Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Fears Loss of ICQ Honeypot

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the call-your-mother-but-don't-say-qaeda dept.

Social Networks 319

AHuxley writes "US law enforcement bodies view the sale of instant messaging service ICQ to a Russian company as a threat to homeland security. In spring 2010, Russia's largest Internet investment company, Digital Sky Technologies, agreed to purchase the service for $187 million from AOL. The US is sure that most criminals use ICQ and, therefore, constant access to the ICQ servers is needed to track them down. As the system is based in Israel, American security service have had access. The article concludes, 'Lawyers [of unspecified nationality] say that to block the deal the US Committee on Foreign Investment needed to cancel it no later than within 30 days after the deal has been announced — so unless the rules are broken, nothing can be changed.'"

cancel ×

319 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Criminals use ICQ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706528)

But it's the compuserve psychos you have to watch out for.

Re:Criminals use ICQ... (4, Insightful)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707102)

Seriously, where did they get this claim:

"The US said it is sure that most criminals use ICQ"

Who actually said that? The article claims "US law enforcement bodies", but doesn't say which ones. It doesn't even say if they are federal, state, local, or private law enforcement bodies.

"Most" criminals is probably too broad. Maybe they meant terrorists. Maybe they meant spies. Who knows? But I doubt that every drug dealer and pimp out there is using ICQ.

And why would criminals all congregate to the same service? There are lots of great ways to disseminate information (text messages, email, phone calls, etc). Why would criminals use only one particular version (ICQ) of a particular method (IM)?

Re:Criminals use ICQ... (3, Interesting)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707190)

And why wouldn't they develop their own protocols for communication?

I can think of various ways to communicate, most of them rather narrow-banded but still useful for key information.

If you are into big time crime you can even get news media to communicate for you, but that means that you must have exchanged some protocol first. Let's say that you agree that news reported in a certain newspaper online can contain some key information - like where a bank heist shall occur. You can then communicate a lot of information through other channels to coordinate the "when" and "how". Then just cause some other happening - like a large fire that will be reported in the news in the area where you shall pull it off.

And even in computer communication you can get around direct tracking, like posting on Slashdot or ping some servers with an incorrect sender address that will cause the ping reply to end up at your expected target system.

Re:Criminals use ICQ... (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707220)

Actually developing their own probably calls more attention to themselves than just using something where they can hide in the herd.

But ICQ seems an odd choice. Usership is dwindling, twitter and facebook and any number of other im services are eating its lunch.

One wonders who these "criminals" are that use ICQ.

The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

Re:Criminals use ICQ... (4, Funny)

ericlondaits (32714) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707212)

By now they probably posted the link to this article in the criminal forum and are organizing a mass migration to MSN Messenger, GTalk and Facebook.

Re:Criminals use ICQ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32707146)

But it's the compuserve psychos you have to watch out for.

and the dune coons especially

Golden Girls! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706530)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you through a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say thank you for being a friend.

Re:Golden Girls! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32707110)

Golden Girls fucking rule. They really need to reboot that series into a new film featuring a story that only a teenager would find "deep" and meaningful, a cast of women who aren't afraid to take charge and effeminate boys posing as men.

Oh and lens flares. Tons of lens flares.

Do niggers use honeypots? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706534)

I'm curious..

Re:Do niggers use honeypots? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706588)

Dead Nigger Storage Inc is a successful business founded in 1994 by Toluca Lake, Los Angeles resident Jimmie Dimmick, after a misunderstanding with two acquaintances from the local underworld. In an interview made in 2004 with Pulp Magazine, Dimmick stated that the idea for his business originally came from his dealings with a mysterious "Mr Wolfe" several years previously.

Dead Nigger Storage Inc is publicly traded on the Nasdaq stock market under the symbol DEDNIG.

Business Overview

The business focuses on a simple service provision as the basis for their corporate offering, namely the creation of storage facilities specially built to store dead and/or decaying afro-americans. With offices in Alabama; Elko, Nevada; Georgia; Louisiana; Palmdale, California; and South Carolina, Dead Nigger Storage Inc now has more branches throughout the Confederate States of America than both KFC and Big Kahuna Burgers combined.

Originally run from Jimmie and Bonnie Dimmick's garage, the business' growth rate within the first few months of operating forced them into a rethink. In 1998, the Dimmicks purchased Monster Joe's Truck and Tow in Downtown Los Angeles, which has remained their base of operations to this day.

With the catchy friendly slogan of "Storing Dead Niggers is our business" Dead Nigger Storage Inc remains a market leader at the forefront of ethnic minority storage, despite the recent upsurge in the market for companies such as Jews on Ice and the Cracker Barrel.

Very recently, Dead Nigger Storage Inc has expanded into a chain with several branches outside of the United States. Though each branch outside the USA are largely similar to their American counterparts, most customers note a handful of "little differences". For example, in America one can store a decapitated Nigerian. In the Paris branch, however, one stores un Nigirié guillotin. In general, dead niggers are still called dead niggers, but over there they're called les dead niggers and corpse sizes are measured differently because of the metric system.

In 1999 Detroit became the largest Dead Nigger Storage facility in the western hemisphere.

Traditional Methods of Storing Dead Niggers

“You know what they preserve dead niggers with in Holland instead of synthetic petroleum based chemical preservatives? Mayonnaise.”
~ Vincent Vega on storing Dead Niggers

Many individuals have struggled with the issue of dead nigger storage, including Jefferson Davis and John C. Calhoun who favoured the time-attested methodology of dry suspension, a technique that preserved by hanging them in carefully controlled environments for up to 21 days.

Other techniques utilised include smoking, often over specially constructed firepits or pyres. Although this often provides a more pleasurable flavour and aroma, it often led to a complete burning of the subject.

Pulverization is often utilised, either through the use of sticks, or in more extreme case through "dragging", a technique thought to include a pick-up truck. Another practice designed to aid tenderization is referred to as "curbstomping".

Dead Nigger Storage in Popular Culture

Dead Nigger Storage is subtly referenced in 14 separate Quentin Tarantino movies including Reservoir Dogs and the two Kill Bill films. The company also has numerous placements with Tarantino's latin lover Robert Rodriguez' movies, including The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl.

English Murder Mystery Writer Agatha Christie, referenced the company in perhaps her most famous work, Ten Dead Negroes made into the 1957 film The Only Good Injun is a Dead Injun. Perhaps her most famous reference remains the Hercule Poirot "quote" "Sacre bleu! C'est un morte negro, non?" in The Murder of Michael Donald.

One of the main accusations of racism aimed at George Lucas over his Star Wars franchise was his portrayal of certain species along stereotypical lines. Famously, in the scene when Jar Jar Binks is fatally wounded in the head whilst riding in the back seat of Mace Windu's landspeeder, a small sign can be seen in the background stating "Dead Gungan Storage".

Re:Do niggers use honeypots? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706652)

Dead Nigger Storage Inc has expanded into a chain with several branches outside of the United States. Though each branch outside the USA are largely similar to their American counterparts, most customers note a handful of "little differences". For example, in America one can store a decapitated Nigerian. In the Paris branch, however, one stores un Nigirié guillotin. In general, dead niggers are still called dead niggers, but over there they're called les dead niggers and corpse sizes are measured differently because of the metric system.

In 1999 Detroit became the largest Dead Nigger Storage facility in the western hemisphere.

In Soviet Russia dead niggers store you!

National Security Act (4, Insightful)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706536)

Nothing can be done?! Nonsense. The National Security Act could be used to simply seize the entire operation, if it's that important.

Re:National Security Act (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706592)

I don't think it's that simple since it's a now approved deal between 2 business's that aren't government based/ties with the government. Its a chat program used by many different people and only a small percentage is using it for illegal means, and this doesn't make it a true national security issue.

Re:National Security Act (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706802)

Since when has that stopped them?

Re:National Security Act (1)

tombeard (126886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707144)

I think it is as simple as an IP redirect.

Re:National Security Act (1)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706626)

Anyway, at this point... I wonder why they would still bother.
They basically said "hey you, I saw what you did".

Re:National Security Act (3, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706646)

And why should they seize it? Last I heard, ICQ was a private company selling to another private company. Do we *really* want the Feds seizing private property / assets (corporate or otherwise) under the guise of national security? Not only does that set a dangerous precedent, it dilutes the true mention of national security. A power-grab if I ever saw one.

The Feds should only be seizing weapons with premeditation that would constitute a clear and present danger. ICQ is not that.

Re:National Security Act (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706656)

This is hardly a unique situation and it has been done before. Of course, the value of it in this case is dubious, but it's perfectly legal and has been for a very long time.

Re:National Security Act (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706724)

If it's "perfectly legal", than I'm quite disturbed. I mean, screw what the Russians think. I'm more afraid of my own government. I'm sure they feel the same way about us.

I'm all about protecting national security, but not to the level where it becomes more (if at all) authoritarian.

Re:National Security Act (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706896)

I think he's talking about eminent domain.

Re:National Security Act (5, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707000)

Perfectly legal for the US to intervene in a sale from an Israeli company to a Russian one? If that's truly the case, the US has far, far too much power.

Re:National Security Act (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707178)

The Israeli company (ICQ) has been a subsidiary of an American company (AOL) since 1998.

Re:National Security Act (0)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707014)

"Legal" it might be, and I'd argue that point. LAWFUL it certainly is not. The US Constitution, which itself is based upon the British Constitution of 1689, stipulates the right to engage in commerce without interference. Every former British colony, Commonwealth State, or current territory or dependency, still enjoys and deserves coverage and protection of the 1689 Constitution. International Law does not allow for supranational interference in private commerce except where LAWFUL sanction exists (eg in time of war). Is the Cold War still on, then?

Re:National Security Act (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707194)

The U.S. Constitution explicitly acknowledges the federal government's authority to seize property for public use, so long as just compensation is paid.

Re:National Security Act (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706650)

Except the government wouldn't risk seizing it and outing their agenda......what was the quote from the Exorcist when the Devil wouldn't move the object - "that's far too overt a display of power"?

Re:National Security Act (1)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706710)

Can they really seize a company based in Israel? (And now in Russia, as the article says)

Re:National Security Act (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706810)

Sure they just have the CIA sneak in and abduct all the employees and make off with the servers. Quite simple really, the tough part is trying to explain why your luggage is twitching to customs agents at the border.

Re:National Security Act (0)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707022)

Sure they just have the CIA sneak in and abduct all the employees and make off with the servers. Quite simple really, the tough part is trying to explain why your luggage is twitching to customs agents at the border.

Um... if the CIA wanted to abduct people, they sure as hell wouldn't go through customs. The CIA has there own planes and airports, no need to use the commercial airlines.

Re:National Security Act (2, Insightful)

King InuYasha (1159129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706872)

The American government could "advise" the Israeli government to do this, yes. The Israeli government has no qualms about doing stuff like that, because as a state in perpetual war with itself, it has certain abilities that its government framework gives them that they wouldn't have if they weren't in a state of war. Which includes seizing property.

Re:National Security Act (2, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706994)

Israel isn't at war with itself.

Israel is at war with terrorist groups trying to destroy it (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc) and nation-states it's in conflict with (Syria and Iran).

Re:National Security Act (3, Insightful)

King InuYasha (1159129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707044)

What about the Arabs that live in the area that Israel was carved out of? And what about what is left of Palestine?

Making a Jewish state was not a good idea. In general, founding countries using religion always leads to insanity like this...

Re:National Security Act (2, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707210)

I agree, but I'd say the same of, say, Turkey. Only they were a bit more genocidal about "solving" their Greek and Armenian problem, so, perversely, they don't get as much shit about it anymore--- Israel was much nicer to its domestic minorities, so gets more shit about it.

Re:National Security Act (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707200)

Mirabilis, the Israeli firm, was sold to AOL, an American firm, in 1998. Presumably they could have seized it from AOL at the time AOL owned it, if U.S. law permitted doing so, since it was just overseas property of an American firm.

Re:National Security Act (2, Informative)

AnAdventurer (1548515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706876)

How exactly will the US (ie, my country) block the sale of one company based in Israel to another company based in Russia? On what grounds do we [sic] have the authority to do this?

Re:National Security Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32707080)

AOL is not an Irsraeli company, they are the ones doing the selling, the ICQ servers reside in Isreal where the US is allowed unrestricted access to them by the Isreali government. The issue isn't that a Digital Sky a company based in russia is buying them but that they will most likely move the ICQ servers to Russia where the US will not have unfettered access to them.

Re:National Security Act (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706892)

Ever heard of a "limited government"?

Re:National Security Act (2, Insightful)

unity (1740) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706974)

"limited government" you say? That notion died in 1913 and it ain't ever coming back without a full-on revolution.

Re:National Security Act (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707202)

Oh it died well before that. The notion that the government ever really minded its own business has always been a fairy tale. It has stuck its fingers in our pies from the start [wikipedia.org] .

Re:National Security Act (1)

Zebai (979227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706936)

I doubt its important any more, after all its now public knowledge the government has been sniffing at ICQ logs.

Re:National Security Act (3, Funny)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707150)

There is an option missing in the current /. The worst I've ever been in trouble w/ the law ... poll.

  • I have an ICQ account

Two words: (5, Funny)

bl4nk (607569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706544)

Uh-oh!

ICQ is AIM (5, Informative)

joe_bruin (266648) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706546)

As the system is based in Israel, American security service have had access.

While ICQ was founded in Israel, it's been owned by AOL for over a decade. The ICQ network has been integrated with AOL's AIM network many years ago and the servers are located in AOL's network supercenter in Virginia.

Re:ICQ is AIM (2, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706684)

I think the fear is that link bay be broken up by this sale.

Anybody who was watching MSNBC's Countdown around 2008-2009 know that there's a highly controlled rooms at AT&T where nearly all long distance telephone traffic flow through and while curious AT&Ters are not allowed, government agents are.

This is the spy community saying "If ICQ moves to Russia, we might not be able to tap it anymore!"

Re:ICQ is AIM (2, Interesting)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707094)

Anybody who was watching MSNBC's Countdown around 2008-2009 know that there's a highly controlled rooms at AT&T where nearly all long distance telephone traffic flow through and while curious AT&Ters are not allowed, government agents are.

Anybody who's been reading the Telecom Informer in 2600 [2600.com] for years now has been aware of the scope of the governments monitoring capabilities in that sector. And I'm sure they're not the only source but I'll be damned if I let you attribute that information to an MSNBC program.

lol.

Re:ICQ is AIM (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706722)

Northern Virginia, as it happens; conveniently close to both the CIA and the NSA. :D

Re:ICQ is AIM (3, Informative)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706746)

As the system is based in Israel, American security service have had access.

While ICQ was founded in Israel, it's been owned by AOL for over a decade. The ICQ network has been integrated with AOL's AIM network many years ago and the servers are located in AOL's network supercenter in Virginia.

ICQ's networks haven't been integrated with AOL servers, they are still in Tel Aviv, Israel [linkedin.com] . They are a subsidiary of AOL, but not merged or located in the US. [businessweek.com] They are 2 different IM programs that were kept separated to appear as if there is competition, this is why you can download both an AIM chat program and a ICQ chat program and the user names are not cross-compatible.

Re:ICQ is AIM (0)

Coward Anonymous (110649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706792)

"They are 2 different IM programs that were kept separated to appear as if there is competition, this is why you can download both an AIM chat program and a ICQ chat program and the user names are not cross-compatible."

Except, umm, I use my ICQ UID directly on AIM with iChat... oops.

Re:ICQ is AIM (2, Informative)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706812)

Except, umm, I use my ICQ UID directly on AIM with iChat... oops.

iChat is an instant messaging program that that can support AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo and Google Talk. [wikipedia.org] Unless I'm mistaken, iChat is just using the needed settings to chat with between them. Other programs like Trillian does this as well that I know of. [trillian.im]

Re:ICQ is AIM (5, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706922)

As an experiment, I logged out of all of my IM connections, and reconnected only ICQ, then watched it in Wireshark. The connection went to 205.188.8.188, a reverse lookup of which resolves to bos-d037b-rdr1.blue.aol.com. I use Digsby primarily, and I thought that may have something to do with it, so I downloaded ICQ 7 into a VM and traced that traffic. The DNS query was for api.screenname.aol.com, and the login attempt went to 207.200.74.251, which resolves to openauthprod-vn01.evip.aol.com.

ICQ switched to AOL's OSCAR protocol several years ago. There is a definite link between the backend architectures of the two programs. AOL largely sold the name, and perhaps included some rights to use the protocol.

Re:ICQ is AIM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32707176)

You are mistaken. You can use any AIM client (using the OSCAR protocol) to connect to ICQ or AIM and send messages to either ICQ or AIM accts.The login servers are integrated and you can add ICQ contacts to an AIM screenname and vice versa.

Re:ICQ is AIM (1)

Coward Anonymous (110649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707196)

iChat supports ICQ by virtue of it supporting AOL's OSCAR protocol. I use the same UIN with AIM SW directly and have AIM and ICQ buddies.It's a seamless integrated service.

Do people still use ICQ? (1, Insightful)

masdog (794316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706550)

Do people still use ICQ? I thought it was a dying technology in 2000 when I first signed up for it as it was being supplanted by AIM, Yahoo, and MSN (which have been supplanted in many ways by Facebook).

Re:Do people still use ICQ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706616)

Why would it be "a dying technology"? Just because it's old?
I've never had any problems with ICQ, but the same can't be said about MSN. If it were up to me I'd use ICQ instead of MSN, but I can't since only russians use it now (technically I can, but I'd have no contacts).

Re:Do people still use ICQ? (1)

masdog (794316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706840)

Sorry. Poor choice of words. I should have said dying network, not dying technology.

Re:Do people still use ICQ? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706734)

Do people still use ICQ?

I wouldn't know about US or other countries, but it's the single most popular IM service in ex-USSR countries, and there are no signs of this changing anytime soon.

Re:Do people still use ICQ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706830)

Some people I know are still on Yahoo! Messenger and Windows (Live) Messenger, but none of them ever uses ICQ or AIM.

All criminals use ICQ. (3, Funny)

OnePumpChump (1560417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706560)

But good luck, they're behind 7 proxies.

If *I* were a criminal.... (2, Funny)

buanzo (542591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706660)

i'd hide myself behind russian proxies and use ICQ. The "intelligence" community is *SO* trusting...

in soviet russia (3, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706570)

kgb c u but usa no c u!

Re:in soviet russia (1)

smileytshirt (988345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706904)

In Soviet Russia, ICQ buys YOU!

ICQ used by any people at all ? (1)

KiloUtrechtTango (1697930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706598)

The US is sure that most criminals use ICQ
Proof ?

Re:ICQ used by any people at all ? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706608)

> Proof ?

"Prime Time Russia" says so.

Re:ICQ used by any people at all ? (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706662)

Well, the Financial times also has quoted an unnamed senior law enforcement officer as saying "Every bad guy known to man [is on] ICQ". The ft.com article (requires free registration): Link. [ft.com] And at least for me, if you click on the link from Google, it doesn't seem to need any registration (it's the first listed link): Link. [google.ca]

Re:ICQ used by any people at all ? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706732)

Bad guys use hard-to-intercept communication... and those who do use intercepted communication tend to land out of play in an area called "Jail" or "Dead".

Therefore, by that selection process, only those use the non-intercept-able network keep going.

Re:ICQ used by any people at all ? (1)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707024)

The Russians are buying it. What other proof do you need?

Re:ICQ used by any people at all ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32707160)

Not sure about that, but I wouldn't be surprised if the converse were true: Most currently on ICQ are criminals, assuming you count Russian spammers as criminals. I got rid of my ICQ account a few years ago when I realized the only messages I EVER got on it were Russian spam messages.

Do you have a source for this... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706600)

...other than "Prime Time Russia"?

Re:Do you have a source for this... (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706614)

Article 1 [businessinsider.com] Article 2 [ft.com]

Re:Do you have a source for this... (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706636)

Seems that the ft.com link needed free registration when I click the link. Doesn't seem to want me to register when I click the Google link (which is the first one listed) [google.ca] , so if you don't want to register on ft.com try going from Google...

Re:Do you have a source for this... (2, Insightful)

AngryK9 (1553903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706648)

Since when has the US Government needed any proof to substantiate any of it's suspicions?

Surprise, surprise (4, Insightful)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706640)

A peer-to-peer architecture would be better for IM - no single point of failure at a server that impacts all conversations, end-to-end security rather than client to server, server to client, and no man in the middle attacks by government agencies or anybody else who chooses to record the conversations going through the servers. I sometimes wonder whether all the public IM servers are run by the "Air America" airline. The only use of a server in IM should be as a directory and participant availability service, not to carry the conversations, unless both participants are behind NAT. If one of the participants have a public IP address the conversations could go direct between the end-points. SIMPLE

Re:Surprise, surprise (5, Informative)

Stupendoussteve (891822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706692)

AIM has supported this for years, it's called Direct Connection. Trillian and Pidgin both support IM encryption as well.

Another option is to run your own XMPP server, which can at least guarantee that conversations on that server are safe, but not necessarily those with people on other servers.

Re:Surprise, surprise (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706750)

Direct Connection has been removed more recent versions of AIM because its risks outweighed its benefits. Disclosing your IP address to somebody you barely or don't know is risky. Disclosing your IP address and the fact you're using an certain versions AIM is an invitation to hackers.

Re:Surprise, surprise (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706730)

The only use of a server in IM should be as a directory and participant availability service, not to carry the conversations, unless both participants are behind NAT.

XMPP does that, or can do if you want it to,

end-to-end security rather than client to server,

and OTR will do that.

Re:Surprise, surprise (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706776)

"A peer-to-peer architecture would be better for IM [...] no man in the middle attacks [...] The only use of a server in IM should be as a directory and participant availability service"

And there goes your "no MiM" asumption.

Re:Surprise, surprise (1)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706806)

[]"no MiM"[]

Looks like you agree with me (Selective quoting can easily change the argument.)

I didn't say there wasn't an opportunity for any MiM - what I said was -

"no man in the middle attacks by government agencies or anybody else who chooses to record the conversations going through the servers."

Re:Surprise, surprise (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706862)

You're assuming that the directory server would honestly connect you to your intended interlocutor and not to a transparent proxy that would in turn connect to the recipient in order to record the conversation. You would have to trust the directory server to give you the IP of your interlocutor... there's no way to verify that it's not a proxy instead.

Re:Surprise, surprise (1)

WNight (23683) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706816)

Presumably in a p2p network, where everything is a potential mitm attack, you wouldn't be able to ignore the possibility of it and would thus build encryption, signing, and data hiding into the protocol.

Re:Surprise, surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706906)

Both participants are almost always behind NAT. At least until widespread ipv6.

hmmm (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706688)

I dunno what's more shocking, that the government thinks ICQ has any relevance with anything anymore or that someone thought the network was worth $186 MILLION dollars. That's just insane.

Re:hmmm (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706744)

someone thought the network was worth $186 MILLION dollars. That's just insane.

"Someone" is a Russian company. ICQ is extremely popular in Russia (it's the most popular IM service).

Re:hmmm (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706766)

ICQ's current network is worthless... it's an AIM client with it's own interface and numbering-for-usernames scheme. However, as a brand name it's still worth something to those who remember when it was cool.

Look what's happened to Napster. From being the #1 illegal file sharing system, to now a division of Best Buy selling legal streaming and MP3 downloads... people realized that once separated from the sued-to-death original company, the name and logo still had value.

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706926)

#1. ICQ is NOT an AIM client. They are two different protocols. Many clients these days can handle multiple protocols (see Trillian for example).

#2. ICQ is *Still* cool in Russia and some other countries.

Re:hmmm (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32707138)

Wrong I'm afraid - ICQ uses OSCAR, is backed by AIM's servers and uses an AOL proprietary library to connect just like AIM used to (COOL). AIM now uses a further abstracted client (AIMCC) which uses COOL itself.

Re:hmmm (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707048)

Not to point out a flaw in your logic, but one kinda follows the other, don't you think?

Obligitory (1, Informative)

SrLnclt (870345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706716)

In Soviet America government seeks you!

Re:Obligitory (2, Insightful)

jellyfrog (1645619) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707130)

Eww, that wasn't obligatory at all. In fact, never do it again.

Then why didn't they buy it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706752)

Why didn't some CIA front company buy it instead? They have these big black budgets, don't they?

Nice one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706902)

IIRC once you announce something is a honeypot, it stops being a honeypot ~

Also who the hell still uses ICQ?

Re:Nice one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32707068)

The internet is a honey pot. O SHIT

Criminals? (1)

TehNoobTrumpet (1836716) | more than 4 years ago | (#32706982)

Use ICQ? Data/proof please? Or is this one of those "foreigners use ICQ therefore that's where all da crime at!"

We use wow (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32706990)

My organization left ICQ a long time ago. We whisper each other in WOW. And if it's a really important deal, we insist on face to face meetings in Booty Bay.

Fuck Islam (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32707070)

Fuck Allah, Fuck Mohammad, Fuck Islam!!!!

A bunch of coward liars who like to molest children.

Honeypot! (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707074)

I always knew AOL was a decoy network set up to trap black hats! But not even the grey beards of the US Gov't could match the talent pool that meets daily on ICQ to discuss their new devious missions.

Obligatory sound (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32707116)

uh oh!

The US is SURE of WHAT?? (3, Insightful)

purpleraison (1042004) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707164)

First off, if the 'US' is 'sure' of something (for example weapons of mass destruction), then you can be 100% certain the US is up to no good.

Second, "The US is sure that most criminals use ICQ and..." ---- really?? I will happily plunk down a $1,000,000 bet and walk down to the nearest prison and ask a random sampling of 'criminals' what they know about ICQ. Rest assured, almost none of the criminals will have a clue about ICQ. Kids however, would be able to tell you all about it. ...maybe the US is referring to kids who download shitty music as 'criminals'? If keeping ICQ in order to track a bunch of pimply-faced kids downloading music is 'National Security', then America is truly fucked.

It's true! (0, Offtopic)

Alsee (515537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707168)

The US said it is sure that most criminals use ICQ

It's true. I once parked in a handicap space about a dozen years ago, which was about the same number of years ago that I tried out ICQ for a couple of days.

-

Our government or thiers (1)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707204)

I'm not at all a fan of Russia, and I don't really believe that the cold war ended. We just stopped fighting it. At least I know that they still aren't our friend. That being said, I don't trust my own government here in the United States either.

This is actually a good thing. When they fight it out, the people win. Russia will have the exclusive right to part of the information, and the US will have the other part. If both of them refuse to cooperate, then perhaps our personal data is a little safer. After all, neither one of them is a freind to the people.

Wow... (0, Troll)

Heratiki (943721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32707206)

Holy shit people still use ICQ??? I thought it fell off the face of the map... I mean who says "Hey what's your ICQ" or "Are you on ICQ?"... It's been forever since ICQ was anything but a novel messenger service... I mean really???
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?