formerly called CenterICQ.

    It's ncurses based, so it runs in any real computation environment. It supports Yahoo, ICQ, AIM, MSN, Jabber, IRC, Google Talk, Live Journal, RSS feeds and more!

    It's a wonderful client, tiny footprint, and it runs where programs belong, on the command line!

    --
    I am the penguin that codes in the night.
    1. Re:CenterIM is the way by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      hahahahah ncurses

  89. It shouldn't. by Junta · · Score: 2, Informative

    No software should have that problem. If it can't handle it, it should reject/drop the message, not crash (preferably with a substitute message saying message was dropped because sender.

    Not confirming the Sametime behavior described, just speaking from experience of many many instances of developers feeding me BS about how they shouldn't have to tolerate some condition or another as it is artificial and stupid, not acknowledging a DoS as a serious problem.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:It shouldn't. by garglebutt · · Score: 1

      Actually I was suggesting that this was a nonsense example because the infrastructure for sametime would not allow all that junk to get through in the first place. Academically it is conceivable but not a real life scenario.

      --
      Do anything, anywhere, anytime.
    2. Re:It shouldn't. by Kijori · · Score: 1

      preferably with a substitute message saying message was dropped because sender.

      Did you design the error messages for Windows?

  90. Pidgin and OS X... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There is no version of Pidgin for OS X, you may install it (using Fink) but it is unsupported.
    There is however a port called adium

  91. http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/

    is the only true crossplattform serverless secure IM-client out there.

  92. MSN is irrelevant by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    We're talking about secure IM solutions for an organisation here. That pretty much rules out everything that doesn't involve running your own private IM server. In other words, you're left with Jabber, and Microsoft's exchange-based balls-up solution. My vote's for jabber.

    1. Re:MSN is irrelevant by skeeto · · Score: 1

      Just like you don't have to trust your ISP when you log into your bank's website, with end-to-end IM encryption it doesn't matter who is hosting your IM service. They can't read or tamper with the IMs in the first place (if you manage keys correctly).

      To see this in action use Google's Jabber server, tell Google to log your messages, and then use pidgin-encryption or otr. The logs will look like garbage.

    2. Re:MSN is irrelevant by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If you really want privacy you shouldn't be using any "secure IM solution" that doesn't prevent someone running the IM server from reading the conversations.

      But if the organisation does want the server to be able to log the conversations in plaintext, then something like Jabber is appropriate.

      My objection against using "MSN" (I think it's called something else now - but who really cares :) ) for important stuff would be it's unreliable and often down (I use it because many people I know are using it...). I find Yahoo's IM service far more reliable and available.

      The odds of both Yahoo and "MSN" being down at the same time are quite low, so one might choose to use both instead of running your own server (assuming you don't need server side logging of conversations).

      --
    3. Re:MSN is irrelevant by plazman30 · · Score: 1

      You totally forgot Groupwise Messenger and Lotus Sametime. Please stop thinking the only viable commercial solution is always a Microsoft one.

    4. Re:MSN is irrelevant by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      No I didn't. I just haven't heard enough about them to know what they're capable of. Since they're commercial, the failure is in the company's marketing, not me.

  93. A Very Good Jabber Client is Psi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://psi-im.org/

  94. Re:skype by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Holy crap! You're a genius!

    Tomorrow I'm going to go to the office and disguise the server rack as a refrigerator. Then my data will truly be safe, because even if a hacker does get in, he'll never believe there's any valuable data in a cheese sandwich.

    --
    I hate printers.
  95. I happen to like by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    http://sip-communicator.org/. This client works extremely well and is sip-based.

  96. Re:skype by makeyourself · · Score: 0

    What? Am I the only one who then RTFH??

  97. Pidgin and Adium by leamanc · · Score: 1

    At the risk of being modded redundant, I would like to throw in my vote for Pidgin on Linux and Windows, with the OTR plugin for rock-solid encryption. Adium is the equivalent on Mac OS X, as it is based on the same libpurple codebase and also does OTR. Set up the jabber server of your choice behind your firewall, require VPN access, and you're set. Works for me and my org...Mac, Windows or Linux.

    --
    :q!
  98. SILC Secure Internet Live Conferencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget all the others. SILC offers an enterprise level amount of protection, it's also compatible with Pidgin
    http://silcnet.org/

  99. Use a MUD by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    Back in the early 90s a bunch of friends started a MUD. After MMOs basically destroyed the text gaming world, nowadays we use it for a glorified chat room, IM system. Oh and we occasionally play a few games of cards or such. The latest MUD drivers support SSH. You could pitch it to management as a 'less graphically intensive, secure, and private second life experience'

  100. Don't ask for a program, ask for a protocol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has probably been said already, but it deserves being said often and loudly: Do not standardize on program code, standardize on a protocol. That way, any conformant application can be used.

    A way to start is jabber+OTR, but other IM protocols plus OTR might work too. Or perhaps irc/ssl. There are a couple of options.

    More importantly, you may have to narrow it down to clients that support automatic setup of otr connections and that can be forced to refuse connections when "buddies"' clients don't support OTR but should (co-workers with misconfigured clients, impersonation/snoop attacks, etc.).

    Also: don't forget that encryption still requires user discipline and user education. Security is hard and we don't know how to make it pervasively transparant yet. But that's another issue.

  101. Re:Zimbra for jabber server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been administering a Zimbra installation for 3 domains for about 4 months after 10+ years doing postfix/IMAP admin. When they say you can replace Exchange with Zimbra, that is only partially true. If your users are addicted to Outlook, get prepared for lots of issues as long as you let them think they will have full functionality. They won't. It isn't an easy swap. In my installation, using the free Zimbra version, Outlook works for email only, no enterprise calendaring. Further, with every thick client that I've tried that wasn't the Zimbra java-memory-hog, there was no enterprise calendaring. It does support iCal, so for small teams you can get away with sharing your calendars, but for an enterprise, no client is my recommendation. The ajax web client is really amazing. Drag and drop all over the place. It is unbelievable this is free stuff.

    All my users use the web client instead of outlook now and they aren't complaining anymore. This weekend we're enabling the jabber server for remote IM. We've been using the web IM for months, but we all prefer Pidgen instead. As long as it is built in and over SSL, I don't see any issues - well, we'd really like desktop sharing too, but that's a different issue.

  102. Re:Zimbra for jabber server by sfbiker · · Score: 1

    We have a pretty small installation, 200 corporate users on Zimbra, nearly all addicted to and using Outlook.

    We haven't had many problems, most of the problems we've had are with sharing calendars and contacts. It works fine, but not when the share is initiated through Outlook, the initial share needs to be done from the Zimbra web UI.

    Aside from that, users seem pretty happy with Zimbra, most don't even know it's not exchange.

    We're not running the free version of Zimbra for the very reason you suggested, it doesn't support the Outlook connector. The Outlook connector is key in a shop full of MS users, it gives them full email + calendar + contacts integration with.

  103. Barracuda IM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uses XMPP under the covers, is reasonably robust, secure, and logs everything (for both "what'd he say again?" purposes and corporate accounting purposes). Integrated virus scanning, etc, etc, and comes with Windows, Mac and Linux clients (or use your own XMPP if you want). Best of both the OSS and proprietary worlds.

    http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/im_overview.php

  104. MOD PARENT 20TH CENTURY by copponex · · Score: 1

    For real.

  105. Re:skype by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

    Mod parent motherfscking hilarious!

  106. Re:skype by hoytak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IIRC, the biggest problem about skype in this case is that its license explicitly forbids commercial use. At least w/ the free version.

    --
    Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
  107. Re:skype by LittleBigScript · · Score: 1

    RTFH?

  108. serverless & secure IMs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know of cross-platform serverless IM clients other than RetroMessenger which doesn't seem to have released anything since it's initial debut.

    1. Re:serverless & secure IMs? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      What would be the draw for a serverless one?

      You can chat over Tor, WASTE, Freenet and others. Although it does not have a centralized server, there are still servers. Each node in the network acts as a server. I'm not sure if that fits your definition of "serverless".

      Jabber/XMPP is nice because anyone can run a server, and chat with people using a different server/network. It's like email in that sense, your ids in XMPP look just like email addresses too.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  109. tkabber by higuita · · Score: 1

    tkabber is TCL/TK, so its cross plataform.. its also very complete and stable...
    the only problem is that the gui is more simpler than others...

    --
    Higuita
  110. Heh by Mozk · · Score: 1

    It just goes to show you that all it takes to break encryption is to produce an obscure PDF of a badly scanned document from another country filled with seemingly made up words of increasing length like Staatsanwaltschaft, Ermittlungsverfahrens, and Telekommunikationsüberwachungsmaßnahme.

    --
    No existe.
    1. Re:Heh by Zsub · · Score: 1
      I don't know wether or not you speak German or not, but those are actually quite normal words. The first means prosecutor, the second is fact-finding and the last means telecommunications surveillance measure (well, according to Google Translate at least, but as far as my knowledge goes those are right or at least not far off).

      Also it does not show that encryption really is compromised. It only shows there are strong signs it is.

      If you combine this with some articles found via Google, there certainly are doubts about Skype's security, which for me is enough that I wouldn't really trust it.

  111. Pidgin isn't really secure by scott_karana · · Score: 1

    For all the end-to-end encryption in the world, Pidgin is not secure.
    Since you can't interface it with LDAP or Active Directory policies, users will just end up using the "Save My Password" option when logging in, which writes the password to disk in plain text .

  112. How about Bitwise? by Zero+return · · Score: 1

    Bitwise is pretty decent: Windows, Linux, Mac; encrypted, whiteboard, voice, peer-to-peer, basic version free. http://www.bitwiseim.com/index.php/

  113. It's all about the protocol, baby. by argent · · Score: 1

    If you use Jabber (XMPP) you don't care what the client is. You can use pidgin on Windows, Adium or ichat on Mac, etcetera.

    Just stay the [deleted] away from Microsoft's stuff. Their only nonwndows support is a web applet.

  114. Pidgin by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    It supports everything include Sametime.

  115. Java Messaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems everybody's beating up on you for asking a question. Notice the loud ones didn't read very well. They scream pidgen!.

    The person is looking for something that will run on any OS. Pidgen won't. Yes it is a great client on Linux or Solaris but! it don't run on everything.

    We use Java Messaging's IM. The client is a Java app that downloads from a web site. Uses either SSL or TLS for encryption. It also comes in different languages. Runs on any OS with Java Runtime.

  116. Re:skype by SturdyErde · · Score: 1

    Holy crap! You're a genius!

    Tomorrow I'm going to go to the office and disguise the server rack as a refrigerator. Then my data will truly be safe, because even if a hacker does get in, he'll never believe there's any valuable data in a cheese sandwich.

    Um, good one! But if you're replying to the parent comment as it appears, then you missed the joke.

    Note, Obscure != Secure

    What the commenter said here was "obscure does NOT equal secure."

    [Obligatory]Then again, a beowulf cluster of servers disguised as fridges would be pretty sweet.[/Obligatory]

  117. Use a local IRC server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IRC is a great way to solve this - that's what we do... It's secure (runs in our network), people can use what ever client they one, it solves the issue of some people using yahoo, others using gtalk, etc, without having to create an account on each service. Groups or projects can create IRC channels as needed. It works nicely.

  118. Re:OTR by SturdyErde · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First I've heard of OTR. That strategy would helpful for some situations, but sounds like it might not be compliant with corporate legislation such as SOX. Anyone dealt with this question yet?

  119. Kopete is the way by sebt · · Score: 1

    Kopete, which as of KDE 4 *should* compile for multiple platforms. It has a plugin architecture, so should support secure messaging as well.

  120. Psi? by enjahova · · Score: 1

    How come nobody has mentioned Psi?
    http://psi-im.org/

    It's a multi-platform jabber client that looks a bit more polished then pidgin. Other than that I can't actually attest to how it compares, but a google search or two showed that it is pretty well liked.

    --
    "how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
  121. Re:skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm told by l0s3rz that the handbook instructs you to not read it.

    Us cool nyrds know not to read it. It's almost certainly a trap! (or at least a catch block)

  122. Openfire by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    I too have to put in a good word for Openfire. I've been using it in a small organization for a couple of years now and I have an instance running for my personal domain, it hasn't ever given me any problems. Took me a little bit of effort (had to read a couple forum posts!) to get it talking to our specific ActiveDirectory setups but that was more due to my tweaking before RTFM. But now we have it setup so that everyone in the company authenticates via ActiveDirectory and has everyone else in the company in their group. Larger companies wouldn't want to do an autogroup for the entire company, but a small office or a group can easily be configured based on a given ldap query.

    Really, Openfire is awesome and free, if you want/need support they'll be happy to sell it to you, and they provide some commercial products for larger companies that you might be interested in, we're too small to bother with their commercial offerings so I have no experience

    Spark wasn't my cup of tea, but since its all XMPP, you can use whatever client you want, I use pidgin in Windows.

    I too am not affiliated with Wildfire, but they make a very good product and have made it free (including clustering of servers) so they deserve a good reference at least.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  123. Re:skype by sznupi · · Score: 1

    hmmm...building private beowulf cluster inside of some old fridge...

    Genius; pure genius...

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  124. Try Waste by DoctorMabuse · · Score: 1

    We use Waste on our PCs and Linux boxes. One group in our organization still uses VIA's version which has source code available if you look hard enough. Waste gives you chat, file-sharing and traffic leveling to defeat traffic analysis. It does require one fixed IP address.

  125. Re:OTR vs SOX by billstewart · · Score: 1

    If your corporate legal department tells you that the Sarbanes-Oxley rules require you to keep records of all your instant messages, then the Off-The-Record instant messaging system is not what you're looking for. But most people probably aren't subject to that kind of regulation.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  126. Protocol - Jabber vs. SIP vs. Closed Protocols by billstewart · · Score: 1

    You could pick your client first and then use its protocol, but it's much better to pick your protocol first and then pick one or more clients that support it. The two interesting open protocols out there are Jabber's XMPP, and SIMPLE, which is part of the SIP protocol family (mainly used for Voice over IP and also video.) Do you want to integrate your IM system with your voice system (since that's already maintaining a presence server)? SIMPLE may be a better choice. Not using an open VOIP platform? XMPP may give you more choice of clients.

    One real benefit of the last Jabber system I used was that our corporate firewalls were set up in a way that could support IM sessions from either inside or outside the firewall, so I could stay connected to IM from home even if I wasn't using the corporate VPN. (Unfortunately, our current internal IM client is something the IT department homebrewed a few years before our merger, runs some homebrew protocol, and can't pass through the firewall - but it does give you lots of choices of automatically-converted-from-text-to-graphics emoticons! :-) ;-| :=( At least the stuff we sell to customers is something standard, I think Jabber.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  127. Re:Google? by kiwimate · · Score: 1

    Maybe, maybe not...

    but Yahoo had it first. And they do it better.

  128. OpenFire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run it in our branch office.

    http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/openfire/index.jsp