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

301–310 of 350 posts

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

#301

Post by jarcoal »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #185
kenning wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not knowledgeable about this -- is signal's e2e encryption even viable for a service with N users, and one where new users are being added? Put another way, if I have a group with 10 users and it's encrypted and then another person joins and can see the old messages, was it actually securely encrypted in the first place?

> if I have a group with 10 users and it's encrypted and then another person joins and can see the old messages, was it actually securely encrypted in the first place? Sure, why not? Assume, just because it's the first thing that came to mind, that message history is encrypted using GPG and every message is encrypted with everyone's individual public keys. When a new user joins, one user just encrypts the message his…

You’re not missing anything, this is definitely possible to do.

That said, encrypting every message with everyone’s public key doesn’t scale, so instead you’d likely want to generate a symmetric key for the group and as new users are invited the inviter would encrypt the group key with the invitee’s public key. That makes it trivial for new users to view history, and as new chats are posted they only need to be encrypted with one key.

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

#302

Post by somberi »

If anyone from Skype product-team is reading this - Please bring back the ability to dial from the local contacts, without having to Sync my entire address book. This is my minimum request.

If possible, just put the old Skype interface back. The new design with all its jazz-matazz and sparkles have made the product unusable. It is not a first-world unusable I am talking about. The product is not usable, as in I am moving away from Skype after being a customer who has given thousands of dollars in business over the years.

How did the new Skype design pass user feedback reviews? Honestly asking to learn.

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

#303

Post by [deleted] »

emddudley wrote: post #262
uph wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve designed the Signal service to minimize the data we retain about Signal users, so the only information we can produce in response to a request like this is the date and time a user registered with Signal and the last date of a user’s connectivity to the Signal service. Notably, things we don’t have stored include anything about a user’s contacts (such as the contacts themselves, a hash of the contacts, any othe…

Ok, that's good. But Signal automatically created conversations with people in my address book who I never want to communicate with via Signal. I didn't authorize it, the app did it automatically. I think that is what the grandparent was referring to.

[deleted]

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

#304

Post by aplorbust »

caf wrote: post #272
jrhurst wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The claims in that patent seem to be fairly easy to work around.

Pedantry: There is only one independent claim, making it even easier.

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

#305

Post by EdSharkey »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #270
thepangolino wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That seems like pretty unreasonable tinfoil Doesn't seem so to me. >I assume they don't pay You're dead wrong, my friend. They do pay. A lot. Think of all those juicy government contracts.

If they pay for more access than is required, why wasn't that in the documents Snowden dumped? Instead, we saw the normal court rulings requiring companies to comply with data access requests.

Because Snowden dropped the infinity motherload: a complete information drop, accurate well into 2018, all questions answered, all suspicions allayed.

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

#306

Post by lern_too_spel »

abdias wrote: post #300
monocasa wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, paying Microsoft (among the rest of the tech giants) for more access than is required was in the leaks, in the form of the PRISM program.

PRISM is/was a small program. "Upstream" programs is the what most should be worried about and goes sort of around companies (and anyone/anything else). Though, some companies are handed a court order to "share" their data (quarterly, about 80 companies so far). And NSA has standard rates for this.

They don't "share" the data, and the NSA doesn't pay for it. The slides clearly show that the data requests are consumed by the FBI, which is the organization that the companies deal with.

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

#307

Post by figgis »

e12e wrote: post #264
Tepix wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How long since you set up mail for a newly registered (possibly with previous owner) domain hosted on a VPN or rented dedicated server in an ip block that might have had previous owners?

Two years ago? Still no issues.

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

#309

Post by gsich »

afuchs wrote: post #226
huhtenberg wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't explain why after the change Skype started routing calls between machines on the same LAN through Microsoft servers.

It is difficult to make a p2p app on a mobile device work even between devices on the same LAN . A simplified explanation: Mobile devices will often ignore almost all incoming network traffic to reduce battery usage. The only way to reliably communicate with the device is through a centralized push notification service (e.g. APN and GCM).

I am not sure why maintaining a TCP connection to Google or Apple is somewhat more battery friendly then maintaining it to your own server, or providing a TCP-server to provide some service for someone else. (UDP is different here)

I am using CSipSimple to my own server, battery usage is the same. Yes this is anecdotal evidence, but one can always check.

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

#310

Post by gsich »

bitcoinusername wrote: post #195
Systemic33 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft used centralised servers because the Skype prior to that was a curse to mobile devices running on battery power. Particularly cellphones. Skype worked as a p2p network, where some peers where marked as super peers and would help with peers behind firewalls (UDP-holepunching), and routing through the super peer. If your phone became a super peer, you could expect to essentially work like a server, with the "…

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

I doubt that.
Post reply on HN