Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 350 posts

Re: Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

#211

Post by codelitt »

aplorbust wrote: post #145

Wikipedia: "Signal relies on centralized servers that are maintained by Open Whisper Systems." Would it be possible to use the same open source proto and crypto that Signal chose, but in a way that does not rely on third parties to run servers, such as OWS, WhatsApp, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc.?

From what I can see, they're doing everything that they can to eliminate sending anything to servers. They recently launched private contact discovery which is really interesting.

https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/

Moxie has said repeatedly that they're working to do better on this front, but it's not without its technological challenges. He's written repeatedly about this and has also called for anyone willing to try to make it happen and offered to help them. Just one example springs to mind:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12883410

And federation is possible over XMPP with Signal:

https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

Re: Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

#212

Post by celdon25 »

sgtmas2006 wrote: post #178
AgentME wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Discord gives people access to past message history when joining a group. I don't know of any limitations of Signal's group chats that would be a problem for Discord's group chat behavior.

It does give access to past messages.

It is one of the permission settings that can be toggled for a Discord chat room.

Re: Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

#213

Post by katastic »

jrhurst wrote: post #209
bitcoinusername wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was a patent issue. No one is allowed to use p2p for chat.

It does look like IBM does own a p2p instant messaging patent[1]. So I think this checks out. - https://www.google.ms/patents/US7675874

It's remarkable that companies can "own" things so fundamental, and obvious in computing--even if they don't actually utilize their IP's.

"Hey guys, I've got a patent for talking from one machine to another over a connection." (Don't give SCO any ideas.)

The purpose of patents was to foster innovation, not squander it.

What if Issac Newton and Liebniz had a "foundation" that owned the rights to every mathematical construct they discovered? How would the world function if we had to pay that foundation fees every time we used Newton's method, or Calculus? It'd be complete bureaucratic hell.

And further, coming from another angle, I bet you money there are prior implementations of P2P chat long before... 2005.

Re: Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

#215

Post by abdias »

paule89 wrote: post #160

The thing is. How will Microsoft and Skype handle backdoors now. As far as I understood the reason Microsoft broke Skype so badly was because they used centralised servers with backdoors for countries who wanted them. Not always the good countries. But this. This baffles me. Deeply.

> As far as I understood the reason Microsoft broke Skype so badly was because they used centralised servers with backdoors

In fairness, it was eBay that first bought Skype [1] in 2005 centralizing the data. eBay then sold it to a private investor group which Microsoft then bought Skype from [2] in 2011.

Following the Snowden leaks as well as the information from Bill Binney, NSA scoops up the data regardless..

1: https://www.pcworld.com/article/122516/article.html

2: https://www.wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-skype-2/

Re: Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

#216

Post by celdon25 »

ShabbosGoy wrote: post #128
martimarkov wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't that after M$ bought them? (I might be wrong, just asking)

Yes, you are correct. I guess people didn’t get my joke.

I know it's popular to blame Microsoft for everything, but this was happening before Microsoft. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Skype-Provided-Backdoor-Acces...

Re: Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

#217

Post by Zhenya »

mtgx wrote: post #131
Zhenya wrote: post #12

Great news. More funding for Open Whisper to provide us Signal.

They could get 100x the amount they've gotten so far from these companies if they had launched their own crypto-asset, which is probably by far the best way for an open source project to get funding.

maybe they should launch a crypto-social-iot platform for digital asset management /s

Let them focus on a problem that actually needs solving.

Re: Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

#218

Post by EdSharkey »

MikeHolman wrote: post #191
paule89 wrote: post #160

The thing is. How will Microsoft and Skype handle backdoors now. As far as I understood the reason Microsoft broke Skype so badly was because they used centralised servers with backdoors for countries who wanted them. Not always the good countries. But this. This baffles me. Deeply.

>the reason Microsoft broke Skype so badly was because they used centralised servers with backdoors for countries who wanted them. That seems like pretty unreasonable tinfoil. There is no reason for Microsoft to want to give information to governments. I assume they don't pay, and the cost is consumer trust. Makes a lot of sense to rearchitect such that you can't give in to government demands.

> That seems like pretty unreasonable tinfoil. There is no reason for Microsoft to want to give information to governments.

No? I don't think you are being fair.

First of all Microsoft is not one mind. There are lots of motivations bouncing around inside that entity, and not all of those motivations are 'reasonable' like you purport to be.

Second, secret court orders get issued to these big companies all the time. You don't know what kind of affordances Microsoft has provided for US and foreign government and intelligence services.

> I assume they don't pay ...

Oh let's not be pollyannaish, any contract work done for governments would be paid work. Cha-CHING! I see dolla signs. $$$

It's infinitely reasonable to distrust large internet companies that gather interesting user data. paule89 just came right out and says what a lot of us reasonable folk are thinking.

Maybe someone at Microsoft's decided it would be more profitable to salvage the Skype name and introduce some real end-to-end encryption just like the competition has. Or, maybe Microsoft is helping the Five Eyes to use Skype + Signal as a big real-world test bed for cracking or weakening Signal's encryption. I mean, it's just impossible to know what's really going on here.

Re: Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

#219

Post by Tepix »

yoavm wrote: post #188
jstanley wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might use GMail, but I can communicate with you perfectly fine even if I don't use GMail.

If by "perfectly fine" you mean highly likely to get into your recipient's spam folder - you're probably right. Having tried to self host my own mail server I can tell you it's never an easy task to actually get your message across.

That doesn't match my experience of running a mail sever for decades.

Re: Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

#220

Post by throwwwwaway9 »

paule89 wrote: post #160

The thing is. How will Microsoft and Skype handle backdoors now. As far as I understood the reason Microsoft broke Skype so badly was because they used centralised servers with backdoors for countries who wanted them. Not always the good countries. But this. This baffles me. Deeply.

>>How will Microsoft and Skype handle backdoors now

Backdoors require quite a few MSFT people with--way more than--FU money agreeing to it. I would bet that something like this would leak. All it takes is one to annon leak a screenshot or a memo

Post reply on HN