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

Skype backdoor confirmation

lists.randombit.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 126 posts

Re: Skype backdoor confirmation

#31

Post by StavrosK »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #30
StavrosK wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm thinking of building a WebRTC-based service to do just that, can you point me to an existing service that does similar things, so I don't waste my time? Thanks!

Everything? Sharepoint, DropBox, Owncloud, LogMeIn, Flickr, Google Docs, et al. Private/one-time-use URLs have been a "thing" since practically forever and they're all over the place.

Oh, sorry, I misread "private" for "secure".

Would anyone here use a WebRTC-based service that also encrypted the file in transit, thus making it pretty hard for anyone other than the recipients to see it?

Re: Skype backdoor confirmation

#32

Post by buster »

claudius wrote: post #28
buster wrote: post #13

Very strange article. It only re-does what all other news sources already stated.. plus, i think that commonly a backdoor is understood as something in the software itself that let's someone get access from the outside, which doesn't appear to be the case. Plus, to think that skype would be exempt from the governments claim to get access to all communications and messaging data is very simple-minded. The guy does rea…

I have reason to believe that the government cannot access all my mails. But if it could, I’d be even happier, as it would either prove a fault in GPG (unlikely) or a working quantum computer implementing e.g. Shor’s algorithm. And who wouldn’t want to hear of the latter?

I have reason to believe that you're wrong, because if you're under surveillance by the FBI or whatever, they will be able to read your mail. Unless you're the ultra-paranoid guy there are ways to get to your password physically :(

(so, since you're coming up with GPG which i obviously was not referring to i can also come up with some unlikely scenario, ok?)

Re: Skype backdoor confirmation

#33

Post by Sami_Lehtinen »

mtgx wrote: post #24
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #2

This is totally nit-picky, but strange use of the word "backdoor." When I read "backdoor" I was expecting to read about some malware-like functionality within the Skype client itself, but instead this is just telling us that Microsoft can read content after it is sent to them via the client and decrypted. I would prefer Microsoft stopped scanning/reading my conversations, and I agree that what they're doing (e.g. acc…

Considering there was an article just a few days ago in NYTimes [1] claiming that "Skype is so secure because of its decentralization" that law enforcement tries to pass laws against it, I'd say a lot of people aren't aware that Microsoft does have access to all the information at this point thanks to their "super-nodes", but even NYTimes writers aren't aware of it (or maybe it was just a cloaked advertorial for Skyp…

There are also truly distributed solutions like Bitmessage. https://bitmessage.org/

Re: Skype backdoor confirmation

#34

Post by vacri »

wfn wrote: post #8
RandallBrown wrote: post #3

That article was nonsensical. English probably isn't their first language, but I have no idea what they're saying.

The slang is very common in crypto* newsgroups of these sorts, I didn't find anything unusual or un-parseable in the message.

The best I ever saw was when I had a subtle weird issue with a windows graphics driver. The only place I could find on google that looked like it had the answer was a Filipino gamer board... but the only problem was that the thread was a mix of English, Tagalog, and l33tspeak. I could tell that the answer was probably there, but I couldn't interpret it...

Re: Skype backdoor confirmation

#37

Post by johnchristopher »

Sami_Lehtinen wrote: post #33
mtgx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering there was an article just a few days ago in NYTimes [1] claiming that "Skype is so secure because of its decentralization" that law enforcement tries to pass laws against it, I'd say a lot of people aren't aware that Microsoft does have access to all the information at this point thanks to their "super-nodes", but even NYTimes writers aren't aware of it (or maybe it was just a cloaked advertorial for Skyp…

There are also truly distributed solutions like Bitmessage. https://bitmessage.org/

Thank you!

I was thinking about MTUA, mail, crypto/privacy and bitsync yesterday and was wondering if there could be a new mail system that would be encrypted and decentralized by default (à la bitsync/bittorrent).

Bitmessage seems to closely match what I had in mind.

Re: Skype backdoor confirmation

#38

Post by sp332 »

ksk wrote: post #17

Have people checked if the client itself sends the URLs separately via some webservice (as opposed to MS being able to decrypt the IM) ?

I have this question too. While still not good, this is the new best-case scenario.

Re: Skype backdoor confirmation

#39

Post by nicheuser »

westoque wrote: post #35

I guess it's time for Google Hangouts to shine.

Why? Google can see everyone you do on them.

I don't know why Skype being able to see the URLs is such a huge issue that people are saying they won't use it for business purposes, but at the same time we see people and companies use Google Docs, Google Apps, Gmail which allow Google to see all your business documents, spreadsheets and email.

Is this because they think Google is somehow more trustworthy that Microsoft? I am not saying Outlook.com/Skydrive is more secure, but didn't a Google employee get caught reading Gmail information to stalk teens? Atleast Office is primarily used for storing files under your own control, unlike Google docs where you have no choice but to risk Google employees reading them.

Re: Skype backdoor confirmation

#40

Post by zerr »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #2

This is totally nit-picky, but strange use of the word "backdoor." When I read "backdoor" I was expecting to read about some malware-like functionality within the Skype client itself, but instead this is just telling us that Microsoft can read content after it is sent to them via the client and decrypted. I would prefer Microsoft stopped scanning/reading my conversations, and I agree that what they're doing (e.g. acc…

Yup, title needs to be changed. After reading it, I immediately closed Skype.
Post reply on HN