Skype Goes After Reverse-Engineering

An anonymous reader writes "It appears Microsoft's Skype Division is cracking down on reverse-engineering of the Skype client. Skype recently rolled out a new set of APIs for integration into other desktop applications, but they have issued multiple DMCA takedown notices to a researcher publishing open-source code to send Skype messages."

Comments

Interoperability

[Bert64]

Doesn't the DMCA have exceptions for interoperability purposes? Surely these would come into play for a communications tool...

Re:Interoperability

[SharkLaser]

Skype is not an US company. It is based in Luxembourg and has most of its team based in Estonia. DMCA doesn't apply here because it's an US law - point many people on slashdot like to bring up in defense of TPB etc.

And note that Microsoft STILL DOES NOT OWN SKYPE. The trade has been approved, but it still works a independent company. And they have a history of going against reverse engineer, and Microsoft cannot legally interfere with their business before they actually own the company.

Re:Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as the DMCA does not fund the litigation required to actually be able to use this exception. it is a pretty useless exception.

Is this new?

[magsol]

Has this kind of crackdown on those who would reverse-engineer Skype's protocols always been around? Or has it only been elevated to prominence with the acquisition of Skype by Microsoft?

tl;dr can we hate on Microsoft?

I don't get it...

[RobinEggs]

Skype and their PR people are calling the project "malicious" and "nefarious", but it sounds like all it does is emulate Skype, so that you can send messages to Skype users while not having a proper account

They mention the possibility that it could be used for spam, but that sounds like blaming the tool. Is there some other way that this thing could be inherently "nefarious" that I'm not understanding? Because it doesn't look dangerous to me.

Unless you count the risks of an independent developer making something interoperable with, and potentially better than, the original product. We all know that's a grave and terrible danger to the safety of the free world.

Re:I don't get it...

[GameboyRMH]

Could be useful for prank calls, harassment, death threats etc if it allows a user to make calls without having a Skype account at all (sounds like a serious security problem with Skype's design).

If it's just an alternative Skype client that still requires an account, then it just prevents Skype from having absolute control over which platforms can access their network, in which case, fuck them.

Hiding Something

[Zaphod The 42nd]

An engineer buddy of mine was doing reverse-engineering work on the Skype protocol for a job he had a few years back, he would come to me with shock and tell me about how dumb and insecure the Skype clients are and how trivially easy it is to get any Skype client to work as an invisible proxy for you without that person's knowledge by just using the skype protocol.

If they're making such a huge deal about it, you have to wonder why. They've got some problems and they'd rather have security through obscurity. *sigh*

Does the DMCA really prevent cleanroom / chinese wall reverse-engineering? Damnit politicians just have no clue...

Re:Know what would be hillarious?

[GameboyRMH]

Won't happen. SIP and IAX are out there, all free and decentralized, but all the proprietary junk continues to be adopted by the technologically-challenged masses.