Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Reads Your Skype Chat Messages

An anonymous reader writes "A Microsoft server accesses URLs sent in Skype chat messages, even if they are HTTPS URLs and contain account information. A reader of Heise publications notified Heise Security (link to German website, Google translation). They replicated the observation by sending links via Skype, including one to a private file storage account, and found that these URLs are shortly after accessed from a Microsoft IP address. When confronted, Microsoft claimed that this is part of an effort to detect and filter spam and phishing URLs."

20 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. Damned if they do... by mystikkman · · Score: 4, Informative

    "New Skype malware spreading at 2,000 clicks per hour to mine Bitcoins"

    http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/05/new-skype-malware-spreading-at-2000-clicks-per-hour-makes-money-by-using-victims-machines-to-mine-bitcoins/

    And they try to prevent it by detecting malware and we get headlines like this. Looks like people are on a witch hunt here.

    1. Re:Damned if they do... by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not if you agree to it in the TOS.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Damned if they do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      What does Skype have to do with ST:TOS?

    3. Re:Damned if they do... by mu51c10rd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody else was dumb enough to click the link.

      You don't deal with many ordinary end users do you...

    4. Re:Damned if they do... by Lazere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it's not illegal. The law makes it illegal to intercept those messages without warrant or permission. Wouldn't agreeing to the TOS be giving them permission?

    5. Re:Damned if they do... by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 5, Informative

      Those who care about keeping the contents of their IM conversations secret should not use Skype. As stated in their privacy policy "Skype may gather and use information about you, including (but not limited to) information in the following categories: ... (n) Content of instant messaging communications, voicemails, and video messages"

      The EFF recommends using Pidgin or Audium with OTR encryption enabled, for reasonably secure instant messaging.

      I'm glad the non-tech-savvy folks use Skype, though. If Microsoft weren't able to intercept these things, I'd have to clean out viruses from my in-laws' computers more often.

    6. Re:Damned if they do... by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Informative

      (In the US) private entities don't need warrants. Warrants are a control on government. Microsoft can do whatever they want on communication channels they own. You don't have to use those channels of course.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    7. Re:Damned if they do... by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Skype used to have a reputation of using encrypted peer-to-peer transmissions.

      That's funny. I remember their reputation always being "no one knows how the key exchange works and therefore nobody can trust it."

      "Encrypted" means jack shit. Skype never had a reputation for being secure because they never showed anyone that they are. With any serious VoIP protocol (e.g. zfone) they tell you how it works. If the design is a trade secret, then it's a scam. You've known that for decades.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    8. Re:Damned if they do... by KingMotley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Email spam filters are evil too! My ISP is reading my emails, OMG!

    9. Re:Damned if they do... by caluml · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I once renamed shutdown.exe from the Windows resource kit to DONOTRUN.exe, and sent it in a mail round to the company (in the I love you/Melissa days), warning people in the subject, and message to NOT RUN THE ATTACHED attachment.

      People then started coming to me complaining they'd lost work because their computer had shutdown.

      It's amazing, it really is.

  2. Alternate headline by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Alternate headline: Microsoft protects hundreds of millions of Skype users by going to the effort of checking even https URLs in chat for malware and spam

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem with that, according to TFA, is that they only check https but not http. The latter being what malware sites use.
      Also, they are sending HEAD requests, not GET. They are only getting the headers, not the content, so have no way of knowing if there is malware at the URL.

    2. Re:Alternate headline by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since you don't have any way to know exactly what they are doing, it is kind of silly to call that a 'problem'. Maybe they only do a HEAD because the response indicates authorization is required. Maybe they only visit a URL once, and already have visited the http site. Maybe they only do anything if something else triggers it (number of hits on a URL in a certain amount of time). You have no way of knowing that they only check https, you just know that in this particular case they only checked https. You have no way of knowing that that only get the headers, just that in this particular case they only got the headers.

  3. This is news? by csumpi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AOL reads your messages. Google reads your messages. Facebook reads your messages. Apple reads your messages. Microsoft reads your messages.

    How is this news? The price for free IM is that they read your messages and sell the info they gather to advertisers.

    1. Re:This is news? by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except Microsoft does mine your email context to serve up contextual ads.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/microsofts-new-outlook-mail-welcome-hotmail-replacement-917473

      They says theirs isn't as deep, so it respects your privacy more, but what it really means is that they're not as good at serving up contextual ads, but they're still scanning your email.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:This is news? by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/

      Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers.

      And they have a patent specifically covering selling your personal private data to advertisers, allowing advertisers to bid on that data.

      http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2010/02/gates_ozzie_other_microsoft_execs_patent_personal_data_mining.html

      It is only bad business if the media calls them out on it, which hasn't really happened. That is why Microsoft spends a small fortune on astroturfing, shifting the focus on Google for privacy concerns.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  4. Hmmm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, as I fully expected, this whole campaign about users being "Scroogled" that Microsoft has been involved in is misdirection, and they do the same thing.

    Wanna bet they also scrape your hotmail and everything else in the same way they accuse Google of doing?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Re:Is there any way? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both Facebook and Google's chats use bog standard XMPP (aka Jabber). Normal, clueless people use Facebook to chat. The few that don't use Facebook use the chat inside Gmail, or the one installed on their smartphone. Encryption over XMPP is very common; You'd need to use a non-standard client (say, Pidgin), but it's feasible.

    The major problem is that encryption requires support at both ends:

    Even a totally proprietary chat network(if it's been cracked open far enough that 3rd party clients exist, or 3rd-party wrappers around the first party client or libraries exist) can be used to send encrypted payloads; but only if both users are set up for that(Pidgin with OTR, say, works just fine over AOL's 'Oscar' protocol; but only if both ends are using it. This is the real killer. If you don't have control over what your clueless compatriot is using, none of the client-side encryption options are going to help you much. Not supported in Google's gmail web app window thing? No deal. Not supported by cellphone's default chat client? no deal.

    You'll still probably get SSL, from all but the shittiest chat services; but that only protects you from people watching the wire, not from the service provider(who is the man in the middle, with one SSL-protected connection to you and a second to your chat compatriot).

    Same with email: it's less common than it used to be for email to go between the client and the mailserver in the clear; but it's still damn rare for messages to be encrypted at the client end and thus safe from the mailserver operator.

  6. Re:I wonder... by malakai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's no different than Google checking URL's for malware and warning you when you click a URL hosted on any of the Googleservices.
    Also, this:

    even if they are HTTPS URLs and contain account information

    that makes no sense. First, why would HTTPS be some sort of exception? It's not like SSL'ing a website is all that difficult.
    Second, why would you supposedly go through the trouble of using a 'secure' HTTP address if you are then going to pass in account credentials in the URL?
    I know the whole communication is encrypted, but why would you pass "https://user:secret@www.supersecurebank.com/something?foo=bar" via a Skype message if it was really the intention to be secure ( putting aside the absurdity of leaving credentials in the URL ).

    Long story short, this looks like Skype looking out for the 99% of the internet, and the 1% are crying foul. I'd rather every link my family sends each other via Skype be threat checked.

  7. Re:So much for the "MS cares for your privacy". by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013

    Microsoft is extremely hypocritical in their claims of privacy protection, and their attacks on Google.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.