5 ms·
I understand the concept of having a secure centralized network. I'm interested in attempting to learn about such one myself (and perhaps one day contribute or
by pwnna 13y ago
I understand the concept of having a secure centralized network. I'm interested in attempting to learn about such one myself (and perhaps one day contribute or implement one). It just seem like the original comment said that security is totally fine now, which I feel like is incorrect.
For Skype's security model, I thought that before MS bought them they had E2E encryption (sure, it can be MITM'ed, but the conversation's that's not MITM'ed cannot be decoded easily, whereas they could be now).
(Is it fair to say that I verify _some_, not all, of my friends' identity via the way the talk? I feel like if I have E2E encryption, I would be fine as a MITM would have a pretty difficult time faking how some of my friends talk.)
- jtheory 13y agoMitM doesn't involve anyone faking how your friends talk -- it's always just passing your actual packets back and forth, but recording them first. E2E encryption is only as secure as the key exchange, so if the central Skype server gives you and your friend the keys you need to encrypt/decrypt then just passes along your E2E-encrypted packets... anyone who was able to snag the keys and has access to the encrypted packets can decrypt everything just as you can.
- pwnna 13y agoYeah, I realized that immediately after I posted.
- wmf 13y ago...before MS bought them they had E2E encryption... Is there any evidence that they removed E2E crypto for voice calls? People keep saying this but their reason seems to be "because MS".
- drivebyacct2 13y agoNot a single drop (that I've seen, and I'm a sucker for clicking on all the Skype-fud-bait links)