Slashdot Mirror


Skype Finalizes Its Move To the Cloud; To Kill Older Clients -- Remains Tight Lipped About Privacy (arstechnica.com)

When it was first created, Skype network was built as a decentralized peer-to-peer system. PCs that had enough processing muscle and bandwidth acted as "supernodes," and coordinated connections between other machines on the network. This p2p system was generally perceived as being relatively private, a belief that has since been debunked. There were several technical challenges, which led Microsoft to move most of Skype's operations to the cloud. Ars Technica is reporting that the company has finalized the switch. From the article: Microsoft has developed a more conventional client-server network, with clients that act as pure clients and dedicated cloud servers. The company is starting to transition to this network exclusively. This transition means that old peer-to-peer Skype clients will cease to work. Clients for the new network will be available for Windows XP and up, OS X Yosemite and up, iOS 8 and up, and Android 4.03 and up. However, certain embedded clients -- in particular, those integrated into smart TVs and available for the PlayStation 3 -- are being deprecated, with no replacement. Microsoft says that since those clients are little used and since almost every user of those platforms has other Skype-capable devices available, it is no longer worth continuing to support them.The issue, as the report points out, is that Microsoft is strangely not talking about privacy and security concerns. The article adds: The Ed Snowden leaks raised substantial questions about the privacy of services such as Skype and have caused an increasing interest in platforms that offer end-to-end encryption. The ability to intercept or wiretap Skype came as a shock to many, especially given Skype's traditionally peer-to-peer infrastructure. Accordingly, we've seen similar services such as iMessage, WhatsApp, and even Facebook Messenger, start introducing end-to-end encryption. The abandonment of Skype's peer-to-peer system can only raise suspicions here.Matthew Green, who teaches cryptography at Johns Hopkins, said: "The surprising thing here is not that Microsoft can intercept Skype calls (duh) but that they won't just admit it."

74 comments

  1. Is free software in this realm? by Toe,+The · · Score: 2

    What can you recommend in FOSS, and can such things work reliably without a heavy backend infrastructure?

    1. Re:Is free software in this realm? by LichtSpektren · · Score: 2

      For desktop, use Pidgin with the Off-The-Record plugin: https://pidgin.im/

      For mobile, use Signal by Open Whisper Systems.

    2. Re:Is free software in this realm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where exactly should Pidgin connect?

    3. Re:Is free software in this realm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a look at Ring: https://ring.cx/
      It's still rough around the edges, but has the backing of a Quebec-based open-source company with a good track record.

      Anyway, the main issue is not a lack of alternatives, but the network effects of Skype and the difficulty of convincing your non-geek friends to "skype" using a different application.

    4. Re:Is free software in this realm? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      You can setup your own jabber server, on your own infrastructure, then run a client that utilizes GnuPG.

      Channels are secured via TLS, both between client and server and from server to server. Then the messages themselves are encrypted with GnuPG, so only someone who has your public key can communicate with you. Mind you, this setup isn't as convenient as more traditional services, but that's always been the trade off for secure communications.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    5. Re:Is free software in this realm? by cb88 · · Score: 1

      There is also Tox... there is one developer I talk to occasionally that uses it as his main means of communications. The chat works well... haven't tested the Voip but it's one of it's main features apparently.

    6. Re:Is free software in this realm? by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 5, Informative

      slashdot should have a bot to do this: for the millionth time, there is NO free (as in beer) FOSS jabber server that supports all the necessary XEPs for reliable message delivery on mobile devices (devices with frequent network dropouts, IP changes, packet loss). PAID version of ejabberd is the closest you can get to reliable xmpp message delivery.

      and 2nd of all, there are almost no xmpp clients that support the said XEPs. last time i checked, there were only 2 somewhat equipped for it. one is discontinued, the other one is Conversations. again, Conversations isn't free (as in beer). it used to be on fdroid too but i can't find it there anymore.

      for those interested, to have reliable xmpp communication on a mobile device, you need at the very least - xep-198, xep-280, xep-313

      xmpp is overly complicated, stupid (xml), doesn't reflect current user requirements (mobile devices) and speed of its evolution is hampered by the massive number of stakeholders.

    7. Re:Is free software in this realm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - you could setup your own jabber server and run GnuPG. The big question is how many of your friends, family, co-workers would also take the time to change their way of communicating to use these applications?

    8. Re:Is free software in this realm? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      Good data, but you were the first to introduce mobile messaging as a requirement. While mobile messaging is a requirement for some use cases, it's not universal. In fact, in some cases it would be seen as a detriment. Specifically, I'm thinking businesses who don't want to leak data on unsecured personal devices, but I'm sure there are others.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    9. Re:Is free software in this realm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to WebRTC, if you are comortable setting up a basic LAMP/LEMP stack then you don't need to use custom clients and can just use any web browser with WebRTC client support as your client.

      I'm currently using the following stack for fully encrypted self-hosted video chat:
      nginx w/ SSL + owncloud + spreed.me

      With this setup, then anyone with an account on my owncloud site can chat with each other, but also, I can create temporary keys and provide an https URL with the key in it to someone else to join a video chat without needing an owncloud account.

    10. Re: Is free software in this realm? by oddware · · Score: 1

      Concersations is still on fdroid though it foes not appear to o have any voice function, just media send (photo, audio clip). For voice I would not even use xmpp, wrong tool for the job. Asterisk us the way to go for encrypted VoIP.

    11. Re: Is free software in this realm? by oddware · · Score: 1

      Far out, sorry about typo's, big hands, small screen

    12. Re:Is free software in this realm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Mumble for encrypted voice communications.

      Ignore the other guy. Pidgin is a piece of trash. If you just want an instant messenger, use Miranda IM.

    13. Re: Is free software in this realm? by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      i was responding to the suggestion to run your own jabber server, not to the question about replacing skype.

      regarding asterisk - while i've spent a decade working with it (and freeswitch), i would not recommend it as a replacement for skype. its primary problem, like jabber's, is the protocol. SIP will never be a good fit for today's NATed IPv4 networks (hence the crap like STUN, TURN, ICE and SIP ALGs). IAX2 solves these problems with ease, but there are almost no phones with support for that protocol. there are a few commercial softphones that can use it but that's not a FOSS solution.

      the simple answer is, you have to go for a proprietary solution to replace skype if you want to maintain the comfort level (setup and use).

    14. Re:Is free software in this realm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for the millionth time, there is NO free (as in beer) FOSS jabber server that supports all the necessary XEPs for reliable message delivery on mobile devices (devices with frequent network dropouts, IP changes, packet loss).

      to have reliable xmpp communication on a mobile device, you need at the very least - xep-198, xep-280, xep-313

      Prosody.im is a fantastic free (as in beer) FOSS jabber server that supports those XEPs (and many more, but you pointed out the most important for mobile). Conversations, as you mentioned, is head-and-shoulders above other XMPP clients. It's still available on F-Droid (for free) and gets timely updates. It costs money in the Google Play store, but it's so well-done I'd encourage you to try it out and pay for it or donate to the developer.

      Two years ago I would have completely agreed with you. Matthew Wild and Kim Alvefur (Prosody) and Daniel Gultsch (Conversations) have been doing really excellent work proposing modern XEPs and implementing them. Gultsch has implemented OMEMO (double ratchet algorithm) which makes encrypting images/files and group chats much easier for users compared to OTR/OpenPGP (both of which Conversations also supports). It's really amazing what a handful of developers have accomplished--Prosody and Conversations together are extremely competitive in the text chatting/image sending space. For anyone remotely concerned with preserving their privacy or not relying on megacorps, it seems like a no-brainer. It's so easy to set up a server for your family and friends--and do to federation they can chat with anyone else using XMPP. Desktop XMPP clients need to catch up and I'm not certain of iOS clients, but FOSS XMPP on Android is working really well right now. Thanks to all the developers who made that possible.

    15. Re:Is free software in this realm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Talk

    16. Re: Is free software in this realm? by oddware · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info.


      Are they not ideal as they don't transparently switch between internet sources or the amount, overhead or is it due to the client side setup (How they get configured)?
      I ask as someone who has never had a large SIP service.

    17. Re:Is free software in this realm? by Burz · · Score: 1

      https://ring.cx/

      Its decentralized and uses end-to-end encryption. It also isn't attached at the hip to a humungous browser (Chrome) the way Signal is.

    18. Re: Is free software in this realm? by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      1. even the most basic server setup is way too difficult for the average Joe user (a Teamspeak server takes minutes, Asterisk will take you the whole day)
      2. setting up your SIP phone is a lot more difficult than skype/teamspeak/discord/whatsapp/viber/etc.. (codecs, NAT traversal technique, SIP encryption, RTP encryption, presence settings)
      3. even if you get everything right on 1st attempt, as soon as you find yourself behind a different router, you may need to reconfigure everything to get it to work again. this is why Bria SIP phone (on mobile phone) asks you after every call whether you could actually hear the other party and whether the other party heard you. if you answer no, it changes the nat traversal technique to another permutation of various settings.

      SIP will be the bee's knees when we one day switch to ipv6. before that, it's only really useful for business setups where people setting it up actually know what they're doing.

    19. Re:Is free software in this realm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It misses an absolutely essential feature: group chats that persist after you logged off.

  2. Peer to Peer suspicous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who considered the old Peer to Peer mode of Skype suspicious? I was always under the assumption that those who got selected as "supernodes" had some snooping capabilities, and State or commercial interests could easily buy enough servers with lots of bandwidth to snoop on many people, although possibly not precisely targeted. I'm glad that the Peer to Peer switching via SuperNodes is gone, but trustworthy end to end encryption would still be a nice thing.

    1. Re:Peer to Peer suspicous? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Am I the only one who considered the old Peer to Peer mode of Skype suspicious?

      No. When the Skype client relies heavily on obfuscation it SHOULD be extremely suspicious!

      * http://www.oklabs.net/skype-re...

      Skype (almost like every P2P network) has its particular P2P architecture. It had to be adapted to the network uses. For example, unlike the P2P Kazaa network, designed for file sharing, the Skype network had to be optimized to transfer data in real time, where Kazaa network transfers data stored on nodes. In addition, Skype network still includes centralized networks entities, because unlike Kazaa network, Skype protocol had to implement user secured authentication, dynamic contacts lists management and ensure privacy.

      The Skype user directory is entirely decentralized and distributed among the nodes in the network, which means the network can scale very easily to large sizes without a complex and costly centralized infrastructure.

      If M$ kills off Skype 6.20 then it will be time to migrate to something else that is open source and doesn't have known backdoors.

      * https://news.ycombinator.com/i...

  3. Why is this bad again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If peer-to-peer was already wire-tappable, then what's the difference with putting it on a cloud server? With MS holding the reigns, you know exactly who to sue if something goes wrong. Theoretically, they are held to account for privacy requirements; not so much P2P nodes. If non-secure P2P were to stick around, I guess the government wouldn't have a one-stop shop for Skype data, but hackers/da gubmint would retain the ability to single out a target and wire-tap them at will. It's a trade-off, but I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of Skype users don't care who holds the data as long as their chats and calls still go through.

    It's also not MS's problem if devices are deprecated by the update. Tell your TV manufacturer or Sony to update their client.

    1. Re:Why is this bad again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you believe that Sony got any source code for their Skype client? The Skype client is completely owned and controlled by Microsoft and other than paying big bucks to MS to re-port the client to their platform, the device manufacturers have nothing to do with it.

  4. Patent Admission by 3vi1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not only do they wiretap your Skype calls, they patented it: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacg....

  5. Skype was never perceived as secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From the very beginning, Skype's protocol was undocumented. (That's one of the reasons there weren't competing compatible implementations.)

    And since it was undocumented, everyone assumed it had to be fundamentally insecure.

    And then there was the fact that it was banned in various countries on the explicit and publicly-known condition that the ban wouldn't be lifted until the governments in question were given access to the keys. This confirmed the insecurity, to openly known fact. That it's insecure isn't a nerdy or tinfoil hat things; it's mainstream knowledge that you can see by googling news stories where governments were granted decryption keys. This isn't shady or a secret or something that nobody likes to talk about. It's been common knowledge for several years. So..

    This p2p system was generally perceived as being relatively private

    ..WTF? Why did you say that? It isn't merely wrong that it's insecure; it's a borderline lie when you suggest that people think it is secure. I bet you can't find a person who says "I thought it was secure" even for purposes of making fun of, or educating, that person.

    (Again, we're talking about perception, not the insecurity itself. And I'm saying you're mis-representing the perception.)

    1. Re:Skype was never perceived as secure by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is just a PR move. Everyone interested knows that Skype is insecure and can be tapped on demand by Microsoft and certainly many other groups. It's just that if they admit it the mainstream media will run stories about it, and damage the Skype brand. As long as they refuse to confirm or deny there is no story.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Skype was never perceived as secure by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      This is just a PR move. Everyone interested knows that Skype is insecure and can be tapped on demand by Microsoft and certainly many other groups. It's just that if they admit it the mainstream media will run stories about it, and damage the Skype brand. As long as they refuse to confirm or deny there is no story.

      This is exactly right. There is no question that all Skype transmissions are practically open postcards. Microsoft avoids any bad publicity by just not bringing attention to the fact.

    3. Re:Skype was never perceived as secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      M$ won't admit to the level of spying it does via windows 10, nor will they tell exactly what and how much data is collected, nor what they do with it...so now that they own Skype, is it any surprise that it is insecure and M$ won't admit it?

  6. If they don't deny it, they do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ones that deny wiretapping are liars. There is only one way: Open Source. Spare us the walking on egg shells.

  7. But I want to know what Khyber would do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Preferably with some JEDEC earthquake-proof LEDs?

  8. XP support? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ...Clients for the new network will be available for Windows XP ...

    But... but... but... Microsoft has stated that XP is dead and unsupported, haven't they?

    1. Re:XP support? by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      XP support's only dead if you don't have an extended-life contract with Microsoft, like the U.S. Navy does. And I would not think it unlikely that they use Skype.

    2. Re:XP support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So one specific team inside Microsoft goes above and beyond what's necessary simply because they know users will be negatively impacted and you bitch about it.

    3. Re:XP support? by TroII · · Score: 1

      They never said they wouldn't introduce new surveillance capabilities to XP, though. There are plenty of XP holdouts, and it's still very widely used in "interesting" (to IC) nations because a) it runs well on any old hardware that's available, and b) it's been thoroughly and completely pirated. If your goal is to intercept as many conversations as possible, particularly in places like Iran, the Koreas, Syria, etc., you had better make your wiretapping client available for XP.

  9. Proprietary means no security by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Skype protocol is proprietary. No one has any idea if it is secure or not. Therefore it isn't secure. Support open standards and protocols.

    1. Re:Proprietary means no security by bmk67 · · Score: 2

      Other than this quibble - yep:

      No one has any idea whether it's secure, therefore it isn't trustworthy.

    2. Re:Proprietary means no security by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      The Skype protocol is proprietary. No one has any idea if it is secure or not. Therefore it isn't secure. Support open standards and protocols.

      That's some thinly veiled nonsense you've got there. You're arguing that because we are unable to verify a claim, the claim is necessarily untrue, when in reality our ability to verify a claim has no bearing on whether or not the claim is true (much as we might prefer for that to not be the case).

      I'm all for open source when it comes to these matters because I firmly believe that public scrutiny is one of the best tools we have for improving the security of our software, and that it also comes with the nice benefit of building trust and confidence between developers and their community, but it is far from being the only tool in the box. By no means do I support what Microsoft has done here, but please, lets argue for our cause by using some actual logic, rather than by stating arbitrary rules as if they were immutable truths.

  10. You can be sure it is recorded by surfdaddy · · Score: 1, Troll

    The interesting problem is that for POTS, they need warrants to wiretap. For new internet technologies the laws are not in place, so the NSA and FBI pretty much have said "It's available, it's not required to warrant by law, so let's Hoover up everything". And that's what they are doing. Microsoft already has an "NSAKEY" in its Windows encryption, and since taking over Skype they've "re-architected" everything. I'd be highly surprised if they DIDN'T have it all piped straight to the TLA government agencies.

  11. So the linux Beta test of skype is a lie? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    They left out linux in the list... so that means they are beta testing a dead product?

    What gives? Microsoft never does things like that.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:So the linux Beta test of skype is a lie? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but it doesn't matter much. As I understood it, the beta was just a wrapper around the web version. The web version works very well under GNU/Linux, it even works on ChromeOS.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:So the linux Beta test of skype is a lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but it doesn't matter much. As I understood it, the beta was just a wrapper around the web version. The web version works very well under GNU/Linux, it even works on ChromeOS.

      Does "works well" include handling group calls (or whatever Skype calls them)? Because last time I tried using it, back in March, answering a group call didn't work with the web client in Linux using Chrome.

  12. This was obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was obvious to anyone who watched the initial purchase of Skype by Microsoft. It made absolutely no business sense. It was nice of the NSA to twist their arm or float them some cash to get it inside the country.

  13. Segregate Features from Core by number17 · · Score: 1

    However, certain embedded clients -- in particular, those integrated into smart TVs and available for the PlayStation 3 -- are being deprecated, with no replacement. Microsoft says that since those clients are little used and since almost every user of those platforms has other Skype-capable devices available, it is no longer worth continuing to support them.

    Another reason for segregating features from key components such as displays and vehicles. If Microsoft said those things it would be kind of a low blow considering developers would likely say the same about some of their past (Zune, WinRT) and current (Win Phone) devices.

  14. What's with; the crazy! punctuation? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    That is all.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  15. Central management wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact is Skype is not for spy level data and 99% of you aren't that important anyway. You're best bet is a system that has an efficient and easy to maintain model so you get features and decent out facing security at least.

    If you operate in any government borders, you don't really have privacy unless you can ensure end to end encryption and a reliable anonymity network. All current anonymity networks are questionable. I would argue most ppl using them are just idiots drawing more attention to their actions. The upside is they hide the 1% of content on there that may legitimately need to be anonymous.

    Even if you government guarantees privacy, that's a law that is open to interpretation and can be changed at any point. Unless your a solid dictator with a dynasty of loyalist under you, don't expect government proof internet privacy.

    Nobody has a right to being government proof, that would mean you had found a way to be above the law. Even if you're the best coder in the world, you don't have a right to be above the law. Using technology to outsmart law is futile and fleeting proposition. It's not sustainable. A justice system has to be able to demand data and if everyone can lock that data up we will be screwing ourselves.

  16. approved for gov't use by e432776 · · Score: 1

    Skype has recently been approved for US Gov employees to use at work. This happened almost as soon as MS bought the company; took a few years, but by now it is approved pretty much govt wide. Somehow that seems like relevant information here.

  17. Goodbike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Other than Skype for Bidness (which I'm forced to use at work) I've moved to Discord with a whole slew of other people

    BUH-BYE

  18. Huh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    What's so strange and surprising about this? They need to spy on people. Really all they did is remove what little value Skype had left. I already quit using it. Not that WhatsApp is any better...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  19. That's a strange thing to be wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I recall it, the very first thing Microsoft did after they acquired Skype was to make it wiretappable.

  20. Expect quality drops.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I have been noticing that the web client has a lot crappier quality for audio and video, closer to the google hangout quality. So those of you using it for podcasts to get better audio of guests..... expect to look for something else...

    Sadly the free and easy solutions for high quality audio conferencing are going away.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  21. Strange nobody ever reverse engineered it by swb · · Score: 1

    It seems kind of strange nobody ever reverse engineered the protocol. Maybe it's too hard to do or too well encrypted, but it seems like a lot harder things have been reversed or cracked.

    1. Re:Strange nobody ever reverse engineered it by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > It seems kind of strange nobody ever reverse engineered the protocol.

      Old versions of the protocol were:

      skype protocol reverse engineered

    2. Re:Strange nobody ever reverse engineered it by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Specifically see:

      Skype Reverse Engineering : The (long) journey ;)..
      * http://www.oklabs.net/skype-re...

  22. You're right AND wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact is Skype is not for spy level data and 99% of you aren't that important anyway.

    Anyone's house can be burgled. Anyone who uses a checking account can have it drained.

    Therefore, nearly all users need secure communications. If you're going to throw numbers like 99% around, then to translate to your way of looking at things: Skype is too insecure for 99% of users. There is a lucky(?) 1% (homeless people? death row inmates?) for whom it might be sufficient.

    Nobody has a right to being government proof

    But everybody has a right to be criminal-proof. (And similarly, everyone has a right to be government up to the point where due process has decided that one person, on this one occasion, will have that right revoked.) And technology is totally agnostic when it comes from whose attacks you're defending.

    Thus, there is a conflict: all people need the ability to communicate to a degree of security, which just happens to be far, far above what a government can tap. And governments need to force insecurity, to a degree far, far below what is needed to stop a common, everyday mundane criminal.

    Something has to give. So let's characterize both sides, to both extremes. You (and I) (and everyone else) is on one of these two sides, each which sounds both smart and stupid:

    • You are pro-crime. You defend criminals' right to hide from government. You support peoples' right to privacy vs intrusion.
    • You are pro-crime. You defend criminals' right to penetrate law-abiding citizens' security systems. You support government's responsibility to watch over all people.

    And there isn't a third position. Nobody gets to say "My side doesn't have a disadvantage." Yes, it does. Because we're just talking about power in isolation, since software doesn't give a fuck who is using it for what purpose.

  23. Preset limits on message / attachment size by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 1

    One of the traditional advantages of P2P is that it is possible to with no preset limit for the size of messages, including attachments. IIRC, Skype has had that ability in the past. The thing is that I don't know of any centralized client-server system, even cloud based, that has not implemented some limit on the size of messages you can send. In addition to being silent about privacy, this article (at least) does not say anything one way or the other about introducing size limits.

  24. privacy concerns are tos fudder by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 1

    all successful, quality, conferencing apps use a client server approach with muxing of streams taking place on the server itself allowing you to reserve maximum bandwidth for voice quality

    the architecture of the platform isnt the privacy concern, the tos are

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
  25. All Skype Traffic Traverses Utah Datacenter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All US-based Skype traffic traverses the NSA's new Utah datacenter. Keep this in mind before you decide to use it.

  26. OT: Skype Linux Desktop Alpha has group call by Sits · · Score: 1

    Does "works well" include handling group calls (or whatever Skype calls them)?

    Yes but not in the Web version - currently only the Linux desktop version (with caveats). See https://support.skype.com/en/f... (Calling and call troubleshooting):

    Does this fix the incoming group call issue I have on Skype for Linux today?
    Yes, the problem with receiving incoming group calls is fixed in Skype for Linux Alpha. Make sure the people you're calling or receiving calls from are using the latest version of Skype.

  27. WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for privacy, lol? by dszd0g · · Score: 2

    You've got to be kidding if you think switching on WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger give you more privacy. All it does is change who is doing the spying. Skype is Microsoft which seems to be cozy with the government. Facebook doesn't seem as cozy with the government in public, but I think that is probably all show anyways.

    However, Facebook's apps are designed to be spyware, while Skype isn't last I checked. How is installing Spyware more private than non-spyware?

    With Windows 10 and patches to earlier operating systems, Microsoft entered the spyware business big time. Maybe the Skype app is spyware now too, I haven't seen anything posted on that? Microsoft has always been cozy with the government like the daily scans for NSA provided keywords on all Microsoft OSes, but this move to being more like Facebook and Google has been more recent.

    Skype's privacy policy:
    https://privacy.microsoft.com/...
    "However, we do not use what you say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files to target ads to you."
    Facebook messenger policy:
    https://www.facebook.com/polic...
    "We collect the content and other information you provide when you use our Services, including when you sign up for an account, create or share, and message or communicate with others."
    "We use the information we have to improve our advertising and measurement systems so we can show you relevant ads on and off our Services and measure the effectiveness and reach of ads and services."

    So Skype = NSA spying.
    WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger = Facebook spying and almost certainly the NSA even though Facebook tries to imply otherwise.

    What we need are more options like Signal Private Messenger that actually seem to care about privacy.

    iMessage probably is one of the more privacy oriented messengers (with the exception of Signal). Apple hasn't seemed to be big on spyware other than the stint in Yosemite.

    --
    This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  28. If you want security, DIY by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    But which Asterisk manager is the least PITA?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:If you want security, DIY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're living in the past. Asterisk is not the way to go anymore. That's ancient technology from an era of communications that is rapidly dying. Look into WebRTC. Simple LAMP/LEMP stack and you can very easily set up a system that allows video chat. (e.g. Owncloud + spreed.me webrtc server).

  29. Run your own webserver and use any web-browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming you have the knowledge to set up your own LAMP/LEMP stack, then it is very easy to set up your own server that allows anyone using a WebRTC compatible web-browser to have voice chat calls.

    In particular, I use NGINX + Owncloud + spreed.me (webrtc). For folks with an owncloud account, then I can initiate a video chat if we are both connected to owncloud. Otherwise, for other folks, I can create a temporary session and specify when the session expires, then send an https URL that contains the session key.

    I've tested with chrome on android, and it works very well for video chat and I don't see any reason to use proprietary software or servers anymore.

    1. Re:Run your own webserver and use any web-browser by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes that will be the future. People, brands, groups, nations will just use couriers with a jet set network. Takes a few days but its one time pad secure.
      Big US brands that help 5 nations mil/govs on all data flowing will be trusted with gamers chat and for making expected free international calls.
      If US designed networking products are seen to be trusted in the open, it will be for pushing complex disinformation.
      Encryption will be more diverse and creative.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  30. Re:WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for privacy, lo by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1
    --
    End of Line.
  31. Jitsi (in addition to Pidgin). by DrYak · · Score: 1

    In addition to the afore mentioned Pidgin, there is also Jitsi.

    It, too, can connect to XMPP (e.g.: Google Mail. Or a private server) and SIP.
    It, too, uses OTR to guarantee end-to-end encryption over the chat channel.

    It is multi platform, available on Linux, Windows, Mac and Android (as far as I know, either pidgin itselfs, or other software using its libpurple library are also available on nearly any platform you would want).

    Jitsi can in addition place encrypted call, using ZRTP (as far as I know, Pidgin currently only supports clear calls).

    On the other hand Pidgin has many more plugins (e.g.: the JSON and XML interfaces used by Facebook messaging App, by web skype, by Steam Mobile, etc.)
    And yup, that means that you can overlay end-to-end encryption over skype, as long as both end points support it (e.g.: Pidgin + OTR + WebSkype plugin)
    (does anyone know if there are browser plugins a la Mailveloppe that work to add OTR to web chats ?)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  32. Google Talk by DrYak · · Score: 1

    as another exemple:

    Google Talk is available over XMPP.
    And if both endpoints use OTR, you can get end-to-end encryption (e.g.: Jitsi on one side, and Adium - Mac OS X's Pidgin cousin - on the other)

    Note that some of the more advanced feature that are only available in Google Hangout are not available on the Google Talk interface (offline message. and "who has read what" status).

    ---

    Saddly Facebook's XMPP gateway has been shut down (you need to use a plugin compatible with FB Messenger, which is not available on all chat clients, only in Pidgin)
    Saddly WhatsApp is in a holy crusade against 3rd party client so you're completely out of luck.

    TFA's web skype has also a plugin for pidgin.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  33. EULA ; Opensource clients by DrYak · · Score: 1

    If you read the fine print in the EULA, Microsoft is willing to help law enforcement wherever it is required by local laws.
    And if you believe the log of the AppArmor jail you linux client is running in, it's a really badly designed, badly behaving application.

    On the other hand, the mix of JSON and XML used by Web Skype has been reverse engineered, plug-ins are availabe for libpurple (thus for Pidgin, Adium, Telepathy, etc.) so you can set-up your own end-to-end encryption layer over skype (e.g.: OTR) if both end points support it.

    And unlike the case with WhatsApp, Microsoft doesn't seem interested in fighting such 3rd party clients.
    (Even their own latest linux beta client uses the web skype interface, apparently).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  34. Conspiracy Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's one for you all:

    Microsoft's purchase of Skype was underwritten by the US Government on the basis that Microsoft provides a mechanism where the FBI and NSA can access conversations.

    It would probably have been a cheaper way to do this than have another Government Contract let to do it :-)

  35. Re:WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for privacy, lo by dszd0g · · Score: 1

    Having secure transport doesn't help if the client end is spyware.

    --
    This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  36. the Microsoft government spy shop is lying like mf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skype is video spying of anything you do or that goes on behind you when you use it. Naked kids run by, bam. Leaked. This includes all jacking off stuff they notice.

    Microsoft is total spyware for the US government,no secret or tight lipped about that.

    Never bring up Ed Snowden in a pitch for Microsoft shit.

    There is no such thing as a computer cloud mother fuckers it is their COMPANY SERVERS. It is GOVERNMENT DATABASES because they have immediate access to it.

  37. Re:WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for privacy, lo by Burz · · Score: 1

    http://ring.cx/ is looking good... Decentralized using DHT, and e2e encrypted. It doesn't live inside Chrome browser, either, which I think is a big handicap for Signal.