×

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!

Russian FSB Can Reportedly Tap Skype Calls

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the in-soviet-russia-skype-calls-on-you dept.

Communications 136

An anonymous reader writes "Previous reports of a Microsoft provided backdoor to Skype has been unconfirmed. However, there are now reports that Russian federal security service FSB is able to tap call and locate users. 'FSB and the Internal Affairs Ministry (MVD) have been capable to wiretap and locate Skype users for some years already, reported Vedomosti on Thursday [Google translation of Russian original]. The newspaper is citing experts on information security. "Special services have been capable for several years not only to wiretap but also to locate a Skype user. That's why, for instance, employees of our company are forbidden to discuss business-related topics on Skype," General Director of Group-IB, Ilya Sachkov, says to Vedomosti. "After Microsoft acquired Skype in May 2011, it updated the software with technology allowing legitimate wiretapping," says Maksim Emm, Director of Peak Systems.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

136 comments

Ah, the consequences of closed-source (5, Insightful)

staltz (2782655) | about a year ago | (#43182131)

The Skype P2P protocol has always been an issue to worry about. It's hard to break/understand, and I've seen research papers that just scratched the surface of the protocol.

I never doubted that really smart minds (like Russians) would eventually crack it and exploit it. This would never happen with an open-source protocol.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (4, Interesting)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43182261)

no one with a smart mind cracked it, microsoft just rolled over for the russian government

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (3, Informative)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#43182461)

Microsoft regularly rolls over for the Chinese government too.

Microsoft has never met a dictator or despot they didn't like.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43182547)

Microsoft has never met a dictator or despot they didn't like.

Nor has any other business approaching the size of Microsoft. In fact, nobody can get that big without 'assistance' from the authorities. Despotism is big business, the rewards are well worth the collateral damages.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | about a year ago | (#43182783)

the rewards are well worth the collateral damages. ... unless you happen to be the collateral, of course.

"If you sup with the devil you need a long spoon."

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43182725)

Microsoft has never met a dictator or despot they didn't like.

What about Steve Jobs? *ducks*

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (2)

SpzToid (869795) | about a year ago | (#43183329)

For the most part, at least during the Jobs era, Apple products were beyond the reach of most 3rd-worlders, so catering to despotic countries wasn't an issue. In fact, so much so, it was not part of the Apple business model. (Apple products were this justly marketed as 'aspirational', and this model is working well over the long-term for Apple).

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43183425)

No, see, K. S. Kyosuke was saying that Steve Jobs was a dictator or despot that Microsoft did not like. Not that Apple had also never met a dictator or despot that they did not like.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (3, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43183017)

Microsoft regularly rolls over for the Chinese government too.

Microsoft has never met a dictator or despot they didn't like.

Microsoft has never met an entity with a boatload of cash they didn't like.

FTFY

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43183103)

So you mean there’s a chance that it leaks and we get support for it in Jitsi, Kopete and Pidgin? Yay!

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (2)

Kingkaid (2751527) | about a year ago | (#43183541)

As someone who has been in telecoms a while.. trust me it has been cracked for years. The difference is M$ gave a legit way to wiretap, whereas before everyone just did it improperly.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43183577)

What? THey rolled over for the Russian government? They're a company, not an idealist organization. Their purpose is to provide a product to consumers and increase the value for their shareholders, not take an ideological stance against a totalitarian government. Once you do that, you risk the survival of the company, which damages your shareholders' investments and puts at risk the jobs of your employees. As long as they're operating within the law of their host country, like not exporting sensitive technology to the Russians, they should act as a company and provide a product or service.

Expecting a company to take an ideological or political approach to issues is anathema to why a company exists in the first place. Google may do so, but as a company they're sitting on such a cash cow in their search engine business that they have the luxury to throw away billions on ideological stances, as well as stupid products (Google+) or multi-year free beta tests (Gmail).

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (3, Informative)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year ago | (#43185503)

Yeah, MS rolled over for the Russian government six years before they bought Skype. Good future planning on Balmer's part.

The reading comprehension skills here astound me.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43185541)

Apparently, Microsoft changed the way certificates are generated in a software patch shortly after taking over Skype. It used to be the case that certificates where generated locally on the client. They changed that to centrally generated certificates on MS servers which should enable them to sell(?) the ability to tap Skype calls.

Would anyone happen to know if you could somehow override that?

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (3, Insightful)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about a year ago | (#43182275)

Ofcource if I worked for FSB and was unable to tap into Skype, I'd start spreading FUD about how well I can tap into it. To make them more over to less secure means of communication.
Anyway, I hope this will lead to boost in developing a solution with good crypto. Like jingle or SIP with encyption and it's wide adoption. Not that it's happening anytime soon, but a man can dream...

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (1)

pipatron (966506) | about a year ago | (#43182483)

I think this would just move them over to more secure means of communication, not less. A stupid move. It won't be fun for them when the crooks all route their communication through a couple of global Tor nodes.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43184151)

They're not caring all that much about medium sized crime syndicates that can afford to channel their stuff through TOR. There are different methods to get those.

Spying on skype is about spying on big and small players who use it, such as large international conglomerates, as well as very small people who have no access to technical expertise necessary for TOR.

You're essentially making the infamous wrench mistake in assuming that technological problems and solutions are the only ones that exist in the world of security, when they are but the small part of the whole.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182419)

You clearly do not have an adequate understanding of how exploits or back doors work, it doesn't matter if it's open source or not, anyone can insert undetectable backdoors.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (3, Funny)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43182439)

Since when has "knowing what youre talking about" been a requirement to post on slashdot?

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43182441)

they're acting as if they were a phone company and russkies are probably asking them to comply as if they were one.. to provide taps.
and they're just locating the ip address of course. it's not like their tap is made of magic sauce.

+they would spread fud about it anyways.
the big problem with it if you're discussing sensitive things is plain and simply that it has centralized control.

SECOND OPTION: it's entirely possible the russkies are tapping them on client side. if not by other means then by bugging the headsets. that would certainly explain how they know EXACTLY where the call is taking place since they're spying the site in person. it's fsb/kgb after all.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43183141)

This would never happen with an open-source protocol.

Why not? If a protocol was open source, writing backdoors into it would be even easier. I mean, how many people know how to inspect code and remove the parts that are malicious?

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43183483)

Why not? If a protocol was open source, writing backdoors into it would be even easier. I mean, how many people know how to inspect code and remove the parts that are malicious?

You obviously do not understand open source. If a protocol or software gets big enough that a lot of people use it, it will also get a lot of developers looking at it. If a backdoor is written in, eventually someone will find it and report/patch it.

Re:Ah, the consequences of closed-source (3, Interesting)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43183715)

This would never happen with an open-source protocol.

Why not? If a protocol was open source, writing backdoors into it would be even easier. I mean, how many people know how to inspect code and remove the parts that are malicious?

Not many, I'm sure. But even one is sufficient. And unlike closed-source, that one person may pop up any time, anywhere in the world, including places where it's not possible for interested governments to muzzle him in time to raise the alert.

One of the reasons WHY open-source is so popular is that things like that can occur, hence open-source people are more likely to pay attention to how secure the stuff they're using is. And conversely, paranoid people will prefer open-source.

The best time to worry about security is before you need to. Afterwards, it may be too late.

A reminder. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182133)

Soviet Union was disbanded in the 90's

Re:A reminder. (5, Insightful)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43182195)

Soviet Union was disbanded in the 90's

And????

Russia still remains. The KGB is now the FSB. Russia is more open, but it's still not the USA.

And speaking of the USA, you do realize that Project Echelon and similar efforts have been busily tapping into communications in the Land of the Free for longer than there was a Skype?

Re:A reminder. (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#43182245)

You speak of the US as if they wouldn't do exactly the same thing (and almost certainly are). This is why there should be an open implementation that supports proper security.

I thought I read right here (2)

doug141 (863552) | about a year ago | (#43183071)

That the whole point of microsoft centralizing the skype servers after they bought it was to allow gov't taps.

Re:A reminder. (2)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#43183633)

"And speaking of the USA, you do realize that Project Echelon and similar efforts have been busily tapping into communications in the Land of the Free for longer than there was a Skype?"

Re:A reminder. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182571)

Someone downmod this tinfoil hatter. Project Echelon? Geeze. What's next MKULTRA? 9/11 an inside job? Your government would NEVER LIE TO YOU! Stop being a fag.

If you don't believe the official reports then fuck off slashdot tin hatter.

Re:A reminder. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182619)

Your government would NEVER LIE TO YOU!

The denial is strong in this one.

Re:A reminder. (2)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43183159)

Nobody can possibly be this ignorant. Are you a paid government troll by any chance?

Project echelon has been widely reported on by a number of mainstream news sources. Do you think CBS news qualifies as a bastion of "tinfoil hattery"?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-164651.html [cbsnews.com]

The Church committee hearings in the late 1970s revealed extensive details about the multi-decade long MK Ultra program, including a trove of 20,000 related documents. Do Congressional hearings not count as "official reports"? It was also revealed that thousands of other documents related to the program had been destroyed.

Are you so brainwashed on the government Kool Aid that you can't even exercise your critical thinking skills and make a cursory examination of widely available and mostly undisputed evidence?

If you're so naive as to believe the absurdities published in official government reports, go stick your nose up a bureaucrat's ass. I'm sure it will smell like a rose garden to you.

Re:A reminder. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43183255)

No, just a moron from 4chan.

Re:A reminder. (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43182507)

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." -- Keyser Soze

Microsoft backdoor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182137)

Or vagina

Closed source. Closed standards (3, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | about a year ago | (#43182155)

And therein we learn the lesson about closed source software and proprietary methods. If folk had adopted something based on SIP, XMPP, IAX or any other open and documented protocol, we'd be able to communicate using a tried and tested security mechanism.

For something like communications, if you're totally and absolutely reliant upon a third party then you also need to have total and absolute trust in that third party or you should consider all your communications using them to be public.

Re:Closed source. Closed standards (2)

Technician (215283) | about a year ago | (#43182265)

SIP is end to end P-P once a connection is established.

If you need to hide your IP for a Skype session, use a SIP to Skype gateway.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r26518054-SIP-to-Skype-Skype-to-SIP-new-method [dslreports.com]

If I Skype you, my IP will resolve to the gateway address. Skype me at skype2ipp, then enter my user name when prompted.

Re:Closed source. Closed standards (2)

Technician (215283) | about a year ago | (#43182375)

Encrypted SIP may be more secure, but does nothing to hide your IP address. A recently mentioned encrypted SIP client is Jitsi.
https://jitsi.org/ [jitsi.org]
Not sure if it if capturing keys for a man in the middle attack is difficult. A MIM attack by Russia should only be possible when crossing a Russian server. US and Carnivor abilities is unknown.

Re:Closed source. Closed standards (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about a year ago | (#43182329)

If only anybody made that stack of rawhide software, frameworks and standarts into usable software...
I mean I can set up a xmpp client with OTR or GPG encryption, haven't tried doing that with SIP, but take Skype users. For most of them comprehencing what needs to be done is akin to building a fusion reactor out of household items...
As for the corporations: all of them gladly uses XMPP standart for their own ends, but only Google bothered to abandon the walled garden ideology and enabled XMPP federation on their servers. Don't see Facebook or MS playing ball on that field. Facebook is even trying to "embrace, extend, extinguish" the email system, so there is very little hope in them enabling XMPP federation.

Re:Closed source. Closed standards (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year ago | (#43184675)

Even if it were open source it could still be tapped. Just maybe not as easily.

Re:Closed source. Closed standards (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year ago | (#43185451)

And the the government TLA (FSB in this case) says ok phone company "gime" wit more or less Judaical oversight dependent on your country - its part of the deal of being a phone company.

How shocking! (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about a year ago | (#43182169)

Closed source software with obscure network protocol, now owned by a corporation whose main concern isn't the users' best interest, turns out to be not so nice after all. News at 10...

The best way to do use Skype for anything more important than saying hello to your grandmother for free on the internet is not to use Skype. Everybody with half a brain has known that for many years.Duh...

OMG, you can tap data sent over a wire (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43182171)

shouldn't be too hard to trace all packets coming out of an ISP's network in Russia and decode them? or at least decode enough packets for part of a call

and how many fiber connections go into russia from foreign countries? for all we know the FSB has tapped them all and is reading all the data
the NSA was doing something like this a decade ago with Narus appliances

Re:OMG, you can tap data sent over a wire (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43183137)

You say "decode" as though it is trivial.

You should read up a bit on encryption.

Russian Front Side Bus? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182193)

Am I the only one who mentally interpreted the headline as: "Russian Front Side Bus Can Reportedly Tap Skype Calls"?

Re:Russian Front Side Bus? (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about a year ago | (#43183595)

Uncertain. I suggest you check your power source, and reboot just to be sure. o|o

so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182227)

Great they can tap an IP phone call on Skype. I guess they'll be up on all the gossip at the local middle school! What a travesty.

Re:so? (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year ago | (#43182775)

People do use Skype for business reasons. Skype sells products for business [skype.com] reasons. I use Skype for business reasons (but my business is basically public knowledge anyway, so no need to steal it). Does the business version come without the back door? Didn't think so.

One of the major sticking points with ECHELON for many was not that it was used to spy on middle school gossip, but that it was used to pass corporate intelligence to favoured "partners of the state".

It's only a matter of time before the back door itself becomes one of those pieces of intelligence as well.

Why? (2)

mrbill1234 (715607) | about a year ago | (#43182289)

Why would someone with something to hide use Skype?

Seriously - if you've got something to hide, use something to which you have the source and can control the encryption used.

Special services (3, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43182321)

Special services have been capable for several years not only to wiretap but also to locate a Skype user.

Special services have been capable for several years not only to wiretap but also to locate cellular phone and landline users.

Re:Special services (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182797)

Special services have been capable for several decades not only to wiretap but also to locate cellular phone and landline users.

Fixed it for ya.

Jitsi (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43182333)

Jitsi provides ZRTP encrypted voice chat. It's free, open source, and cross platform. Why use Skype?

Re:Jitsi (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43182525)

Because everyone else uses skype.

People who dont get this are the same people who dont understand why facebook is more popular than Diaspora.

Re:Jitsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182623)

Peer pressure. Sure, I get it. I don't use Skype. I've been asked by friends and coworkers, "do you Skype?" (because they want to video chat). I tell them no, but I would be happy to join a Google+ hangout. Facebook? Yeah, I have an account - haven't used it in forever. You really can resist the peer pressure to use skype and facebook (or, to cover them all, MyTwitFace+) unless you have one of these situations like my daughter has where her university program requires her to use FB. Otherwise, just don't use them. Why the hell would I want a Skype account?

Re:Jitsi (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43182651)

yeah, because google puts your data into al bore's social security lockbox and won't ever use it for marketing

Re:Jitsi (2, Funny)

dkf (304284) | about a year ago | (#43182959)

Why the hell would I want a Skype account?

Because otherwise people won't talk to you. That's nice at first (very nice!) but after a while it leads to you not getting paid any more, which is very much not nice. The issue? People who communicate are better at making contacts and better at winning business. Over the longer term, this is a very important effect.

But at least there's one thing. If the FSB listen into my skype conversations, the joke will be on them. In particular, those meetings are so incredibly boring that they'll lose the will to live! (It's bad enough for me, and I'm supposed to be interested in what's going on in them.)

Re:Jitsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43184283)

Why the hell would I want a Skype account?

Because otherwise people won't talk to you. That's nice at first (very nice!) but after a while it leads to you not getting paid any more, which is very much not nice.

OK, so apparently there are a couple of people out there whose jobs depend on Skype. Why would any of the rest of us want a Skype account?

Re:Jitsi (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43184569)

You wouldnt, if you have noone you care about talking to. If you do, you can either use skype, or accept the fact that you arent going to convince them to use Jitsi.

Re:Jitsi (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43182631)

There are two people in every conversation. If one uses Jitsi and one uses Skype, why should they settle on the insecure option?

Re:Jitsi (2, Informative)

dkf (304284) | about a year ago | (#43182979)

If one uses Jitsi and one uses Skype, why should they settle on the insecure option?

They'll choose Skype because that's the one that the person who isn't a tech expert already has working. Unless you're really keen on doing more free tech support...

Re:Jitsi (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43183489)

If it's anything remotely important, a little tech support is a small price to pay for security.

Re:Jitsi (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43183497)

aka "The Path to Idiocracy". It's true, though, and it should be an object lesson that technically sound software needs to be trivially easy to install and configure as well if it's to do much societal good.

Re:Jitsi (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43184601)

Its not idiocracy, it just seems that way because youre technically minded.

Just the other day I was trying to answer several questions about hacking, viruses, computer security, etc for a family member, and I realized (for the millionth time) just how hard it is to convey the framework that a non-techie would need in order to begin understanding a lot of this stuff.

And in order for everyone to decide to use a more secure option, everyone needs to realize that the current option is really really bad and what the better option is. Getting that information out to a wide userbase there takes a TON of work.

Re:Jitsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43183755)

- Like most FOSSturd programs its got a stupid fucking name. Jitsi? Sounds like a style of martial arts. The homepage says it's Bulgarian and "sounded cool". If someone came up to me and said, "Hey, I use Jitsi. You should use it too!", I'd kick them in the dick and find a better friend.

- Written in Java. Nuff' said.

- No mobile client.

- Recommended by well-known Slashdot troll "Hatta".

Re:Jitsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43185321)

Because Skype is such a beautiful, intelligent, patriotic, minty, cromulent name.

Re:Jitsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182537)

One reason is that supposedly their landline connection is cleaner/more legit. This is BS, of course -- ever since(or before) Microsoft inserted buggy back doors, you could hear other people's conversations on cellphones.

Another reason (a business reason) is a clear chain of liability, to a company you could sue.

Re:Jitsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43184313)

All commercial software out there, but especially anything from Microsoft, disclaims any legal liability.
What plaintiff ever won a lawsuit over buggy software?

Big Whoop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182437)

So Russia, like the US and other Western countries, mandate that telecommunications hardware and software allow for wiretapping, or, as it is known internationally, Lawful Intercept [cisco.com]

good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182445)

arlet's hear them about my dutch conversations, you know, about the cat coming out of the sleeve, and that it is baconslippery over here. we better called the roadwait.

It's "of" not "to"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43182457)

"Special services have been capable for several years not only to wiretap but also to locate a Skype user."

"not only OF wiretapping but also of locating" etc.

What's happened to Americans' grammar?

"Bob is capable OF fixing a PC" not
"Bob is capable TO fix a PC".

Re:It's "of" not "to"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43184431)

TFS says your nit was from Google Translate.

caveat emptor (1)

snarkh (118018) | about a year ago | (#43182603)

This is a report in a newspaper citing unspecified sources. Moreover, it is in FSB's interest to have people believe that they are more capable/powerful then they really are. A large grain of salt is definitely in order.

Next! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43182777)

This is why the anti-trust watchdogs have backed off in the US -- MS agreed to build in backdoors for spying in its OS.

I had suspected it, but proof was hard to come by.

I predict antitrust problems for Google Chrome/Android products in a few years.

Re:Next! (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43182931)

I predict antitrust problems for Google Chrome/Android products in a few years.

Nah, they've already rolled over. It's not a violation of "do no evil" to piss on the Constitution as long as the Government tells you it's ok.

Rather the FSB than the NSA (1, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43182909)

As an American I'm less bothered about the FSB doing it that than the NSA. Seriously, for my personal stuff, what does the FSB care? I'm much more concerned about the NSA (and if it can be done, I'm sure they are). For similar reasons I use Kaspersky on my personal computers. The FSB doesn't care about my bank account or the web sites I visit. The NSA/CIA/FBI maybe another story. Not that I'm terribly interesting, but having once looked at a web site that was slightly to the left of the Democratic party, I'm probably on some automated terrorist watchlist somewhere.

Re:Rather the FSB than the NSA (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year ago | (#43185487)

You know Kaspersky is best buds with FSB. If you have interesting tastes in websites and have high security I am sure they would consider using that as leverage to get you to act as an agent for them.

Re:Rather the FSB than the NSA (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43186267)

You know Kaspersky is best buds with FSB.

My point exactly - if I'm going to be spied on I'd rather have it be done by some outfit that has no real interest in me and no real power over me. I also "trust" them in the sense that I doubt they're going to mess w/ my bank account or something (unless they're doing charity and want to make a deposit).

If you have interesting tastes in websites and have high security I am sure they would consider using that as leverage to get you to act as an agent for them.

True, but I have no security clearance and the most interesting website I read is Slashdot. Now that's sad.

A solution? (1)

spacemky (236551) | about a year ago | (#43182943)

How could we guarantee no spying or eavesdropping via Skype? I think some sort of scrambling/de-scrambling/encryption program that sits at both ends of the Skype connection would do the trick. I'm surprised nothing like this already exists.

Re:A solution? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year ago | (#43183203)

If you are willing to go through that trouble, just use something else.

Re:A solution? (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#43183343)

Exactly, and if you are using Windows then what is the point of making Skype 'secure' when it runs on an unsecured platform. Did everyones _NSAKEY Marble fall out of their memory?.

I'm not sure if this has been asked already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43183389)

But can they tap a call that doesn't origin or terminate in Russia? i.e a call from the USA to the UK or anywhere else in the EU.

Hmmmm (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about a year ago | (#43183503)

Even more reason not to use Skype. Use an open source app like Jitsi. It does the same thing as Skype but is open source.

WTF? Why is this actually news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43183989)

I do care that the russians can intercpet it... but...

It leaked at least as early as 2008, if not sooner that the Germans were intercepting Skype.

Who cares that the FSB can also.

Seriously? Why is this news again? Did everyone fucking forget?

Did you forget that MSFT acquired it since then and would have been required by law to build the capability in if it wasn't there already?

"Reportedly". Bullshit. It's as good as confirmed other people have the capability, and if you're using skype for anything where you have mission critical privacy needs, you're a damned idiot.

sATELLITES (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43184407)

Just use satellite scramble phones, that is our militarys preferred option

So can the FBI (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year ago | (#43184659)

Is this supposed to be a big surprise or big deal? It's not to anyone who knows about information security.

Skype won't have to register as a telco in France (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43185187)

France can just outsource it's tapping warrants to the Russian FSB

Alternative motive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43185757)

Am I the only one who searched for these company names and 'voip' and get results? Seems like the people quoted have a reason to want to make people scared of using Skype. Not saying anyone is right or wrong, but this just seems like rumor spreading.

legitimate wiretaps??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43186023)

Í dont think there is such a thing. Certainly this is in the eye of the beholder.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...