Skype Alternatives 2012

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by mattbiernat, Sep 8, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. siljaline

    siljaline Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,618
  2. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Doesn't Pidgin have a Skype plugin (not sure if a native plugin), which will allow you to chat with your Skype buddies?

    You could use it instead of Skype, if this one concerns you.

    -edit-

    Found it -https://code.google.com/p/skype4pidgin/

    But, you'd still need to have Skype installed, though.
     
  3. addi6584

    addi6584 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Posts:
    58
    Location:
    United States
    skype has zerooooooooo privacy whatsoever. as in none. it can be monitored, logged, recorded in realtime as well as traffic rerouted in realtime so as to interrupt and not even notify either part a file transfer has is being initiated etc.

    only thing you can do is run a sip w/ ZRTP

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udBBDHT-_UA
     
  4. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    You have no clue what you're talking about, as further evidenced by your lack of source.

    If we talk about Skype to Skype calls in specific, they are peer to peer and they are encrypted. They cannot be "rerouted". They cannot be "monitored" or "logged" or "recorded" (those 3 words all mean the same thing... just so you know) without a man in the middle. They are perfectly safe.

    Skype text messages can be monitored due to the nature of being stored on the Skype servers for offline delivery, nothing unique to Skype.

    Skype to landline calls can be monitored by anyone controlling the landline, nothing unique to Skype.

    Skype conferencing calls can theoretically be hijacked due to the automatic selection of a "host", nothing unique to Skype.
     
  5. Pinga

    Pinga Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Posts:
    1,420
    Location:
    Europe
  6. addi6584

    addi6584 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Posts:
    58
    Location:
    United States
    http://www.cryptome.org/2012/01/0085.htm

    You'll actually have to read some court docs, no youtube cliff notes.

    Do a traceroute for a p2p connection and lemmie know how many hops are in that "peer to peer" connection.

    Research who owns Skype and therefore the private keys to their "proprietary" encryption algo.

    Research deep packet inspection to identify types of traffic.

    Research that companies history of assisting in various "requests".

    Once you've done all that, do a file transfer over skype to someone on a .mil network overseas.... let me know what happens.

    Then report back as to how much of a clue I don't have.

    By all means, keep using skype as it's "perfectly safe".

    The again I'm not surprised by your post as it's coming from the same person who posts this nonsense
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2146932&postcount=2

    carry on.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012
  7. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Did you bother reading that PDF? I did. All 20 pages. What did it say? Exactly what I said already:

    That sentence makes no sense. A traceroute is exactly what it is, tracing the amount of hops to reach a destination.

    Oh no! Proprietary encryption! The world shall end because a business made something proprietary. Back to the privacy forum with you ;)

    Are you suggesting that DPI is immune to encryption? :D

    Legally Skype have an obligation to hand over text logs when a court orders it. This has nothing to do with voice which is encrypted and peer to peer. It cannot be logged like text is, because it's handled completely differently.

    Are file transfers even encrypted..?

    You clearly don't because you haven't understood a thing of what my post said. It quite clearly broke down the various functionality of Skype and stated which is "safe" and which "isn't".

    That's clearly not what my post said, read it again.

    Let me get this straight cluefull guy. Are you telling me that with all your paranoia about proprietary encryption, you gladly sit back and let people transmit personal information over clear text? :D

    The are 2 main ways people access facebook. By typing in the URL, or by hitting a bookmark. The former there is nothing I can do about, and teaching average joe about TLS encryption isn't going to work. However the latter I can do something about. All I have to do is add an "s" in their bookmark. What does that make? HTTPS. That's right. I added 1 letter and now their personal facebook information is no longer sent over cleartext.

    How insane of me to help people in such a way. These actions clearly dismiss my discussion in this Skype thread.
     
  8. addi6584

    addi6584 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Posts:
    58
    Location:
    United States
    Every hop on a network you don't own is precisely the way a MITM attack happens. ie that's exactly how skype is intercepted. a p2p connection is irrelevant.

    add this to your vocabulary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena


    i entered this into the discussion to illustrate your ignorance on security measures and how encryption actually works.

    your idea that you can stop "editing bookmarks" now that facebook has enabled ssl by default is in error.

    when your user access facebook directly using https through a bookmark their connection is relatively secure as its a direct connection.

    when you stop doing this and rely on facebooks 302 redirect from http to https you enable... wait for it... a man in the middle attack to decrypt the connection and retrieve their authentication information.

    which i demonstrated:
    I appreciate your commentary, but it's dangerous information to people interested in securing their conversations by relying on a 3rd party to secure the connection. this is why i recommended ZRTP because the security is handled by the end users, not a 3rd party.

    read up on how sslstrip works and then understand that spoofing certs via MITM has effectively the same result as suboena to obtain MSFTs key to decrypt a skype call via any number of a ton of entry points for a MITM attack from networks that you do not own.

    While you feel introducing the facebook commentary is irrelevant to the topic at had, it's not at all.

    An additional layer of security that you could us if you have to use skype for some reason is to use it through a vpn. however, this doesn't do much if the party you are talking to is also under surveillance, which they can be as it's a trivial endeavor.

    ZRTP > ALL so far

    //thread.
     
  9. jo3blac1

    jo3blac1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Posts:
    739
    Location:
    U.S.
    To say that Skype cannot be cracked by the brightest out of MIT working for NSA is ludicrous.
     
  10. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    Windows Live Messenger . . . sadly it's going to be faced out. :ouch:
     
  11. jo3blac1

    jo3blac1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Posts:
    739
    Location:
    U.S.
    For some reason I could never figure out video conferencing on windows live messenger.... not the most intuitive program out there.
    I am really looking for some open source project to come along in the next few years. Skype monopoly is upsetting.
     
  12. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    By video conference you mean just a simple video call between you and someone else or you are talking about something of 3 or more persons doing a video conference? :rolleyes:
     
  13. jo3blac1

    jo3blac1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Posts:
    739
    Location:
    U.S.
    A simple call between 2x computers. I don't need to be able to call out land lines or cell phones. If anybody got any suggestions I will be more than happy to try.
     
  14. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    6,897
    Location:
    USA
    Not very happy about that. It was a waaay better text chat client than Skype is. :mad:
     
  15. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    Then it's easy, after you added someone you just open a chat window and at the bottom you will see a webcam icon, just click it and that's all.

    Yeah, i like WLM for it's texting advantages and imo it's more flexible than Skype. :D
     
  16. Wild Hunter

    Wild Hunter Former Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Posts:
    1,375
    Anyways pretty much everybody is using facebook chat (the service) for text, now...
     
  17. Pinga

    Pinga Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Posts:
    1,420
    Location:
    Europe
  18. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    But . . . But . . . i don't have a FB!! :rolleyes:
     
  19. Carver

    Carver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,909
    Location:
    USA
    Neather do I, pardon me as I hang my head in shame .:gack: ;)
     
  20. jo3blac1

    jo3blac1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Posts:
    739
    Location:
    U.S.
    nope not me. and i refuse to use it due to privacy concerns.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.