Skype

[simongr]

Actually, that is called "split tunnelling" and is very common to disable split tunnelling with VPN connections. It is perceived as a security risk to have access to both the local network and VPN at the same time. But it can cause some other issues such as not being able to print to a local network printer while the VPN tunnel is active.

This is definitely a personal bug bear of mine. I connect wirelessly to my home network to enable internet usage and printing when at home - I often leave my computer on and use it in the same way that I might use my home computer (say if I have a game running on home comp and mother-of-simongr wants to chat to simongr siblings overseas when she visits us) as another terminal. If however I want to check my work email (something comes through on BB and needs to be read more effectively say) I have to VPN top the office and then cant print the attached emails. I could leave the VPN connected at all times - but then our webservers at work block sites like this... sometimes...

 

[NM]

This is definitely a personal bug bear of mine. I connect wirelessly to my home network to enable internet usage and printing when at home - I often leave my computer on and use it in the same way that I might use my home computer (say if I have a game running on home comp and mother-of-simongr wants to chat to simongr siblings overseas when she visits us) as another terminal. If however I want to check my work email (something comes through on BB and needs to be read more effectively say) I have to VPN top the office and then cant print the attached emails. I could leave the VPN connected at all times - but then our webservers at work block sites like this... sometimes...

Oh, tell me about it

It causes us great grief on a daily basis as people complain about having to open and drop VPN sessions all day as they move between different networks. So we developed a network design that meets both the scrutiny of the security boffins and work methods of the staff .... but now nobody will fund the implementation!

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Back on topic for a change

Posted on Network World today is a story about Skype software collecting details from user's PCs.


Of course any software can do this, and most software licensing or end user agreements (that we just agree to and don't read) permits the vendor to do this. But my concern is that we may not know just what nasties may be added in the next or subsequent version of the software. Once the world is hooked, they could add almost anything they like to the code and we may never know.

If Skype was from MS, would your concern still exist? Or Google, or Yahoo? One could argue that MS and Apple have already used such tactics to improve their lock on their users (or extract more money from them).
I am far more concerned about Google's ability to implement '1984 v2.0' than I am about Skype. YMMV.

mt

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Oh, tell me about it

It causes us great grief on a daily basis as people complain about having to open and drop VPN sessions all day as they move between different networks.

That is so familiar

 

[NM]

If Skype was from MS, would your concern still exist? Or Google, or Yahoo? One could argue that MS and Apple have already used such tactics to improve their lock on their users (or extract more money from them).
I am far more concerned about Google's ability to implement '1984 v2.0' than I am about Skype. YMMV.

mt

You bet I would still be concerned .... I don't trust MS any more than anyone else. But the fact that Skype is a peer-to-peer application (as all VoIP needs to be to some extent), and knowing a little of the history of the people behind Skype, I am a little concerned and would not rush to upgrade to a new version until been well tested by those more paranoid than me.

 

[albatross710]

Now with a Flagfall

Has anyone else noticed that Skype quietly introduced a flagfall on Skypeout calls in Australia?

Last year a 1 minute call from Skype to an Australian landline realy would cost 2.7 cents but now they have a 5.9 cent connection charge in the first minute, so 1st minute is 8.6 cents, 2nd minute add 2.7 cents.

I must admit I was wonderinghow long it would take to catch on!

On the Skype website they talk about the "*connection fee" but don't define it in monetary terms per country.

They would have to be printing cash, given that they have no international network traffic costs.

Cheers

 

[oz_mark]

Connecton Fees are published here:

Connection fee for SkypeOut calls

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Re: Now with a Flagfall

Has anyone else noticed that Skype quietly introduced a flagfall on Skypeout calls in Australia?

Last year a 1 minute call from Skype to an Australian landline realy would cost 2.7 cents but now they have a 5.9 cent connection charge in the first minute, so 1st minute is 8.6 cents, 2nd minute add 2.7 cents.

I must admit I was wonderinghow long it would take to catch on!

On the Skype website they talk about the "*connection fee" but don't define it in monetary terms per country.

They would have to be printing cash, given that they have no international network traffic costs.

Cheers

Not knowing how the interconnection into the PSTN works, I can only speculate - but I think they were previously sucking up the connection cost to the local phone. Now they are passing it on - as they've done the maths on the average call time vs. average interconnection fee and determined this charging model is more representative of their costs.
As for Skype printing money, eBay has to get their US$2.6B back somehow

mt

 

[ANDREWCX]

Slightly different angle. Skype is partnered with some rewards programs in the US and Uk (but unfortunately not in Oz) - of interest is an indirect way to earn priority club points or Alaska or Delta Miles... -

see:
Skype available cashback, points, miles, & coupons from RewardsDB.com - US Offers
Skype available cashback, points, miles, & coupons from RewardsDB.com - UK Offers

 

[NM]

Network World article on a new worm targeting Skype (16th April, 2007).

A worm targeting Skype's VoIP application is harvesting e-mail addresses and directing users to a range of sites hosting other malicious software, security vendors said Monday.

Once a machine is infected, the worm sends a malicious link via instant messages to other users in person's Skype contact list, according to F-Secure's blog.

 

[simongr]

I guess the risk is mitigated by having decent anti-virus software, using a mac and only using skype for calls to landlines rather than mobiles.

 

[trooper]

I'm with serfty....

Didn't understand ANY of that!!!

 

[serfty]

I'm with serfty....

Didn't understand ANY of that!!!

The frightening this is that I do understand most of it; :shock:

... it was just a bit heavy to read at 10pm on a Tuesday night.

 

[trooper]

Ooooh! Now I feel dumb......

Ah well... on my own "specialist areas" I can speak jargon as well as the next guy!!

(Given that one of those areas is Skydiving I'm not sure that would go down too well on THIS site!! Hmmm.... Over 1000 of the flights I've done - from C -152 to Lockheed Starlifter.... have been... "ONE WAY"... ie.. only UP!!! )

 

[NM]

(Given that one of those areas is Skydiving I'm not sure that would go down too well on THIS site!! Hmmm.... Over 1000 of the flights I've done - from C -152 to Lockheed Starlifter.... have been... "ONE WAY"... ie.. only UP!!! )

I have no intention of jumping out if a perfectly serviceable aircraft. And I make it a policy to ensure landings = take-offs when planning a trip.

 

[trooper]

We tend to argue that there is no such thing as a "perfectly serviceable aircraft".... [/quote]
I certainly had my doubts about the serviceability of the "aircraft" (I use that term loosely) that took Mrs NM up for her tandem jump. I was glad she had the parachute on her back from the time she entered the aircraft. The POB at take-off was 5. The POB on landing was 1.

 

[mainly tailfirst]

I guess the risk is mitigated by having decent anti-virus software, using a mac and only using skype for calls to landlines rather than mobiles.

The exploit doesn't appear to care about mobiles v landlines - it's a pure skype to skype thing. Well, if infected, your client could send an IM via SMS and that would cost some money - not nice.
Given the exorbitant completion charges that most mobile operators, well, charge, I've never really felt the temptation to call mobiles via Skype - except for the US of course (where the callee gets slugged for most of it). V.glad my employer provides me with a phone, even if they do use it to call me at odd times.

Now if I could get them to buy me a new Mac rather than this horrid Dell.

mt

 

[simongr]

V.glad my employer provides me with a phone, even if they do use it to call me at odd times.

Now if I could get them to buy me a new Mac rather than this horrid Dell.

mt

I also have company mobile but after a few $400-$600 bills I thought abut cost saving moves so that my boss woul not omment on $400 dinners

Also working out how to sneak a macbook pro to replace my Dell Lat 410....

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Also working out how to sneak a macbook pro to replace my Dell Lat 410....

Just paint it black, put a Dell decal over the Apple logo (abomination that would be), install XP on it and you're done.

Just expect wierd looks from people when you dual boot back into OS X to do your iPhoto edits

mt

 

[Elvin Yeo]

Skype is a really useful tool. I am using it for awhile and i have no problem with them.