Re: Is Skype Risky??
From: Winged (Winged_at_nofollow.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:43:12 -0500
Jim Watt wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:41:57 GMT, David <email@example.com> wrote:
>>As far as I know and from what I've read it is safe. But your phone
>>conversations could still potentially be heard if someone was using a
>>sniffer on the line.
> which particular line might that be ?
> If you mean the data line, the traffic is encrypted and although one
> might expect the GCHQ/NSA types to have the capability, there
> is a lot of other things they are worried about and their time don't
> come cheap. The goverment of Dharkistan, known for its bad
> human rights record, has not got the technology.
> If you mean a POTS line receiving a skypeout call then you don't
> need 'a sniffer' you need the traditional pair of clips and a
> telephone earpiece as per usual. And lots of free time.
> More of concern is what the Skype network is up to on your
> Jim Watt
Skype "appears" to be as secure as those you chat/exchange files with.
Point to point pc commo "seems" to cloud across multiple channels
Through multiple intermediaries to the endpoint. It also "shares
bandwidth" with other skype users since high speed connections become
nodes. Reminds me of freenet modified. Commo seems efficient. I can't
yet discuss how secure the tool is, but I have seen no behavior that
makes it specifically risky if one limits their conversations to those
folks they know. Works better than most clients I have seen broadband
to dial-up. I haven't played with broadband to POTS (fee service). But
the basic Skype tool seems to be reasonably robust and has a niche that
is more secure and performs better than other common free tools I have