Slashdot Mirror
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."
Doesn't the DMCA have exceptions for interoperability purposes? Surely these would come into play for a communications tool...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
If you're working on any kind of software that could piss off large corporations - console hacking, proprietary protocol reverse-engineering, DRM-breaking, etc - host the project on a darknet site anonymously so they can't send you takedown notices or sue you. This should be common sense by now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
To all those people asking "Why do you hate MS so much?"
This is why.
When MS bought Skype I told people that Skype would die soon *because* MS bought it. Didn't know how or when but soon.
Now, MS will kill all the various clients that made Skype ubiquitous and useful. The new Skype will not run on as many platforms and (in true MS EEE fashion) will not work with previous versions either
Like Metalica, and Hurt Locker, Skype will now be shunned.
A new *open* protocol will take over.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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.
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...
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
SIP, a brilliant protocol that likes to negotiate a random port between 10000 and 20000 to open your RTP stream. Why not IAX2, which is a hundred times better and not gay as fuck like SIP to handle.
No, M$ is *not* a different way to write Multiple Sclerosis or Mississippi or Master of Science or Morgan Stanley.
It is a common way to abbreviate Microsoft to avoid ambiguity with these others.
It is also entertaining because it makes people with the mentality of 12 year olds go "oh you are so CHILDISH! CHILDISH! CHILDISH because I say so. PBBBBBTTTT! WAAAH I am soooo KOOOL because I said you are "CHILDISH!!!!!"""" Look in the mirror for an example.
This is why proprietary junk like Skype continues to flourish. You blame the users for the problem. The real reason is that the developers who advocate open protocols like SIP or IAX shun the technologically-challenged masses. They revel in complexity and flexibility, while most users just want something simple that works, no fuss, no muss. When users come to them with problems or questions, they're frequently met with scorn, ridicule, and non-answers like "it's open source, fix the bug yourself." Some developers even see themselves as gods, with the users as minions whose purpose is to worship them and be eternally grateful for their code.
In a successful product, the relationship works the other way around. The users needs and wants are paramount, and the developers work to fulfill them. Put out a SIP or IAX-based product which is free, and as simple and friendly to use as Skype. Then you'll start to whittle down its market share. You can keep all the complexity and flexibility that you like, but it has to be hidden behind a simple veneer whose defaults just work for the typical neophyte user. The problem isn't that technologically-challenged users adopt proprietary junk; the problem is that OSS developers write software which is difficult for technologically-challenged users to use.