Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kim Dotcom's Mega Again Announces Encrypted Browser-Based Chat Service

Posted by samzenpus on from the for-sure-this-time dept.

An anonymous reader writes Kim Dotcom, founder of file hosting service Mega, revealed his company will be launching a browser-based chat service "soon." Dotcom referred to the service with the hashtag #MegaChat, though he confirmed with VentureBeat that this may not be its final name. This is not the first time Dotcom has talked about the upcoming service, which gets mentioned every few months but has yet to hit public availability in any form. There is naturally a lot of hype surrounding it, given the increasing importance put on secure communications on the Internet.

40 comments

  1. 3259-845gfbgfsdv03r45gvv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vsonronw4g0p894gnj342;goun34go3phbgrewjg;4weouhg4

    If you were on megachat you would know what that said

    1. Re:3259-845gfbgfsdv03r45gvv by BreakBad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong

    2. Re:3259-845gfbgfsdv03r45gvv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know that one, its a dial-up modem....

    3. Re:3259-845gfbgfsdv03r45gvv by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      Mod parent informative!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:3259-845gfbgfsdv03r45gvv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      universal greeting, transformers JUNKION

  2. I was waiting for this! by HBI · · Score: 1

    I mean, who wouldn't want to do business with this guy?

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:I was waiting for this! by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can someone explain why we should care that he announced vaporware (again)?

    2. Re:I was waiting for this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the market for this? Who chats online now? Is this supposed to be like Skype?

    3. Re:I was waiting for this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably the same idiots that post of boards

    4. Re:I was waiting for this! by plover · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain why we should care that he announced vaporware (again)?

      I'd ask someone why we should care about him at all, but I'm afraid I'd get an actual answer from someone who takes this stuff seriously.

      --
      John
    5. Re:I was waiting for this! by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      because he's a juggernaut in both the digital world, and the physical one.

  3. Will it be open source? by schwit1 · · Score: 2

    http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

    "Experts agree it is far more difficult for intelligence agencies to manipulate open source software programs than many of the closed systems developed by companies like Apple and Microsoft. Since anyone can view free and open source software, it becomes difficult to insert secret back doors without it being noticed."

    1. Re:Will it be open source? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I think this is an important point. Not impossible, but difficult. Also difficult to ensure they stay there unnoticed for long periods of time. Anyone who has seen an obfuscated C contest should know its not impossible but, the level of skill required definitely goes up, the level of bullshit required to justify dodgy updates, etc.

      How useful is it if you spend hours developing a clever patch that should get accepted by a software maintainer, only to have him take one look at it, tell you its a good idea, and then re-write it himself without your carefully planned bug, or edited in some way that makes your bug useless or even just includes it with "I found a small error in your code that could lead to an exploit, fixed it. Thanks for the contribution!"

      A lot of code is never read or checked but, a lot of that code hardly ever gets updated either.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Will it be open source? by mlts · · Score: 1

      OSS utilities also have the ability that in a pinch, someone can git clone the source tree, then throw some money at it, and do a complete audit of the entire shebang. With closed source code, the only assurance we have is from the vendor, and with the ways EULA/TOS agreements are written, the vendor is not required to lift a finger to fix anything.

    3. Re:Will it be open source? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      Since it runs in the browser, what does it matter if it is open source? You'll have to check the code each time you visit the web page to ensure that the code which they say you are running is what you are actually running. The browser is a terrible place for trying to run secure code. Browser extensions can basically do whatever they want, and you'll have to check every browser extension you're using to verify that they aren't listening in on what you are doing. Why not just make a chat client that communicates in a secure way. I really don't see much advantage of having the application run in the browser. Sure, it almost automatically makes it cross platform, but also makes it quite difficult to secure properly.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Will it be open source? by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      people seem to think a secret backdoor has to be some obvious piece of code like if(password="Joshua") then return access_granted; The truth is open source or closed source can be riddled with backdoors and you would never know it, even a good reviewer will just see them as a security coding error such as a convenient buffer overflow.

    5. Re:Will it be open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah sure, just like shellshock was difficult to hide.

    6. Re:Will it be open source? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      The goal of this chat program is to have the perceived security, not actual security. Dotcom is a master of PR in the digital world, and he's used that manipulative skill-set to commit outright fraud in the past as well (this was way before Megaupload, look up his bio.)
      Given his history, it's not too far-out of a theory that he would collect user information passing through his chat service to sell to third parties: corporations, governments (trying to earn favors), possibly other shady groups with the right money or leverage.
      A browser-based client isn't required to do that, but make no mistake that actual privacy isn't the #1 feature of MegaChat. Helping out Mega, in some way, is.

  4. you will be safe they said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well lads
    there is no safety at all on the net. period

  5. Tox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Or you could use Tox, which is not only encrypted but free software. And it has the advantage of being available "now". Right now two clients have video support: uTox and qTox.

  6. There is naturally a lot of hype surrounding it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And secure communications is important, granted... But...

  7. Because Mega hires no bad guys amd doesn't get wat by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Kim Dotcom is of course exactly who I would trust with my secrets, he wouldn't let anything out that the producer of the content doesn't want released. Certainly all of his associates doing the actual work on the system are of the highest moral fiber.

    Okay, maybe not, but at least his chat servers won't be the target of any surveillance by anyone else, so I can feel secure that only mega can read and publicize my messages.

  8. The fourth rule of life. by westlake · · Score: 1

    ''Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own.''

    and never do business with Kim Dotcom.

  9. Wonder if it will have a "send file" feature by Little+Brother · · Score: 1

    Kim Dotcom knew what he was doing with megaupload. I wonder if this will be a way to have secure, semi-anonomous abilities to send a file point to point in the method of the IRC file-shares, but with an easier user interface.

    --

    Little Brother, watching the watchers

    1. Re:Wonder if it will have a "send file" feature by Tom · · Score: 1

      You mean, just like almost every other chat out there?

      If it'd be P2P, fully anonymous onion-routed, torrent-based or even slightly innovative, I might have a yawn for it. As the announcement stands, a sack of rice falling overy in China has a higher news value. Or maybe the /. editors forgot that it's 2014, not 1994.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Wonder if it will have a "send file" feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mega all ready does this with crypto prob have a drag and drop feature in chat

  10. What about bleep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like there are a growing number of decentralized alternatives. Bleep, Sync, Tox, etc. Why haven't we seen more proliferation of these tools? Is it just lack of a friendly web site to connect to? Maybe we are just past the days of downloadable software, consumers want web accessible or "app" style downloads.

  11. Solved problem? by mlts · · Score: 1

    There are already encrypted chats available. I've not used it in years, but AIM supported/supports S/MIME key encryption for end to end protection, similar with MSN.

    If one wants an independent solution, Symantec's PGP Desktop (now called Endpoint Encryption) also has the ability to encrypt/decrypt on the fly.

    Another encrypted chat option is fine, but there are a lot of solutions out there that do the job just fine. One doesn't really have to search far... Apple has iMessage built in, for example. ChatSecure also comes to mind (OTR over XMPP.) It is figuring out how much one trusts (or doesn't) the provider and the software.

  12. Mister Bribe himself! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the guy who bribed (or more accurately, REWARDED) the Lizard skiddie crew with lifetime vouchers to his stuff or whatever, so they would stop DDOSing the Xbone network and PSN? Merry Christmas, criminals!

    I don't think I'm interested in anything from someone who rewards bored wannabe script kiddies.

  13. Pidgin with OTR by ShaunC · · Score: 2

    Is there any reason to believe that Pidgin with OTR is not reasonably secure? Competition is always a good thing, so the more services the merrier, but I'm curious what others think about existing offerings.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:Pidgin with OTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem with OTR is simply the lack of support on devices other than desktops. There's TextSecure which is based on OTR, but redesigned for asynchronous IM (like texting), but for some reason everyone feels a need to keep "mobile" IM systems segregated from "desktop" IM systems even though there's no apparent reason to make a distinction between the two. I do see the point that the intermittent connectivity of cell phones removes some of the assumptions made when designing the old systems, but there's no reason to not make desktop clients for the new systems like TextSecure.

      The other problem with OTR is that before the most recent version of the protocol, having multiple computers logged in at once made it not work. This wasn't a problem when the protocol was created, but as it became common to have multiple computers everyone I know disabled OTR because it was breaking IM. It works right now, but the only people I know who still have OTR enabled are Adium users.

  14. Secure? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    How can it be secure if it runs in a VM and OS provided by an unknown agency?

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  15. Jitsi did it. by gavron · · Score: 2

    Jit.si is open source encrypted chat that works on any chrome browser.

    It's nice of Kim Dotcom to one day have an alternative... but smoke and vaporware can't compete with an existing working solution.

    E

  16. Hello? by caspy7 · · Score: 2

    Why not Mozilla's Hello service?

    It's browser-based, encrypted, open source and P2P.
    You do currently have to use Firefox to generate the initial URL to share (but that will hopefully be remedied in the near future).

  17. cyph.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It already exists. Cyph.

  18. wtf ? by Tom · · Score: 1

    How much is Dice getting paid for its constant ass-kissing every time Kimble farts? Am I the only person here that sees the fucker is addicted to publicity?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  19. crypto.cat? by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 1

    How is this different/superior than crypto.cat for web-based ease? Of course, Pidgin/Adium with OTR is already available and likely superior, and can run on top of almost any existing IM infrastructure.

  20. enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will someone please put that fat, untrustable fuck out of his corpulent misery? he's been scamming gullible fools for over two decades now...

  21. Marital application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will his whore wife use it to find her next sugar daddy when the feds send Dotcom's ass to jail for the next 50 years?

  22. Encrypted chat by JThundley · · Score: 1

    I love reading about all these different encrypted chat systems, but I can't find one that suits me. Can anyone recommend something that you can use on your phone and computer ala Google+ chat?