Skype Is Working To Defeat the Reverse Engineering

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Skype Is Working To Defeat the Reverse Engineering

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday June 4, 2011 @03:50AM from the good-luck-with-your-time-machine dept.

ndogg writes "Michael Larabel of Phoronix was emailed a response to the reverse engineering of the Skype protocol from the VP of Skype's PR company, who said that the reverse engineering was done for the use of spam/phishing, and that it's an infringement of their IP, and that they are working to defeat it."

169 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just say it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 04:31 · Score: 0

You want to muscle control over the information and keep as much money for yourself as you can.
1. Re:Just say it... by ghbpiper · 2011-06-04 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  And you don't want to have to compete on SERVICE, only features. Much harder to compete if the protocol is open, and consumers have actual CHOICE. In the end openness could make for a better product, but only if Skype is up to the task.
2. Re:Just say it... by hairyfeet · 2011-06-04 09:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Riiiight, and if the protocol was completely open like SIP we wouldn't have the problems with Robodialers like SIP because? The problem with mass communication protocols is there are plenty of assholes in legal nowherelands that can and WILL use anything and everything they can get their slimy hands on to hack, harass, spam, and generally act like giant fucking douchebags without regards to anyone but themselves.
  One should never forget the universal truth that is Gabriel's Greater Internet Theory and then add in the ones that would be acting like douchebags because they could make money doing so ON TOP of the ones just being dicks for the sheer fun of being a fucktwit? It would be a damned mess and you KNOW this. The reason why everyone uses Skype is that it "just works" without having to worry about your video chat window suddenly popping up with someone's junk in it or getting called every two seconds from some automated voice trying to sell you herbal Viagra. While I think FOSS is fine in some places, in others it would be a BAD idea, and I'd say this here is one of the latter.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
3. Re:Just say it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Or just, I dunno, secure it? Certificates, decentralized servers. You wanna be managed, be my guest. It's all in the execution. If someone's skypey clone is vulnerable people won't use it and they will have to either fix it or it dies.
Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Perhaps if Skype's Linux client had been better maintained and offered a feature parity to the Windows and Mac OS X clients, there wouldn't be people spending time on reverse-engineering the protocol so that they could write their own client.

Or, maybe, there are just a lot of Linux users who hate proprietary software, and don't trust Skype. Skype uses a lot of anti-debugging techniques. What are they hiding?
1. Re:Skype on Linux by Bizzeh · 2011-06-04 06:17 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  they wrote the protocol, they wrote the application, they wrote their own audio and video codecs for a/v transmission. what does this have to do with linux, open source or anything outside of skype themselves. they own what they wrote, and its theirs to do with as they please and restrict how they see fit.
  loads of people on here bang on about freedom, but all that they want to do is re-apropriate freedom.. they want to take freedom away from those who already have it and give it to those who dont. seems hypocrytical to me
  
  --
  portfolio
2. Re:Skype on Linux by StripedCow · 2011-06-04 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't understand the problem we have with that, then I suggest you imagine that the first telecom company kept their protocols private, locking everybody in!
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
3. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  they own what they wrote, and its theirs to do with as they please and restrict how they see fit.
  Yes, they are. And the other guy that writes a completely separate program which just happens to interact with Skype's property? That belongs to the other guy, and he's free to do what he pleases with it.
4. Re:Skype on Linux by calzakk · 2011-06-04 06:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Maybe they're not hiding anything, maybe they're just trying to protect their proprietary software. After all, they are a business just trying to make money.
5. Re:Skype on Linux by Bizzeh · 2011-06-04 06:43 · Score: 2
  
  someone else would have been free to create a competitor network and service, and would also have been free to open their protocol, making it popular in its own way, eventually taking over and shutting down the popularity of the original network... rather than the original network having their freedom stripped from them, just so others can cash in in the game
  
  --
  portfolio
6. Re:Skype on Linux by Bizzeh · 2011-06-04 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  hes free to do with his program as he pleases, but not free to use the skype protocol as he pleases. skype own the protocol and the network that app connects too and its their protocol and network to do with as they wish. if they want to keep it closed, that is their own choice.
  
  --
  portfolio
7. Re:Skype on Linux by Intron · 2011-06-04 06:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  imagine that the first telecom company kept their protocols private, locking everybody in!
  Umm. They did. You never heard of A. G. Bell's little company? Subject of an antitrust suit back in the 70's? Name of AT&T?
  Of course, like the T-1000, the Baby Bells are slowly coalescing back into the monster.
  
  --
  Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
8. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  To get into some games you have to BE the big player or you can't get off the ground. Things have changed in some circustances because of court rullings. Either companies were broken up or required to do something which allowed others to get in the game. I think AOL IM was like that.
9. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, the old, 'You want to redistribute the wealth!' Beckism. Go back to frothing over your hero Glenn. You don't understand the issue.
10. Re:Skype on Linux by Neil_Brown · 2011-06-04 07:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  its theirs to do with as they please and restrict how they see fit.
  To an extent, perhaps. In terms of the code comprising the software, their rights exist today solely because of copyright; it is the rights granted to them by the law of copyright which establishes what they have. Indeed, copyright works by establishing a right over a fixed expression, and making that right a property right - a right of personalty. However, unlike the majority of the personalty rights, a property right of copyright is for a temporary (if legislatively extensible) period, and only reserves the performance of certain acts to the holder. Acts which do not fall within these reserved rights are outside the scope of the copyright limitations, although an owner might attempt to increase the scope of restrictions by virtue of contract - although this is only effective in the situation where the person in question agrees to be bound by those additional limitations.
  Personalty through copyright, then, is not absolute - it is a restricted, time-limited right. Within the scope of the reserved rights, they are, subject to the below, free to do with it what they wish. If they wish to restrict things more widely than their rights under copyright, they need to establish a basis for those restrictions, with contract being the most likely option. Alternatively, they might look to other forms of intellectual property right, to gain additional coverage - for example, a patent covering certain aspects of functionality - or quasi rights, such as trade secret.
  Not only are the ownership rights not absolute, one might also view them as Swiss cheese - full of holes, with the cheese representing the rights reserved to the owner, and the holes acts which can still be undertaken. (One could view carve-outs to reserved rights as simply areas not covered by the reserved rights in the first place, but, that's rather an academic issue here.) Under European law, for example, there is a right to study the operation of the computer program for the purpose of determining the ideas and principles which underlie the program (Art. 5(3), directive 2009/24/EC). Similarly, a licensor of a computer program has a right to reproduce and translate (acts which are otherwise reserved) relevant parts of that computer program, where such actions are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs - Art. 6(1), dir. 2009/24/EC.*
  Whether there is the equivalent of these rights under US law, I am not sure, although I'm sure someone with greater knowledge of US copyright law could assist here. Similarly, I've not paid much attention to the subject of the piece, in terms of determining which jurisdictions might be applicable...
  Outside the scope of copyright law, one might also look into the regulatory framework of communications services, to determine that, whilst a network might be created by someone, it does not mean that their rights are unlimited, nor that they can not be mandated to provide interoperability. Again within Europe, see, for example, Art. 12(1)(e) of directive 2002/19/EC, which provides that, amongst other things, a national regulatory authority may require an operator to grant open access to technical interfaces, protocols or other key technologies that are indispensable for the interoperability of services, or, by virtue of Art. 12(1)(g), to mandate an operator to provide specified services needed to ensure interoperability, thus taking the obligation further than merely provision of interface information.
  There's nothing to suggest that a regulator has imposed such obligations on Skype**, nor that it is obligations of this nature at issue here, but it supports the point that, whilst intellectual property might grant some rights, they are not limitless, and, whilst, by definition, the rights are exclusionary, the scope of the exclusionary effect is regulated. Intellectual property exists as a matter of public benef
11. Re:Skype on Linux by e9th · 2011-06-04 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  Hey, it worked for AT&T from 1885-1968.
12. Re:Skype on Linux by countertrolling · 2011-06-04 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Skype 'owns' nothing... They were granted the privilege of exclusivity by a third party that represents their interests while, at the same time, falsely claiming to represent the interests of the general public.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
13. Re:Skype on Linux by nature_geek · 2011-06-04 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  I agree. I've been using Skype on Linux for about 5 years now and as the client features for Windows and Mac continue to get better and better, the client for Linux has been completely stagnant. Skype 5.3 for Windows and Linux is still stuck at 2.2 (Beta). Awesome guys, thanks for the support. I guess the Linux community has finally become tired of cripple-ware and have decided to take matters into their own hands. Good on them.
14. Re:Skype on Linux by StripedCow · 2011-06-04 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Are you serious???
  Come on, take for example Twitter. Being the first big player in this field, it was easy for them to get "customers".
  However, their service could be much better when it would be open. Like e-mail is open. For instance, if the protocal was open, no single company would have had insight into all the messages being sent around, and that's a huge plus from a privacy standpoint. Skype is in a similar position.
  But I guess, being the first is what counts. It started with plain old "land". And now it extends to patents (IP) and protocols.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
15. Re:Skype on Linux by Missing.Matter · 2011-06-04 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  Granted I've never used the Linux client, but the Windows client has only been getting worse and worse. It's pretty much the definition of bloat, consuming 100MB RAM currently and not being any more capable than I remember 3 versions ago.
16. Re:Skype on Linux by gweihir · 2011-06-04 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Rather obvious: Skype very likely has an eavesdropping interface hidden in there and has deals with at least the NSA. Nobody in their right mind uses Skype for confidential calls.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
17. Re:Skype on Linux by djlowe · 2011-06-04 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  hes free to do with his program as he pleases, but not free to use the skype protocol as he pleases. skype own the protocol and the network that app connects too and its their protocol and network to do with as they wish. if they want to keep it closed, that is their own choice.
  1. So long as he reverse-engineered Skype's protocol cleanly (i.e. he didn't have access to Skype source code directly, nor was given it by third parties), then he is, in the US at least, free to do with his implementation as he wishes.
  In the US, this has historical precedent, going back to Compaq's original "clean room" reverse-engineering of IBM's BIOS for the original IBM PC, which was, for those that don't remember, what made IBM-compatible computers possible in the first place.
  2. Skype is, of course, free to alter their protocol, so as to prevent his implementation from working in the future.
  3. Skype's "network" isn't theirs: It leverages the Internet, after all, and so there's *no* way that they could possibly claim it to be a discrete network. In order for it to be so, they'd have to implement a completely separate world-spanning network that was physically isolated from the Internet.
  Since we all know that such isn't the case now, your point in that regard is completely invalid.
  Certainly, they own their servers, but those are also connected to the Internet at large. However, given the fact that they also leverage users' computers in a "P2P way", this reinforces my point that it isn't "their" network.
  Yes, they are free to try keep their protocol closed, but in light of this, their best approach in my opinion is to open it: They have sufficient presence on the Internet now that doing so would only benefit them, I think.
  They could become a permanent standard by doing so and have a permanent presence/place on the Internet, now and in the future and probably would, if they chose to do so.
  Regards,
  dj
18. Re:Skype on Linux by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-06-04 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  How do they own the protocol? They clearly have copyright over the implementations of client and server and so forth that they have written, and they may hold certain patents related to the protocol(but, if so, they haven't mentioned that fact, and the protocol's secrecy so far suggests that they didn't go down the "disclosure in exchange for limited exclusivity" path of patents). In what sense is it "property"?
19. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 07:55 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Only obvious if you're a retarded lunatic. What is it with you idiots and conspiracy theories?
20. Re:Skype on Linux by MaskedSlacker · 2011-06-04 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Allow me to introduce you to a magical concept known as utilitarianism: that which produces the most good for the most people is good. Open protocols are utilitarian. Closed protocols are the anti-thesis of utilitarian.
21. Re:Skype on Linux by MaskedSlacker · 2011-06-04 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  You forget that they have been bought by MS. I'd assume that all of their decisions until the actual takeover will be predicated on what they think MS would want (if not based on MS execs outright telling them what they want). Open ain't gonna happen.
22. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Such an interface would not be revealed via reverse engineering. On the contrary, such an interface is most likely in the client and is activated remotely. It has nothing to do with the actual protocol
  On the other hand, if you "confidential calls" are so confidential that you are worried about NSA, then I think you have more to worry about than simply someone eavesdropping on your conversation.
23. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 08:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The Civilian Assistance to Law Enforcement Act mandates that all telecommunications service providers install and maintain back doors into their systems for the express purpose of enabling Federal law enforcement to intercept private communications. If you want your phone calls to be "off the record" you have to use VOIP and encrypt your traffic. If a closed source proprietary VOIP provider offers encryption, they are directly obstructing law enforcement agencies in the execution of their lawfully authorized surveillance activities. There is no question that Skype has been requested to provide back doors into their "secure" proprietary protocol - unless of course it has always been trivial snake oil crypto, always a strong probability with closed source commercial products.
  Of course, the parent poster already knows all the answers, and we are lucky that he took a moment away from licking the boots of his beloved owners to favor us with words of wisdom.
24. Re:Skype on Linux by AliasMarlowe · 2011-06-04 08:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Maybe they're not hiding anything, maybe they're just trying to protect their proprietary software. After all, they are a business just trying to make money.
  They've been hiding their protocols. These are not protected by patent (which would involve publishing them, assuming they were patentable). Their implementation is probably protected by copyright, but a competing implementation is unlikely to infringe that copyright, unless it is a "slavish" copy. There does not seem to be a trademark issue in play. Conclusion: it looks like they are merely trying to protect a trade secret which has been uncovered by reverse engineering. Note that reverse engineering to uncover secret methods is entirely legitimate.
  So yes, Skype is trying to preserve its revenue stream, which is secured only by secrecy of the protocols used by the proprietary Skype software. These protocols have now been made rather less secret, and apparently by legally acceptable means. So let's all say to Skype: "good luck with that".
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
25. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. To make the Twitter example more concrete the OpenMicroBlogging protocol and Identi.ca service exist, but they are much, much less popular than Twitter purely due to the fact that they cannot beat Twitter's network effects.
26. Re:Skype on Linux by Bing+Tsher+E · 2011-06-04 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  However, their service could be much better when it would be open. Like e-mail is open.
  You picked a rather lousy example of 'open.' Email is so open that it's a spam center and that makes it significantly less useful than it could be. Twitter probably wouldn't even have come into existence if people could rely on email as being more secure and spam-free.
27. Re:Skype on Linux by Bing+Tsher+E · 2011-06-04 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  In the sense that they can and it sounds like they will be actively working to break third-party connectivity. When a protocol is unpublished and hence proprietary, that's what an entity gets to do. If it works for them, and doesn't explode in their face. Which we all hope it will.
  But howling with fury at the way things stand is not a productive use of time.
28. Re:Skype on Linux by lucian1900 · 2011-06-04 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  It does some suspicious things too, like reading /etc/passwd. Ideally to be used in a chroot.
29. Re:Skype on Linux by cavreader · 2011-06-04 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  In the case of telephone communications it was the government who helped break the AT&T strangle hold on that industry. They basically broke the company up and AT&T was required by decree to provide access to their communication infrastructure. This allowed new companies into the market because they didn't have to spend the enormous amount of money it would have taken to build their own infrastructure.
30. Re:Skype on Linux by calzakk · 2011-06-04 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  From a business perspective, there's probably very little to gain from supporting Linux. It's like the gaming industry; how many gamers have an Xbox, a Playstation, a Windows PC, or a Linux PC?
  When (if?) Linux finally gains a notable share of the PC market, companies will start to support it, provided it's worth their while. Until then, you've just got to accept that it's a largely neglected platform, and why reverse engineering of protocols is often the only way you can have your own decent client instead of the neglected crap you're forced to use.
31. Re:Skype on Linux by Renraku · 2011-06-04 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I bet in the future Skype will be bundled with Windows, and Microsoft will open their own phone company thing.
  
  --
  Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
32. Re:Skype on Linux by White+Flame · 2011-06-04 10:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So yes, Skype is trying to preserve its revenue stream, which is secured only by secrecy of the protocols used by the proprietary Skype software.
  Not at all. Afaik, their revenue stream comes from upsell services tied to POTS interfacing and voicemail. Just because you know the client protocol does not mean you can access those services for free; they're tied to account balances that Skype maintains outside of the client connectivity.
33. Re:Skype on Linux by blackest_k · 2011-06-04 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  is twitter more secure and spam free?
  possibly true about more secure but there is spam. which kind of torpedo's your argument.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
34. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Twitter probably wouldn't even have come into existence if people could rely on email as being more secure and spam-free."
  Twitter is spam-only you moron!
35. Re:Skype on Linux by nospam007 · 2011-06-04 10:17 · Score: 2
  
  "... he didn't have access to Skype source code directly, nor was given it by third parties), ..." ...and it's pure coincidence that it happened shortly after MS acquired Skype.
36. Re:Skype on Linux by yarnosh · 2011-06-04 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  they want to take freedom away from those who already have it
  
  Bullshit. Allowing people to reverse engineer a protocol does not take anyone's freedom away. The DMCA is shit legislation and never should have passed. Hackers should not automatically be become criminals just because they want to see how something works. Fine, restrict how the source code is distributed, but if I want to take something and reverse engineer it, goddammit, that's my fucking right.
37. Re:Skype on Linux by salesgeek · 2011-06-04 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the stuff we are missing on Linux is screensharing and multi-participant video conferencing. Would be nice to have those features, but really, the Windows client is a hog, and it's so poorly written that you can't run it in a Windows virtual machine.
  
  --
  -- $G
38. Re:Skype on Linux by theguyfromsaturn · 2011-06-04 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. I pay Skype to access phone lines at a competitive rate. If another client lets me connect to their service I still need to pay them to access that service. However, if they change protocol to defeat another client, and if they do not upgrade their linux client accordingly, then they force me as a paying customer to abandon the service. Hence, Skype itself is endangering their revenue stream, not the reverse engineered client.
  
  --
  I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
39. Re:Skype on Linux by im_thatoneguy · 2011-06-04 10:32 · Score: 2
  
  Well I would disagree about #3. It is "Their" network. The assumption I make when I install the Skype software is that I will be interacting in a P2P network with other Skype software users.
  As the PR guy points out this allows Skype to better ensure the clients are legitimate users. It's a lot easier to spoof accounts, spam thousands of users etc. when there is no API and only a GUI interface. For instance I've never once received a spam message on Skype. I get at least one a month on other open messaging services.
  If I'm a P2P hub/server then I expect that I'm facilitating skype services which I use not some spammer.
  Similarly Skype also has "their" physical servers. And if they only want to use their bandwidth to facilitate customers who are seeing their ads then they should be legally able to refuse service to non-customers. They can no longer do that since they can't tell the difference between a non-customer reverse engineered client and a legacy client.
  So I would say this is a different situation from something like BIOS reverse engineering in that this isn't to facilitate someone to setup a parallel and independent competing product based on the specs, it's going to be using people and Skype's computers and bandwidth to facilitate a network which might be behaving differently from what they agreed to when downloading the Skype software.
40. Re:Skype on Linux by yarnosh · 2011-06-04 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  If it makes you feel better, there's nothing "better" about the new version of the Mac Skype client. I have actually refused to upgrade from 2.8 because version 5 is such of piece shit. I don't even know how Windows users can tolerate it. You really don't want that garbage on your Linux box.
41. Re:Skype on Linux by Raenex · 2011-06-04 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  You're such a good little boy. Maybe the Skype people will give you some candy.
42. Re:Skype on Linux by rovingeyes · 2011-06-04 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  What are they hiding?
  Awesome, Anonymous Coward is wondering what the other dude is hiding...
43. Re:Skype on Linux by gerddie · 2011-06-04 12:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  <quote>It does some suspicious things too, like reading /etc/passwd. </quote> I have a surprise for you: strace ls -l 2>&1 | grep passwd open("/etc/passwd", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 4
44. Re:Skype on Linux by ChrisMaple · 2011-06-04 12:16 · Score: 2
  
  Nice rewriting of history. MCI and Sprint were already successful before AT&T was broken up. The "antitrust" action took a stagnant AT&T, created 7 squabbling RBOCs of varying competence, and effectively destroyed Bell Labs.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
45. Re:Skype on Linux by cavreader · 2011-06-04 13:04 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe you should take another look at history yourself. The Bell System divestiture of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice with an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T. MCI and Sprint were the major corporations driving this action because they could not compete with AT&T in the long distance telecommunications market because the cost of entry was to high for them to realistically compete. Prior to the breakup broadcast networks also relied on AT&T's infrastructure such as their microwave relays, coaxial cable networks, and broadcast-quality leased line networks to deliver their programming to local stations. This also gave a boost to their competitors in other areas as well. This thread started with questioning whether one party could use a competitors assets, which IP is considered to be, to compete. In the AT&T case it's competitors were awarded access to the infrastructure AT&T had built. This breakup also created chaos for AT&T during their attempt to re-group. While AT&T was busy with just surviving it's competitors got the chance to continue thier competitiveness without having to worry about AT&T. The one thing AT&T gained in this breakup was government permission to enter the computer industry which they had been locked out of due to anti-trust issues. This effort also failed all accept for Bell Labs who were able to succeed as a premier research, education, and consulting firm. One of their more noteworthy contributions was developing Unix. And finally I am not saying I personally think the actions against AT&T were needed and a lot of people benefited in the end but their competitors get something for nothing.
46. Re:Skype on Linux by im_thatoneguy · 2011-06-04 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Put more succintly: copyright is a legal entitlement, not a moral one.
  A copyright might not intrinsically assign a moral entitlement... but that doesn't it can't overlap.
  If I were to spend a long time working on a book and I let you read it but you OCR'ed it and started printing hundreds of thousands of copies without paying me for the right then I think I would be right in feeling morally wronged at your exploitation of my work.
47. Re:Skype on Linux by Lokitoth · 2011-06-04 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, for clean-room reverse engineering to work there must be an abstraction layer betwen the team doing the reverse engineering to write up protocol specifics and the team doing the implementation. Otherwise it is possible to argue contamination.
48. Re:Skype on Linux by Kalriath · 2011-06-04 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Skype is Peer to Peer. It hardly needs to have something installed to allow eavesdropping, all it needs is the feds to put up a Skype client with sufficient bandwidth to pretty much guarantee a Supernode assignment - which is fairly trivial for a government.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
49. Re:Skype on Linux by Johnny+O · 2011-06-04 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  When (if?) Linux finally gains a notable share of the PC market, companies will start to support it, provided it's worth their while. Until then, you've just got to accept that it's a largely neglected platform, and why reverse engineering of protocols is often the only way you can have your own decent client instead of the neglected crap you're forced to use.
  However, you just defined "Catch 22"...
50. Re:Skype on Linux by Khyber · 2011-06-04 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  "consuming 100MB RAM currently and not being any more capable than I remember 3 versions ago."
  Oh just wait until you do Skype group calling. Kiss your 4GB adios with that encryption supposedly happening.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
51. Re:Skype on Linux by Alex+Belits · 2011-06-04 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is only necessary when there is some kind of restricted information available to the public under some conditions. Skype never provided documentation, so this is not a problem.
  (and you are either a liar or a moron for posting that crap).
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
52. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  I think skype will learn to survive without your $2.
53. Re:Skype on Linux by Neil_Brown · 2011-06-04 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Put more succintly: copyright is a legal entitlement, not a moral one
  That may be part of the issue here, but it's rather different to the point which I was making, which was explaining that personalty does not necessarily mean absolute control.
  Copyright may indeed be a moral entitlement, merely embodied in statute law - from an historical point of view, it's rather uncertain (at least, under English law, the position prior to the Copyright Act 1709 is not clear, given, primarily, the poor reporting of certain critical cases), although the existence of "moral rights" within the current regime, as opposed to "economic rights", perhaps strengthens the pro-moral argument of copyright. Personally, I am more inclined towards the view that copyright is a positivist act towards the ascertainment of a particular public benefit, and so it is (or, at least, was) utilitarian and pragmatic, rather than grounded in morals.
54. Re:Skype on Linux by advocate_one · 2011-06-04 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  of course it will be... and it'll be on widnwos phone as well to enable windows phone users to phone up their mates using windows desktop and vice versa... MS are loving this spat as it enables the protocols to be churned so that Linux Skype users will never have the nice toys that windows desktop and phone users will have... the Linux and Mac clients will forever be behind in the churn of the protocols...
  
  --
  Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
55. Re:Skype on Linux by neumayr · 2011-06-04 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not really disagreeing with your point, but the term "network" does not necessarily mean it's something physical. With its huge amount of (locked in) users, many of which depend on its services, Skype is a network. One build on another one, but in itself a defined structure.
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
56. Re:Skype on Linux by neumayr · 2011-06-04 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  Skype is a business tool to many. Somehow crippling their MacOS client doesn't seem like a smart move then, given how many Macs are used in offices. But maybe that's just my impression and their stats say the MacOS part of their network is insignificant compared to the cost of maintaining the MacOS client. In which case, who could blame them for concentrating on something more worthwhile? It wouldn't even be all bad, as that could legalize reverse engineering for interoperability.
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
57. Re:Skype on Linux by neumayr · 2011-06-04 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  If its protocol's secrecy really is the only thing securing their revenue stream, they probably deserve to go under. It doesn't seem very likely though.
  a) There's a whole industry of Skype related hardware and a little also for the "Extras" (little pieces of software extending the Skype client, like games and collaboration applications). When a network's revenue stream and therefore existence is based on just its secrecy, it doesn't seem likely so many people will invest there.
  b) Skype itself offers additional features of their network for paying customers. Those features are bound not to their protocol's secrecy, but to the infrastructure they have build over quite some years. They're not easily duplicated.
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
58. Re:Skype on Linux by neumayr · 2011-06-04 23:16 · Score: 0
  
  When their stats say you people are like 0.001% of total users, and responsible for like 0.000001% of the revenue, can you seriously blame them for not being overly eager to expose themselves to the support nightmare that is Linux?
  Of course, opening their protocol would allow them to have the Linux crowd support itself, but what's the gain?
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
59. Re:Skype on Linux by neumayr · 2011-06-04 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's even worse. Supporting Linux is expensive, there are a bunch of distributions with fundamental differences, not to mention desktop managers and audio systems . Supporting them all is.. hard, way too hard for most purposes.
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
60. Re:Skype on Linux by neumayr · 2011-06-04 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention Skype's interest in offering their services where ever it makes good business sense to do so, i.e. China. And they do, it is not blocked by the Great Firewall. That alone strongly suggests there are ways to controlling Skype that go beyond just blocking it.
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
61. Re:Skype on Linux by neumayr · 2011-06-04 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  Oh noes, not 'ls' too! Is nothing sacred anymore.. :(
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
62. Re:Skype on Linux by LordVader717 · 2011-06-05 00:35 · Score: 2
  
  Their revenue stream relies on lock-in. To the unknowing masses who don't understand packet switching or P2P connections Skype might seem like a reasonable deal, but for a VOIP gateway their service is ridiculously over-priced. If a competitor can offer their own service, but still allow it's users to easily interact with Skype customers then they would have to compete based on merit alone.
63. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-05 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Rather obvious: Skype very likely has an eavesdropping interface hidden in there and has deals with at least the NSA. Nobody in their right mind uses Skype for confidential calls.
  What would you use then? Skype is the only really usable multi-way video/audio chatting application available. There simply are no credible open source alternatives.
64. Re:Skype on Linux by mpe · 2011-06-05 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  The Civilian Assistance to Law Enforcement Act mandates that all telecommunications service providers install and maintain back doors into their systems for the express purpose of enabling Federal law enforcement to intercept private communications.
  
  Assuming that a) they will only ever use such backdoors for the right purposes and b) no other entity will be able to use them.
  
  If a closed source proprietary VOIP provider offers encryption, they are directly obstructing law enforcement agencies in the execution of their lawfully authorized surveillance activities.
  
  Such an obstruction would apply regardless of if the surveillance is "lawfully authorized" or not.
65. Re:Skype on Linux by mpe · 2011-06-05 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, if you "confidential calls" are so confidential that you are worried about NSA, then I think you have more to worry about than simply someone eavesdropping on your conversation.
  
  On the other hand there are plenty of well proven techniques which you can use to ensure that Eve will learn very little. e.g. using a code.
  Even some which can be used to discover her existance and/or identity.
66. Re:Skype on Linux by calzakk · 2011-06-05 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely. For the vast majority of companies that produce commercial software, Linux is just not worth it.
  I hope this changes, some day, because it's a good OS and there's nothing worse than a monopoly. I'm writing this on Linux but Windows is my main OS because it's just so much easier to use. No need to flame me for this, it's a very common view!
67. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-05 13:22 · Score: 0
  
  I laughed pretty hard. Try leaving your basement once every 10 years.
68. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-05 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  They've been hiding their protocols. These are not protected by patent (which would involve publishing them, assuming they were patentable). Their implementation is probably protected by copyright, but a competing implementation is unlikely to infringe that copyright, unless it is a "slavish" copy. There does not seem to be a trademark issue in play. Conclusion: it looks like they are merely trying to protect a trade secret which has been uncovered by reverse engineering. Note that reverse engineering to uncover secret methods is entirely legitimate.
  They could be worried about ridiculous patents they infringe on. Not like they've never been sued for implementing an obvious idea before...
69. Re:Skype on Linux by gweihir · 2011-06-05 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  That would not help a lot with end-to-end encryption. There are ways to eavesdrop on encrypted voice communication, but a backdoor into the crypto is what you really want. Also, a way to help the supernode selection along is most welcome and reduces effort.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
70. Re:Skype on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-07 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  Two years ago, I worked with someone who interviewed for a job at the NSA. The goal of the job? Hacking the skype protocol. I'm sure they've either gotten in or convinced skype to give them a way in by now, but a few years ago, at least, skype was not cooperating.
Skype Skype by freeasinrealale · 2011-06-04 05:56 · Score: 1, Interesting

Since 'skype' is Britishism for obtaining by nefarious means skyping Skype seems rather appropriate.

--
A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
1. Re:Skype Skype by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 06:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I'm British, I have friends all over the country and no-one has ever used or heard this term being used as you describe it. I think you've either mixed Britain up with a very small regional part of Britain or have the wrong word.
2. Re:Skype Skype by Boogaroo · 2011-06-04 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  He is probably thinking of "swipe."
  It's still in use even in kids shows. Example: Swiper the fox: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=swiper+no+swiping&aq=0&oq=swiper+no
3. Re:Skype Skype by Windwraith · 2011-06-04 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Swiper no swip...!!! ... ...oh... ... ...wait...
  *retreats in shame for quoting a kiddy show*
  (It's not my fault! It makes sense when stoned! Honest!)
4. Re:Skype Skype by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not ashamed to say I have seen the show, as I am a parent of young children. If I was in a mentally altered state, that show would freak me out.
  Dora asks the viewer what their favourite part of the story was, and then she and the monkey STARE at you in complete silence. I usually expect her head to start slowly rotating, and that's while sober.
5. Re:Skype Skype by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  I'm British, I have friends all over the country and no-one has ever used or heard this term being used as you describe it. I think you've either mixed Britain up with a very small regional part of Britain or have the wrong word.
  Maybe he got confused with skiving?
6. Re:Skype Skype by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  yeahbutwhothehellcanbloodyunderstandyouwhineypomsanyway?
  (read at 1.5x speed to get the full effect of that australian "sentence")
7. Re:Skype Skype by grahamwest · 2011-06-04 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking of 'kipe'.
  
  --
  Graham
8. Re:Skype Skype by RockDoctor · 2011-06-05 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Since 'skype' is Britishism for obtaining by nefarious means
  
  Nope, not in my 40+ years of learning British English in different parts of the country. "Skelp", I have heard, and several others, but not "skype".
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Wait. by drolli · 2011-06-04 05:57 · Score: 2

Openly admitting your security is based on obscurity sounds a little strange IMHO.
Instead of using a secret protocol, plainly give out the necessary certifiates only via email and kill them off after abuse. Especially since everybody can use the Skpe API to spam if he wants.
1. Re:Wait. by Idbar · 2011-06-04 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's why trade secrets are not protected. If you want to protect them, you open them and patent them. Since the people trying to reverse engineering their protocol have no "non-disclosure agreements", I don't see how this may be protected by IP law. Then again IANAL so perhaps they can cover their asses with the Terms of Use and licensing agreements for the software. But AFAIK reverse engineering stuff should be fair.
2. Re:Wait. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  If I can find my old skype spammer I should release it just for the lulz. Like you said you don't have to reverse engineer the protocol to spam.
3. Re:Wait. by BSsci.Daemonology · 2011-06-04 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with the fact that security through obscurity is never a good stance, however I do recall reading an article either in Linux Pro Magazine or a similar print publication several years back that an outside security researcher was given access to Skype's source and his conclusion was that the protocol was indeed secure. In this case, I believe the company just doesn't want others seeing into their product. Myself, I'm not giving any opinion as to what I think about reverse-engineering it, just wanted to put that out there. Apologies that I cannot cite the source offhand.
4. Re:Wait. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Security only through obscurity is a bad idea. Obscurity is an excellent part of a well-balanced security system, however.
5. Re:Wait. by MaskedSlacker · 2011-06-04 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Obscurity keeps Joe Derp from breaking into your system on accident. Obscurity does nothing for motivated attackers. Since security is all about time-until-breakage, and obscurity at best adds time on linearly (admittedly, this is hard to measure) compared to the exponential gains provided by properly implemented cryptographic protocols the only reason to rely on obscurity is if you're a water headed moron who thinks it makes a difference because you can't imagine a mindset other than your own (i.e. the mindset of the attacker). Of course, that probably describes the majority of humans alive today.
  Put another way, obscurity takes a few days (for any widely used system; for evidence see the rate of DRM cracking on video games, movies, and music) of dedicated effort to bypass. Properly implemented cryptography takes billions of years of dedicated effort to bypass. Obscurity only adds hassle for legitimate users. It does virtually nothing to slow down dedicated attackers.
6. Re:Wait. by JAlexoi · 2011-06-04 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe properly define reverse engineering in the copyright law so that not everything is allowed? Though using the reverse engineered protocol implantation to access the original service is perfectly legal under most copyright laws.
7. Re:Wait. by Lanteran · 2011-06-04 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  ... which is why he said security only through obscurity is a bad idea, and it should be layered with encryption and stuff.
  
  --
  "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
8. Re:Wait. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 18:09 · Score: 0
  
  Trade secrets ARE protected, at least in the USA... but with an explicit exception for reverse engineering, apparently.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Espionage_Act_of_1996
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality
  "The second section, 18 U.S.C. 1832, criminalizes the misappropriation of trade secrets related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate (including international) commerce, with the knowledge or intent that the misappropriation will injure the owner of the trade secret. Penalties for violation of section 1832 are imprisonment for up to 10 years for individuals (no fines) and fines of up to US$5 million for organizations."
  "In the United States even if an artifact or process is protected by trade secrets, reverse-engineering the artifact or process is often lawful as long as it is obtained legitimately." (I'm less sure about this part- I'm only now reading about it on Wikipedia. It doesn't come up much in my area of work.)
9. Re:Wait. by MaskedSlacker · 2011-06-04 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently you fail reading comprehension if you think my post supports that view.
  My ENTIRE point was that obscurity, alone or in addition to "encryption and stuff" ONLY inconveniences legitimate users while providing zero security benefit. To make this as simple as I can, since you seem to have missed it the first time:
  Security(Encryption +Obscurity) = Security(Encryption) + ShitTonofInconvenience
  The only reason to add obscurity is if you're stupid enough to think that inconvenience for legitimate users is a kind of security. If you have secure encryption, it takes a billion years to crack, and doesn't get in the way of any authorized user doing their job. If you have secure encryption and obscurity it takes a billion years plus one day to crack, and gets in the way of normal users doing their damned jobs. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
10. Re:Wait. by Lanteran · 2011-06-05 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  No need to be an asshole. I guess you just have a different idea of what "Security through Obscurity" is than I do.
  
  --
  "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Inigo Montoya moment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 05:59 · Score: 1

"who said ... that it's an infringement of their IP"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
1. Re:Inigo Montoya moment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  Since "intellectual property" is a oxymoron, describing something physically impossible to morons (who else would believe it?), and "IP" is already reserved for "internet protocol", I agree.
  Reality dominance. Most people don't even acknowledge its existence, since they fear they'd lose their rigid little "reality" they blindly trusted their whole life, and won't know what to do anymore if they can't hallucinate about it being a "absolute reality"
  Which makes life for us social engineers and those delusional criminals way too easy. Because if you manage to change their (perception) of realty, they will stand behind it with all their heart, and defend your engineered reality to their death. ;)
  It's sad though, that so few use that power for win-win results. Instead of only for themselves. It's as if they couldn't think around the next corner, and how being good to your cattle, will be good for you too.
2. Re:Inigo Montoya moment by sco08y · 2011-06-04 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Since "intellectual property" is a oxymoron, describing something physically impossible to morons (who else would believe it?), and "IP" is already reserved for "internet protocol", I agree.
  Copyright, to take just one form of IP, has a legal history going back at least 300 years. You may not like lawyers but when you dismiss them as "morons," you're operating on the same level as the guy who thought he could get out of paying taxes because the IRS had capitalized his name.
3. Re:Inigo Montoya moment by Mr.+Slippery · 2011-06-04 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright, to take just one form of IP, has a legal history going back at least 300 years.
  
  Only by retcon. "Intellectual property" is a fairly new confusion, meant to obscure the distinctions between copyright, patent, and trademark. IP does not have a 300 year history.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
4. Re:Inigo Montoya moment by sco08y · 2011-06-04 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright, to take just one form of IP, has a legal history going back at least 300 years.
  Only by retcon. "Intellectual property" is a fairly new confusion, meant to obscure the distinctions between copyright, patent, and trademark. IP does not have a 300 year history.
  So someone invented a blanket term that covered several existing terms, solely to confuse people? To what end?
  And please explain how this confusion was necessary, given that they could get stronger laws by simply asking Congress for them?
5. Re:Inigo Montoya moment by Mr.+Slippery · 2011-06-12 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  So someone invented a blanket term that covered several existing terms, solely to confuse people? To what end?
  To profit, of course. Making patents and copyrights sound like a form of "property" makes people think that if we reign in copyright laws, its the same sort of action as the government taking away someone's house. You point out that that they could get stronger laws by simply asking Congress for them -- why do you think citizens let them get away with that shit? Because they frame it as "We're protecting property rights, just like your right to keep your house." It's bullshit, of course, but between the distractions of popular culture and the grind most citizens must endure just to pay the rent and buy food, few see through it.
  As for trademark, calling it "property" lets mark holders censor discussion and stifle creativity of potential competitors. The legitimate use of trademark is consumer protection, not the ability of XYZCorp to prevent you from registering XYZCorpSucks.com
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
usable now? by Gravis+Zero · 2011-06-04 06:00 · Score: 1

i think it's completely possible that this could be a good thing for skype. i've always found there client to be bloated and annoying and worst of all ,the linux port is trash.
this could be fantastic... or we may end up with a lot of halfassed clients.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:usable now? by Fnord666 · 2011-06-04 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  ...or we may end up with a lot of halfassed clients.
  Sort of like the RIAA's attorneys.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
2. Re:usable now? by Starfleet+Command · 2011-06-04 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Most excellent! Lulz were had over that comment and over your siggie
Spam/phishing is just an excuse by MtHuurne · 2011-06-04 06:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

If a spammer or phisher would reverse engineer a protocol, it's very unlikely they would publish about it, since that would help their competition. It is possible that spammers or phishers will use the results of reverse engineering of course, but if your protection against malicious activities consists of a secret protocol then you should consider implementing real security instead of blaming the reverse engineering.
In any case it's clear that Skype doesn't want third party clients to interoperate with their own, so instead of getting into a cat and mouse game it would be more useful to improve existing open source VOIP clients so Skype can be replaced altogether.
1. Re:Spam/phishing is just an excuse by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  instead of getting into a cat and mouse game it would be more useful to improve existing open source VOIP clients
  You mean improve them so that they work with the most popular VOIP network?
2. Re:Spam/phishing is just an excuse by StripedCow · 2011-06-04 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  it would be more useful to improve existing open source VOIP clients so Skype can be replaced altogether.
  As you know, for performing a telephone call, you need 2 ends. Try convincing the other end to install your open-source VOIP client of choice!
  That's the problem!
  IMHO, a much better approach against such lock-in would be to first develop an open-source binary compatibility layer inside web-browsers, like google is doing with native client (NaCl). That way, you could make a phone call by asking the other party to visit a website (assuming you have written your phone client software for that binary compatibility layer of course).
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
3. Re:Spam/phishing is just an excuse by yarnosh · 2011-06-04 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever been in spammer forums? They exchange methods all the time. In fact, it is kind of surreal how they talk about it like it was just another day at the office. Like bypassing captchas to post pharmaceutical ads in blog comments. Dunno how they sleep at night.
4. Re:Spam/phishing is just an excuse by Richy_T · 2011-06-04 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  The CL spammers are about as bad, discussing how to scam authorization codes out of regular people now that CL has tightened things up to one account per phone #. (Though some of that tightening is annoying for people trying to do legit business)
5. Re:Spam/phishing is just an excuse by drinkypoo · 2011-06-04 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  As you know, for performing a telephone call, you need 2 ends. Try convincing the other end to install your open-source VOIP client of choice!
  That would be stupid when you could use SIP instead of some proprietary solution. I'm not sure why you imagined this right away when there are already better options.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If Skype really cared about spam or phishing... by Dr.+Spork · 2011-06-04 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why do I keep getting the same inane message from "Natalia", posted from various temporary accounts? I've blocked every account it's come from; I'm sure many have. Is Skype really too slow to get the hint? Jesus, make the spammers work a bit to change a word here and there! It's shocking to me how little Skype cares about spam and phishing in their network. My point is, you can do all the spam and phishing you want with the native client, because Skype apparently does nothing to stop even the clumsiest of spammers who know how to solve a capcha. So their alleged interest to protect their users was conveniently discovered when the possibility of competition suddenly arose.
1. Re:If Skype really cared about spam or phishing... by luke923 · 2011-06-04 06:43 · Score: 2
  
  Ironically enough, that's the reason I stopped using Skype altogether; yet, an alternative client which did a better job of blocking spammers would bring me back.
  
  --
  "Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
2. Re:If Skype really cared about spam or phishing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Odd. I've NEVER been spammed on Skype, let alone phished. I've gotten a few here and there on AIM, but never Skype. I'm not saying that I doubt that you've been spammed—I'm sure it must happen. I just wonder what conditions whether someone gets spammed or not on a network like Skype.
  - Does it matter what language one puts in the profile? Mine's not set to English—forsitan molestis praeconiis saepius vexentur qui aperte confiteantur se Anglice loqui.
  - Does it matter if information is left blank? Do people with longer profiles get spammed, while those with shorter or blank profiles avoid it?
  - Does it matter if you have a larger circle of fiends? Do spammers simply troll the account database, or do they find friends-of-friends and follow the social graph?
3. Re:If Skype really cared about spam or phishing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Am I missing something here? I used to get spammed a bit, but then I just went to the options page and selected "Allow calls/chats from my contacts only", and I've never been spammed again since then. Or is the GP talking about spammers trying to add you? That's never happened to me either. Why would you want to talk to some random guy you don't know anyway?
4. Re:If Skype really cared about spam or phishing... by devjoe · 2011-06-06 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  The inane Skype message I keep getting from various accounts I keep blocking is one trying to tell me they've detected a security problem on my Windows system - even though I am logged in from Linux. Maybe once a month I get this, almost always in the middle of the night while I am sleeping.
5. Re:If Skype really cared about spam or phishing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-10 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  I did it years ago - go to Privacy tab and choose to receive calls and messages from Contacts only. No spam whatsoever.
6. Re:If Skype really cared about spam or phishing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-10 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  https://support.skype.com/en-us/faq/FA503/What-can-I-do-if-I-receive-spam-messages-or-abusive-calls
  https://support.skype.com/en-us/faq/FA10883/What-can-I-do-if-I-receive-spam-messages-or-abusive-calls-in-Skype-for-Mac
  https://support.skype.com/en-us/faq/FA10548/What-security-do-you-have-in-place-for-under-16-year-olds
Not surprising by mmcuh · 2011-06-04 06:20 · Score: 2

So Skype's PR people are morons. No surprise there, PR people are usually the bullshitters who couldn't make it as politicians.
1. Re:Not surprising by Nikola+Tesla+and+You · 2011-06-04 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  PR people are usually the bullshitters who couldn't make it as politicians.
  So, basically, they couldn't even qualify as village idiot?
2. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  It's not about being correct; it's about trying to discredit this person.
  Woman raped by cop
  Vs
  Prostitute claims police misconduct.
  It plants a seed of doubt in the collective public conciousness that helps them down the road when people start to care.
Typical response by Chewbacon · 2011-06-04 06:40 · Score: 1

..."Criminals reverse engineered our stuff to commit crimes against innocent people." Whatever, I get phishing messages on Skype regularly.

--
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Skype is bugged by Dunge · 2011-06-04 06:50 · Score: 0

No doubt they managed to reverse engineer the protocol. I wanted to use skype the other day and found 4 different bugs just on the website and installing the application. --- You only have 1 try for password guess before you "used all your tries" --- "Lost username" e-mail actually write your username on the first line of the e-mail, then ask you to click on a link to verify a code and it gives you the same thing --- You need to login a second time on the download page, cookies are not linked to the main site. --- In the installer when you choose your language, if you press the first letter (ie. E for english) instead of clicking on it, all hell break loose on that UI. How they managed to get a multimillion dollars enterprise with some lack of polishing like that is beyond me.
Correct me if I am wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 06:53 · Score: 0

But isn't reverse-engineering legal ?
In addition to that, claiming that it is for phishing/spamming purposes is FUD, not to say that people who engage in those activities cant use this.
1. Re:Correct me if I am wrong. by artor3 · 2011-06-04 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  You are correct that it's legal, but that doesn't mean that Skype is under any obligation to make it easy.
IP? there is no IP. by gr8_phk · 2011-06-04 06:56 · Score: 1

They claim violation of their IP. Is that copyright? probably not. Trademark? Nope. Patent? Hmmm do they have a patent in this area? I don't know, but probably not. That would leave trade secrets, which IIRC are not protected from reverse engineering in any way. IANAL but they really should say what is being violated, not just the nebulous "IP".
1. Re:IP? there is no IP. by yarnosh · 2011-06-04 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  To get a patent, they'd have to reveal the protocol. And then there'd be no need to reverse engineer it. They're not really trying to protect their IP. It sounds like they want to protect their network. I guess it would be easier to automate spamming/phishing if you could interface their network without goin ghtorugh their client... maybe?
2. Re:IP? there is no IP. by Khyber · 2011-06-04 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  "I guess it would be easier to automate spamming/phishing if you could interface their network without goin ghtorugh their client... maybe?"
  Nah, it's easy just going through the client itself to spam.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
3. Re:IP? there is no IP. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-08 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  It might be copyright. Presumably you'd download their client to use in your reverse engineering efforts, and presumably they make you agree to terms and conditions which prohibit reverse engineering. So it might be breach of their T&Cs or something related to copyright. I suppose the legal question would be did they agree to T&Cs prohibiting reverse engineering and if they did is that condition legally enforceable. I guess it depends on how the reverse engineering is done, but I imagine doing it without some sort of access to their client would make it a lot harder.
  I'm sure Skype's lawyers will be able to come up with a legal case somehow, but maybe not one that holds water.
This makes perfect sense... by anarkhos · 2011-06-04 07:10 · Score: 1

This makes perfect sense, because spammers and phishers always obey the law, so if they're forbidden from using code which has already been released I'm sure they will comply.
Yeeeeeaaaaaaa

--
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
What are you talking about? by goombah99 · 2011-06-04 07:14 · Score: 1

instead of getting into a cat and mouse game it would be more useful to improve existing open source VOIP clients so Skype can be replaced altogether.
I find it hard to understand why people use skype at all when there are plenty of good voip providers. Skype has completely random call quality/ you never iknow if a connection will be fine or sound like it in an echo chamber or have a buzz. You can get excellent voip service for $5 to $10 /month. Indeed Ooma offers FREE service (but requires you to purchase a $130 appliance and pay the E911). Ooma's quality is excellent their service is responsive and it keeps getting better (HD voice now available for ooma-to-ooma).
There are lots of quality VOIP providers. Why would anyone put up with low quality skype?

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  Skype just works. Yes I would rather use SIP but try getting your non-technical friend to configure STUN server addresses etc. etc.
2. Re:What are you talking about? by arikol · 2011-06-04 07:56 · Score: 3
  
  I use Mac and Linux, my in-laws and some of my contacts use Windows.
  Give me a client that reliably (well, as reliably as Skype, anyway) works on these platforms (iOS would also be nice, as both I and the missus use that as well) and is simple enough to install and start for my in-laws, my parents, and the others I want to contact.
  Google chat should work, but is seriously confusing to beginners, and they want a standalone client anyway.
  When you can point me to that VOIP client, then I'll consider dumping Skype.
  Until the, Skype is king.
3. Re:What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  This. My family lives on 3 different continents. Many years ago someone sent an email round telling everyone to download Skype. We all made accounts and it just worked. It still does. Sometimes the quality is quite good too. Last year I was visiting one set of family and tried almost every client on wikipedia's List of SIP software. Spent like 5 hours and couldn't get any to work reliably - whether it was their hardware or ISP or whatever, I dunno. But I didn't spend $2000 to go across the world and waste time, so we just gave up. I dislike proprietary software as much as the next guy but until I can afford a proper ISP and have the time to experiment with the latest developments and SIP servers, it's Skype for me and the people I talk to.
4. Re:What are you talking about? by kwark · 2011-06-04 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Skype offers SIP trunking: http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/business/skype-connect/
  So you can go ahead and stick to SIP while interconnecting with your Skype buddies.
5. Re:What are you talking about? by yarnosh · 2011-06-04 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  I use Skype primarily as an IM client with good group chat capabilities. I also do a lot of conference calls and yeah, call quality can be hit and miss, but no other service that I'm aware of combines video, text (one to one and conference), voice, and screensharing as well. And for free. I would definitely NOT use Skype if all I wanted was to make phone calls. I must prefer having a dedicated VoIP hardware device. I wouldn't want to be forced to be at my computer or have my computer on to make calls even if Skype was a good VoIP service.
6. Re:What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 21:31 · Score: 0
  
  You may want to try linphone:
  http://www.linphone.org/
  I have installed it on my android phone and on my netbook running ubuntu. Never bothered to try skype, so i have no direct comparison but it works fine for me.
7. Re:What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 23:14 · Score: 0
  
  Working away from home at the moment using a Macbook Pro when I'm stationary for more than 5 minutes and an Ubuntu-based netbook when I'm on the train. My wife and I have used Skype for the last 9 months which was already installed on her Windows machine until the severe connection and call quality problems we've experienced over the last three weeks. She installed Pidgin without my help or knowledge and sent me an email with her user details.... I should explain that not only does she dislike computers but anything past point-and-click is not her thing.
  Pidgin and Google Talk have worked for us over three different platforms and I've yet to have a call drop or experience the ridiculous underwater bubbling effect on speech that I was getting on Skype.
  Sorry but for me Skype is dumped and I'm just glad that somebody managed to give me the push to try another platform, especially being a Unix programmer and the lack of support Skype have provided for Linux over the years.
8. Re:What are you talking about? by LordVader717 · 2011-06-05 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Ekiga
9. Re:What are you talking about? by cnj · 2011-06-05 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Buy a dedicated SIP phone.
  My parents are running Aastra phones (with wireless handsets).
  My fiancÃ©e has an ATA (analog telephone adapter) and loves that she can use her old analog phone with it.
  You can buy a Grandstream phone for $50 if you don't want something fancy like Aastra or Cisco.
  None of these should be harder to use than a normal phone. To initially configure, maybe--but you can do that and then ship them off where all they need to be is connected to the network.
  Why bother with a cross-platform software solution? You could, if it simplifies your support issues, I suppose. Each platform has plenty of options if you just need some support however (my father uses Telepathy on his phone).
  As I said, my parents have an Aastra phone, which fetches its configuration file from an FTP server (you can also just have it fetch over HTTP/HTTPS) so any configuration changes take effect within a day, or after they restart the phone--including a centralized address book. The Aastra phones are really good if you want a hybrid centralized-decentralized configuration/contact situation and you want to spend a couple hours doing the initial configuration for everyone. The users don't need to know anything special.
  
  --
  Never trust anyone over 90000.
Aziza Johari Johnson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 07:19 · Score: 0

She isn't very hard to find on Facebook. Just sent her the following message:
In what universe do spammers and phishers openly publish their results for the public to look at? Somehow I don't think you have any idea about the subject matter on which you are harassing people over, and frankly, I am astounded that someone so wholly ignorant about both communication and technology would somehow manage to become the VP of a communications company. Who'd you blackmail to get your job, lady?
While I'm at it, just three days ago I received a spam message via Skype. It seems like the utterly insecure software that you're ineffectually trying to defend is already full of holes, why don't you people try dealing with the actual spammers and phishers that infest your so-called "service" rather than attacking legitimate researchers? No need to give me an answer to that question, I know why: Because it's easier. You people can't do a single thing to take care of the real problems Skype faces, so instead, you make a lot of kerfluffle when something at which you can lash out raises its head. Good work, you're a terrible human being.
"Oops! We broke the Linux client . . .sorry!" by mmell · 2011-06-04 07:42 · Score: 0

Or am I the only one who thinks M$ will use this as an excuse to work their "embrace, extend, extinguish" magic on Skype? This is just a way for the pirates of Redmond to kill the Linux (beta) client - which, incidentally, hasn't seen any progress in the last two years - while keeping their grubby little meat-beaters clean.
A Likely Story by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-06-04 07:56 · Score: 1

I find it a likely story that someone would open-source Skype for the purposes of sending spam. That's an activity you keep secret and sell to spammers for big bucks. So without even knowing the motive we get this attack on the coder by none less than the VP of Skype's PR company. There should be a good libel suit in here somewhere.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:"Oops! We broke the Linux client . . .sorry!" by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-06-04 08:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

I suspect that it depends on where they plan to slot Skype into their list of product offerings.

If it becomes part of some 'enterprise' offering, playing cat-and-mouse would likely not be a sensible strategy. Corporate/institutional customers hate petty version churn of the sort needed to keep constantly breaking 3rd parties and they have a fairly low likelihood of going with 'unofficial' software. They may well keep globbing on new features(as with Office document formats, Sharepoint tie-ins, etc.); but corporate customers are conservative enough that even the perception that 3rd party clients are not feature-complete and 100% compatible usually keeps them well away, and the few exceptions are likely to either be impecunious contrarians or competing titans(eg. IBM) large enough to make an issue of it if you play dirty.

If it becomes a "Live" consumer offering, playing cat-and-mouse is at least an option, since the consumer market has largely learned to suck up their auto-updates when told(and isn't behind a firewall that blocks them, and doesn't need to open a ticket with IT to install them...) It still isn't totally clear what their motivation would be(since they would still control the skype-out gateways, where the money is, and having third parties voluntarily make your network more popular among markets you don't feel like serving doesn't seem like an obviously bad thing(though they might keep the banhammer hovering, just to ensure that people license the rights to embed skype in wifi VOIP phones and whatnot from them, rather than go 3rd party...)

If it becomes a consumer-electronics thing, affiliated with xbox or Windows Phone, it seems to be some sort of ontological obligation to lock it down as hard as possible, just on principle, just because that is how they roll in console-land.
Better Use of Their Time by Stormy+Dragon · 2011-06-04 08:37 · Score: 1

Maybe they'd be better off assigning some of the people trying to defeat reverse engineering to test their installer software.
You know, so they don't "accidentally" install third party applications on users' computers without permission again.
OH NOES!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 08:53 · Score: 0

Remember the day before there was skype? Yeah.. people actually *CHOSE* their product and then it snowballed into where they are at now. While its true that having an open protocol would be beneficial for the consumer, don't forget that skype actually made the protocol/product worth using.
Any fool can create a voip protocol. It takes something else to make it popular. As usual open source people want to copy existing successful proprietary products (hint: unix) and expect established companies to just roll out the red carpet. Why don't these nerds make their own open protocol which is better than what skype uses and make it popular? Yeah.. much harder ;-)
Bad business by Junta · 2011-06-04 08:59 · Score: 1

If your business model is shot by having your wire protocol well understood, your business model is crap. Based on my admittedly low knowledge of Skype, I don't understand how third party clients can threaten them, since the client is free, not ad-supported, and they charge for access to services, unless they enforce those business policies client-side, which brings us to point two...
If your protocol being understood opens the door to unauthorized access to your premium services and phishing and other security threats, your protocol is crap. The term in the industry is security through obscurity, with well deserved disdain.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
1. Re:Bad business by Kalriath · 2011-06-04 13:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I believe the problem they face is that if the client protocol is understood, any monkey can implement that client protocol in a program which dials millions of Skype users per second offering to sell them half-off auto warranties or telling them about that $15,000,000 they need to smuggle out of Zambia, effectively destroying the trust in Skype, potentially resulting in an exodus of customers. Their perspective is not entirely unjustified.
  However, they don't appear to be spending much time working on a mitigation technique for when some jerk-off in the middle of nowhere (i.e. Nigeria) manages to achieve the same goal - because no legal threat will work on those fuckers.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
2. Re:Bad business by neumayr · 2011-06-04 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure that's going to work out very well, you will still need to authenticate yourself to the network and an easily reachable "this fucker's spamming me" button will keep those people at bay.
  Unless of course there are holes in that authentication mechanism...
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
reverse the reverse by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 09:39 · Score: 0

sooo, skype is going to reverse the reverse engineering so it could be reverse engineered again, go skype!
What is this I don't even... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 10:38 · Score: 0

So how do you defeat the reverse engineering of an engineered piece of software? Re-engineer it?
In my opinion it sounds like Skype is trying to patch the hole in its bike tire; sure they can cover it up but the hole is still the same size. So it can still be re-reversed engineered...
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-06-04 12:47 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-06-04 14:17 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have a better solution to that by cheekyboy · 2011-06-04 15:42 · Score: 1

This is so easy to solve.
1. Dont make games tied to an OS, but bootable of DVDROM, like an xbox/ps3, but on the PS. And since theres only 2 ever video card makers, its easy to support.
2. boot this into linux under a VM that lets you control the video card.
3. Failing that, just give up dudes, and use Windows VM. Its not gona kill you, you wont run out of harddisk space, ram is cheap.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
1. Re:I have a better solution to that by neumayr · 2011-06-04 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Really, Windows gamers would accept having to reboot their system to play a game? I know I wouldn't, but then, I'm not them.
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
2. Re:I have a better solution to that by RockDoctor · 2011-06-05 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Where am I going to get a copy of Windows from? Without stealing it? And without funding Bill Gate's ego.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Governments Would Be Interested by CodeBuster · 2011-06-04 16:50 · Score: 1

From what I understand Skype uses encryption as well as proprietary protocols to provides its services. No doubt many governments around the world, fearing the possibilities enabled by secure and anonymous point-to-point communication, would be very interested in learning anything they can about how it works and what weaknesses it might have, if any.
BS from MS by bedouin · 2011-06-04 18:30 · Score: 1

This is an excuse to rework the code so the already outdated Linix client is rendered useless on their network. Sorry, but due to a recent security breach and lack of resources we must cease development on Skype for Linix. Double whammy: blame it on open source hackers and also piss off Linux users.
As for Mac, Skype will give the MacBU something to do other than play XBox all day.
Once Microsoft acquires Skype... by supersat · 2011-06-04 18:32 · Score: 2

... won't they be obligated to license the protocol to third parties to avoid the wrath of anti-trust regulators (especially in the EU)?
Re:To those that would say "Linux" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-04 21:44 · Score: 0

OK then...
They should support UBUNTU only.
Just limit yourself to one Linux distribution and the fragmentation problem goes away.
Next time you hear some stupid company complaining about Linux fragmentation, point out they only need to support ONE distribution.
Re:http://www.ebyjeans.com by Pikoro · 2011-06-04 22:42 · Score: 1

Well, looks like someone reverse engineered slashdot's protocol.

--
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Correct by LordVader717 · 2011-06-05 00:42 · Score: 1

But I bet this has nothing to do with security and everything with preventing other clients connecting to the network.
Not entirely stupid. by ArcCoyote · 2011-06-05 04:29 · Score: 1

Here's the exact quote from TFA: "This unauthorized use of our application for malicious activities like spamming/phishing infringes on Skype's intellectual property. We are taking all necessary steps to prevent/defeat nefarious attempts to subvert Skype's experience. Skype takes its users' safety and security seriously and we work tirelessly to ensure each individual has the best possible experience."
Even the PR drone is saying "unauthorized us for malicious activities"... so reverse engineering the protocol isn't the problem, it's what you do with it. And considering it seems to be a Russian effort, I'd worry too.
Reading /etc/passwd is fine by Max+Hyre · 2011-06-05 09:09 · Score: 1

Check the format (man 5 passwd): If you're going to supply such niceties as usernames rather than UIDs, or group names rather than GIDs, you must read /etc/passwd. For security's sake, the passwords are no longer kept there (at least in GNU/Linux, and I hope in any other modern OS), but in /etc/shadow or /etc/master.passwd (*BSD) which can only be read by root.
Thus, the encrypted passwords, required for brute-force decryption attempts, are not available to every Tom, Dick, and Mallory.

--
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
lol by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-05 09:41 · Score: 0

Something to read.
http://skype-open-source.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-interview-to-east-west-digital-news.html
He said *simple enough* by DrYak · 2011-06-08 02:09 · Score: 1

Ekiga is really nice (I'm using it on a regular basis).
But it's setup isn't as simple.
You still can't select the used port range without manually editing the configuration with gconf-editor, for example.
There are some nice efforts to avoid the whole "opening-port" thanks to STUN and TURN technologies.
But still there are lot of situation where you end up with the dreaded "Sorry, ekiga couldn't configure your network automatically" window.
Meanwhile, skype, because it uses aggressive techniques coming from the P2P-Download world, and because any Skype client with a sufficient bandwidth can be turned into a super-Node, "just work" in almost any situation. Including border case situations where the network is semi-broken.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]