A Backdoor in Skype for Mac OS X

Re:A Backdoor in Skype for Mac OS X by ht85 on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @01:35PM (#13169289)

> Unless you're wearing a heavy tin foil hat and think the coding mistake for Heartbleed was intentional. I guess I can't dissuade you from that train of thought.

Are you addressing me personally? What does that have to do with what I said?

> A backdoor is considered to be deliberate and obfuscated from easy discovery, with the intent to be secret access.

Isn't that the case here?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Backdoor in Skype for Mac OS X by brianbarker on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:16PM (#13169800)

- Not you personally. I have experience with HN comments. Just covering my bases.

- No, it's not the case here. Unless you can prove it. There's no evidence it was done intentionally.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Backdoor in Skype for Mac OS X by ht85 on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:54PM (#13170894)

When I say it was done intentionally, I mean opening an authentication-less was intentional.

It could be disguised as an access for their own service and the real purpose be mass surveillance, or it could be a simple mistake in a big codebase, but the "door" is definitely not a bug.

Even though nowadays we keep hearing about nefarious backdoors, they used to simply refer to hidden service entrances for software creators, a completely legitimate use.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Backdoor in Skype for Mac OS X by linkregister on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @05:10PM (#13171601)

Indeed, this is a valid definition of backdoor.

[ Parent | on HN ]