Can any recommend an open-source Skype?

[Ron Obvious]

I only use Skype for text messages and occasional file up- and download.

Lately, it's been beginning to bug me with ads in the chat window and, additionally, I've serious security concerns with it being owned by NSA-friendly Microsoft now. I used to run an older version, but I just got signed off by Microsoft for not having the latest version.

I used to have nice open source chat programs like GAIM, which operated in a minimalist fashion and incorporated most known chat protocols but, as far as I'm aware, not Skype. Sadly, all my contacts have now moved to Skype and it's no longer an option.

I know that Skype used to be nearly impossible to reverse-engineer because of all the pains they had taking to prevent it. Is there a decent open source equivalent that will also run on Windows 8?

To clarify, I do need it to connect to Skype users so alternative protocols are not an option.

Thanks in advance.

[defacto7]

1. As far as I know M$ pretty much

closed up that hole after buying skype; that was the plan. I remember having access to skype users several years ago before the buyout.

I'll stand corrected if someone has a different answer to this. I'm not up on skype closed source protocol but you would probably have to fake or hack a way in. Maybe someone knows if skype can be setup in wine or a virtual box of windows on a Linux box. Open source directly on Windows is probably guarded or locked out. That's how they play you know.

The only possibility I know of to get away from NSA and the like is on a UNIX based system using proxy servers and a rather high encryption method.

Even if you can use skype with open source software on Windows you would have no privacy from data scraping.

[Ron Obvious]

2. I feared as much...

It's not so much the data collection I was worried about (though I dislike it, of course), but I just don't trust what I'm running on my own system anymore.

I worked in the MS systems division many years ago (pre 9/11), and I never heard even the slightest rumours about backdoors or anything, except maybe as a joke. I'm sure they would have quickly been detected in those days, as the systems were so much less complicated then, anyway. Now, I honestly can't say I'd find it difficult to believe any longer from what we've been finding out the past few years.

Thanks for answering the question.

[defacto7]

3. Maybe a version of Linux would give you

a little more confidence. Without sounding like a pitch, ha, I've been free of security difficulties for as long as I remember... no hacks, no intrusions, no worms nothing and I pretty much control what goes in and out as far as data. Oh, I get hit thousands of times a day on my servers, mostly from China but no problems yet.

You've worked in the MS systems division, that's cool. I'll have to say I never had any difficulties cracking into Win98, 2000 or XP. I worked with a couple of networks with a couple hundred machines each and people would get themselves locked out all the time on their secure machines or personal machines or got hit with some virus. I load in a Linux shell and 99% of the time I was in within 3 minutes. The other times I just used that little UNIX shell that comes with all the MS distros that no one seems to know was there except some tecs and that was my backdoor so to speak. I don't mean the repair shell I mean the one below that. I wonder if M$ still has that shell in the new distros? I haven't used MS in so long I really don't know what's in there.

It's too bad security is such an issue, I wish it were not. It makes business for someone though.

[Ron Obvious]

4. Security

Yes, Microsoft were rather shackled by having to retrofit security into an old operating system designed for single user mode and before the internet, and without sacrificing compatibility. All that was redesigned from scratch with NT by Dave Cutler and his team.

I was never very happy with the filesystem security model with its ACLs, SACLs, DACLs and what have you, which I thought rather over-elaborate compared to the simpler but cleaner *NIX implementation which would cover 99% of what you'd need and was much easier to use and work with.

Of course, if you have physical access to a computer, only a highly encrypted file system will keep you from cracking it rather easily. Relatively few would have been willing to sacrifice the processor cycles that would have taken to maintain, though. At least in those days (I left shortly before Windows 2K came out).

[DavidG_WI]

5. Tox?

http://tox.im/ Was recently posted over on /. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/09/01/2210246/tox-a-skype-replacement-built-on-privacy-first Haven't tried it myself yet but it has a Github page, so yeah, it's OSS.

I wonder if the various Pidgin.im encryption tools will work fine for Skype as there is a Skype plugin for Pidgin.

[PyaarRevolution]

6. Original Skype funding or development.

As far as I know, I believe Skype was bankrolled by Kazaa, the file sharing service similar to Napster. This was their way of laundering the money I suspect. The security connection to the NSA you suspect may have been part of setting this service up and agreeing for the U.S. government looking the other way.
If I am wrong about Kazaa's connection to Skype, please anyone here feel free to correct me.

An alternative I would suggest is Logitech's chat service which I get the impression has had superior video for a while from what I've heard but it's likely only accessible if you're using their products.

[PowerToThePeople]

7. Pretty sure asterisk can do video conferencing. n/t