Microsoft changes skype supernodes architecture to support wiretapping

http://skype-open-source.blogspot.ch/2012/05/microsoft-wiretapping-on-skype-now.html

by smartial_arts • 14 years ago

253 102 14 years ago

skype-open-source.blogspot.ch

mtgx2• 14 years ago

I think these 2 older articles support that conclusion as well:

http://www.conceivablytech.com/8108/products/microsoft-may-a...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/12/nsa_offers_billions_...

All of the sudden the outrageous $8.5 billion price Microsoft paid for Skype (and twice as much as any other competing bid) starts to make sense.

s_henry_paulson• 14 years ago

Just thinking out loud, but wouldn't it be possible to build a simple skype-addon that would look at your network traffic and be able to tell if your voice conversations were going through a supernode and not p2p.

This way you would get a quick indicator of whether or not you were likely being monitored.

wslh• 14 years ago

This means new opportunities in the VoIP market. Than you Microsoft

mtgx2• 14 years ago

In the short term, I'm hoping Google Hangouts will be a viable alternative for both normal users and enterprise users.

In the long term, I hope the WebRTC protocol will disrupt both of them.

kevindication• 14 years ago

Why are Google Hangouts a viable alternative for people who care about privacy? (Ostensibly the point of this article.)

tinfoilhat2• 14 years ago

first, make yourself familiar with WebRTC. it will require server side signaling. demo by google: http://www.webrtc.org/running-the-demos#TOC-Demos sending srtp session keys over that signaling server sounds interesting

mrb2• 14 years ago

"Microsoft has replaced P2P Skype supernodes with thousands of Linux boxes" from http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-s...

Wow. Does it make it the first, large scale, internal(¹) deployment of non-Windows infrastructure by Microsoft? The question is: why? Do their engineers managed to convince the company that Windows is ill-suited to the task? I am quite stupefied.

(¹) "Internal" as opposed to situations where Microsoft inherited non-Windows infrastructure from external acquisitions, such as when they acquired Hotmail in 1997 and their 5000 FreeBSD servers (eventually migrated to Windows.)

Tyrannosaurs• 14 years ago

I was under the impression that they've used Linux in the past effectively as a firewall for their internet sites. Whether this was a temporary response to a specific situation or a semi-permanent thing I don't know but I recall reading that there was a period where Microsoft.com was returning non-Windows header information.

While they obviously don't publicise it I think they've probably used Linux where it's appropriate for some time now.

ch0wn• 14 years ago

If I remember correctly this was done by Akamai and not directly by themselves, while this time the nodes are effectively under Microsoft's control.

TazeTSchnitzel• 14 years ago

Heck, MS contributed to the Linux kernel so it could be virtualised well.

bifrost2• 14 years ago

MSFT used Linux for DNS servers for a while, its unclear why they did that since they had so many other FreeBSD acquisitions anyways. Some loadbalancers returned BSD/Linux fingerprints when scanned, but its unlikely that MSFT actually used Linux in the direct path anywhere.

hamidpalo• 14 years ago

Windows Server powers Messenger and the upcoming notification service, which do exactly the same thing as Skype: messaging and video.

Moving an entire service to a different OS isn't quite that simple, so the simplest thing was to just add capacity using whatever was running at the moment.

eli2• 14 years ago

Do their engineers managed to convince the company that Windows is ill-suited to the task?

They acquired skype. So the question would be, Is it worth rewriting a ton of working code just so we can say it runs on our platform.

I'm pretty sure Hotmail ran Linux or BSD for quite a while after Microsoft bought them (though probably not any more)

rbanffy• 14 years ago

IIRC, there was a failed attempt to move it to Windows NT 4.

mrb2• 14 years ago

But no code needed to be rewritten. Skype supernodes were working on Windows before (on Windows machines in the P2P network.) Microsoft effectively stopped supporting Windows!

untog3• 14 years ago

Hotmail ran on Linux for a very long time.

Skype may yet transition to Windows servers, but MS are hardly going to insist they make it their first and only priority. That would be insane.

rdl• 14 years ago

I think you mean FreeBSD.

bifrost2• 14 years ago

Hotmail never ran on Linux, it was all FreeBSD.

aerique• 14 years ago

The implication with wiretapping (and the NSA acronym) is that it is about security and safety against criminals and terrorists. I've always wondered how much of a business advantage it is to be able to tap into the world's biggest VoIP network?

I've seen Skype being used a lot in businesses both centralized and decentralized.

EwanToo• 14 years ago

The change is interesting (though not that new it seems), but Microsoft flatly state that calls do not go over supernodes [1]:

"This has not changed the underlying nature of Skype’s peer-to-peer (P2P) architecture, in which supernodes simply allow users to find one another (calls do not pass through supernodes)."

Now obviously this could be a lie, but it should be fairly simple to prove one way or another - simply force a call between 2 NAT'd clients, and trace where the voice packets go, it'll either be to one of these newly centralised supernodes, or somewhere else?

1 - http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-s...

sspiff• 14 years ago

Calls don't go over supernodes: I frequently call people on Skype for a conference, with my brother participating on the same network, and when the call drops, my brother and me can still talk. Might be that this is an exception for extremely local connections, but I've had similar experiences in other situations as well.

0x0• 14 years ago

That doesn't prove anything at all.

sirclueless• 14 years ago

Read the blog post. Calls still don't go over supernodes by default, it was just changed so that specific calls can be routed over them if desired.

yread• 14 years ago

wow a 2 month old blog post with a HN comment as a single source?

To keep OT: Perhaps they will be soon required to be able to wiretap http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/security/111150/eu-seeks-to-...

It will also bring benefits to end users if the client's machines won't become supernodes. And perhaps avoid the problems from last December http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2010/12/understanding-tod...

qq663• 14 years ago

Or, you know, centralizing their architecture so they can own all your communications and sell you ads like every other Tom Dick and Harry.

einhverfr3• 14 years ago

I don't think so. They wouldn't be able to target the ads without a lot of effort.... That's a LOT of voice recognition going on in a setting where people are not trying to dictate.

qq663• 14 years ago

Most companies these days are hoarding data with no current abilities to analyze it for profit. They're rightly predicting that analytical capabilities will improve and they don't want to be the ones living in that world without massive amounts of customer data.

omh• 14 years ago

Contrary to the article, Skype didn't previously use supernodes for traffic between NATed clients. They were just used for NAT hole punching and then the traffic was direct between the clients.

It is possible that after receiving a wiretap request Skype will route your calls differently. But they could have rolled this out by just upgrading the supernode code and keeping supernodes distributed.

It seems far more likely that they made this change for stability/reliability. Particularly after the Skype network crashes that have happened in the past.

lgeek• 14 years ago

Well, you need a 3rd machine to route traffic between two machines if both are behind NAT^. It was my understanding that supernodes were (also) used for this.

^Unless you can predict the translated source port

sharjeel• 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punching

jiunec• 14 years ago

The following research seems to suggest voice can and does go through super nodes under certain conditions:

http://saikat.guha.cc/pub/iptps06-skype/

Would it be too much of a stretch to assume the clients can be directed to use one of the new Linux super nodes at will?

scrrr• 14 years ago

Recently I have found https://jitsi.org/ which seems to be a possible alternative for Skype.

jjguy• 14 years ago

Even if the sensational headline is accurate, it's not worth the conspiracy theories:

(1) Microsoft is a US Corporation

(2) With the Skype acquisition, Microsoft (arguably) becomes a telecommunications carrier.

(3) CALEA passed in 1994, "requiring telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic in real-time." [a]

My (unfounded, optimistic) speculation is the skype acquisition was strategic positioning in the mobile market: seamless cutover to skype when your phone has WiFi.

a - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_L...

tijs2• 14 years ago

So what happens when your not a US citizen, the wiretapping option is turned off then you think?

dspillett2• 14 years ago

As a fine upstanding non-US citizen you are simply not considered by that law, and so can't be considered as much as you might like by the companies implementing systems that have to comply with that law. Microsoft's options are move to another country (not going to happen), ignore the law (not going to happen as it could cost them dear), or implement the law even though it might cause problems in markets outside the US.

For services hosted in other countries the law in those countries might well have something it can say/do, but even if they do successfully put their feet down MS could just pull the services out (costing the country if the investment in equipment/services/employees is significant) and move them elsewhere. They might be able to add the protection needed under those non-US laws the nodes in the affected areas, it depends on the exact wording and enforcement of the law, but even if they did you lose that protection as soon as you hit a node elsewhere anyway.

Practically speaking if this is a concern for you (and it might legitimately be: contrary to what governments seem to think people and companies that are not criminal, not just the criminals/terrorists, have good reasons to want some privacy generally and more specifically those in competition with MS (amongst others) would not want to trust them as the gate-keepers) then your only option is to find an alternative to Skype. That isn't going to be easy though: any commercial provider is going to comply with the same regulations otherwise they'll find it difficult to operate in the US market (or the Chinese market which is growing much faster and is even more spy-y than the US) and even if you find something you then need to convince other to use it too.

awakeasleep• 14 years ago

Your comment seems to be built on the assumption that if the government has passed laws to make what it does legal, then we shouldn't worry— nothing conspiratorial or against our interests is occurring.

crististm• 14 years ago

http://www.google.com/search?q=if+the+president+does+it+it%2...

praxulus2• 14 years ago

He's just saying it's not conspiratorial, it's blatantly part of the U.S. Code. Microsoft isn't colluding with the government behind closed doors, they're complying with the laws necessary to move into a slightly different market.

Whether it's for or against our interest was never addressed.

charonn0• 14 years ago

Why, then, wasn't Skype required to implement CALEA-compliant functionality before Microsoft bought them?

msbarnett• 14 years ago

After CALEA was extended to online services in 2006, Skype was legally required to implement wiretapping. They didn't, and stated they had no intention of complying with CALEA publicly, but never seemed to have been targeted by the DOJ over their non-compliance.

But they were still legally required to have done so, and the DOJ could have sent them up shit creek if doing so ever became a priority.

What's changed now? Probably just that Microsoft's legal division wasn't comfortable having that kind of regulatory non-compliance under their watch. Microsoft gets a lot of scrutiny from the DOJ and probably aren't particularly keen on being hauled up on new charges over this issue.

Tsagadai• 14 years ago

Previously Skype was registered in Luxembourg, maybe it is because they are now under US ownership.

alttab3• 14 years ago

Did we really think we could trust Microsoft with such an acquisition?

toyg• 14 years ago

You used to trust a shady Europe-based private corporation; now you have to trust a shady US-based private corporation. Regardless of their specific track records, there is nothing intrinsically different between the two.

alttab3• 14 years ago

Except executive management and leadership

xSwag• 14 years ago

What are some good open source alternatives for skype?

yungchin• 14 years ago

Here's a start: http://alternativeto.net/SearchResult.aspx?search=tag%3avoip...

aw3c2• 14 years ago

https://jitsi.org/

gdr• 14 years ago

http://guardianproject.info/wiki/OSTN

sdfjkl2• 14 years ago

VSee (http://vsee.com/) doesn't look bad, but it's also closed sourced. Something built on open standards (SIP/XMPP) like Jitsi is likely to be more transparent because you won't have to guess what some mysterious supernode does and doesn't do with your data.

Good luck getting your non-techie friends to use that though. Skype became popular because it just worked, which at that point had not reliably been achieved even for plain voice calls, much less video.

maked002• 14 years ago

Duh, never heard of hostile take-over. Microsoft has a long history of simply buying out technologies and then deep sixing them.

maked002• 14 years ago

Its called a hostile takeover. MS has a long history of buying tech companies out and then deep-sixing the tech forever.

tunnuz• 14 years ago

I admit I don't know much about the internals of this, but maybe it's because, by serving as a node to forward other transmissions, the former Skype client drained people's mobile broadband data budgets. In this way they avoid this.

hastur• 14 years ago

Wiretapping sounds so innocent. Of course, all US comms must be available for lawful wiretaps in fight against crime.

No, what we're dealing with here is a dragnet cast upon the comms of users around the world, who aren't protected by US Constitution and thus can be tapped at will by US agencies and even private corporations without any warrants or oversight.

For instance, if Microsoft wanted to learn about technical or trade secrets of competitors communicating through Skype (say, a couple of start-up founders), now they're free to do it.

Also, if a US agency wanted to put on a no-fly list some people who casually converse about what morons those TSA people are or how all US administrations support the Israeli regime that commits war crimes against Palestinians, now it's very easy to do.

HarshaThota• 14 years ago

For instance, if Microsoft wanted to learn about technical or trade secrets of competitors communicating through Skype (say, a couple of start-up founders), now they're free to do it.

Is that any different from using, say, Gmail or Google Apps? Not saying that Google is looking at that data but this is a problem with essentially every web-based communication tool. People shouldn't have an expectation of privacy or security just because it's a company they know/like or it's a popular tool.

pfraze• 14 years ago

It's a risky situation, if you ask me. Consider the data that tools collect on us:

- location and contact history (cell phones)

- message history and address book (email, social network)

- interests/activities (calendars, event tools, feed subscriptions)

- browsing history

As an engineer, think about the evil fun you could have with that data. You could really mess somebody up if you didn't like them.

brudgers• 14 years ago

I've long thought that Google's ability to track searches from Microsoft IP addresses was one of the reasons for the development of Bing - i.e. Bing's value is, in part, that it plugs an information leak and siphons other leaks into Microsoft's data mine.

tptacek3• 14 years ago

For instance, if Microsoft wanted to learn about technical or trade secrets of competitors communicating through Skype (say, a couple of start-up founders), now they're free to do it.

What? No they're not.

thebigshane2• 14 years ago

It does sound outlandish but... what specifically is stopping them?

cooldeal• 14 years ago

Sad to see a two and a half month old blog article with a flame bait headline and no references or proof being lapped up by HN.

robert_nsu• 14 years ago

Yeah. Personally, I take all articles with a grain of salt when the author bandies about terms like M$.

runjake• 14 years ago

The National Security Agency put out an RFP for Skype decrypting/intercepting awhile back and this was the first thing that popped back into my mind when Microsoft bought Skype. Then, when M announced they were replacing the supernodes, it only re-confirmed what was going on, in my mind.

guelo• 14 years ago

This is the kind of thing that makes it annoying that just about all interesting internet companies are in the US. Why can't Europe step up with some competition?

briandear2• 14 years ago

Entrepreneurship is far more difficult in much of Europe. It's much more difficult to set up a corporation, access capital, especially speculative capital (i.e. VC money) as well as some fairly strict taxation and regulatory schemes. This article: http://buswk.co/Hltv5F explains a few if those factors.

qznc• 14 years ago

Skype was originally a swedish company until it was aquired by eBay.

rocky1138• 14 years ago

Estonian, I thought.

briandear2• 14 years ago

Remember Microsoft has major contracts and relationships with the Chinese and Korean government, among others. This stuff is the dark underside of a Microsoft aquisition. Of course, they have relationships with the US govt as well, but Americans are obstensibly protected by the Constitution -- those protections (as well as due process) don't French exist in many countries with whom Microsoft does business.

ck2• 14 years ago

It's amazing how citizen rights to privacy has completely eroded while their governments now get to operate in near complete secrecy against them.

jaytaylor• 14 years ago

SKYPE GOES OPEN SOURCE......FLAWLESS VICTORY: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/1799228

crazygringo• 14 years ago

The title is clearly a completely unsupported hypothesis.

Why do HN mods change perfectly good titles seemingly at a whim, and then when there's a linkbait title screaming to be changed, then don't touch it?

smsm42• 14 years ago

The evidence on this one is rather thin. It takes a speculation in a comment on HN about what Microsoft could be doing - without any proof that they are actually doing it, adds some code that proves something Microsoft claims they do not do could be done if they wanted to do it - and the conclusion is Microsoft definitely has sold everybody to the Man. I think a jump from "they could be doing it" to "they did it" requires more proof than that.

Scene_Cast2• 14 years ago

This is for anyone who was assuming that Skype wasn't wire-tappable. But then again, I don't know why anyone would assume that in the first place.

mmariani• 14 years ago

Any privacy we could had using Skype was dead the same day MSFT bought them. It was just a matter of time to make it official.

What's gonna be from now on? Stay put, and watch it.

Someone• 14 years ago

I think it is more likely because they want to build a social network for collaboration around Office 365, Yammer and Skype, and maybe, be able to give some uptime/quality guarantees to customers (things would not necessarily be better, but more under control of Microsoft)

If you have a distributed system but want to wiretap some calls, I think it would be easier to have some back door for instructing clients "whenever you make a call/get a call from one of these numbers, CC us".

tinfoilhat2• 14 years ago

omg, I've just only now realized, my phone company can wiretap all my calls

Microsoft changes skype supernodes architecture to support wiretapping

Related Stories