republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
Expert: Skype Hard to Block
Packet shaping expert chimes in
(old news - 11:36AM Saturday Apr 22 2006)
tags: hardware · VoIP · networking
There's a growing number of companies eager to make a profit by selling hardware that filters Skype and/or p2p traffic. In China it's a particularly hot market, the government run Shanghai Telecom employing the use of hardware by Narus in an effort to eliminate VoIP competition. But is Skype really so easily blockable?

According to this article over at Extreme VoIP by the CTO of packet shaping hardware vendor APConnections, blocking the softphone isn't quite so easy. "To date all my common tricks for determining VOIP traffic on the Internet have been thwarted by the Skype designers. I have no idea if this result was a deliberate attempt to thwart detection or just an unintended side effect of their design," he says.

Related:
  1. T-Mobile UMA Service Expanding
  2. Ooma Devices Go On Sale
  3. Ooma Drops Device Prices
  4. AT&T Introduces New Home Manager System
  5. AT&T Femtocells in 2009
  6. Wednesday Evening Links
  7. Comcast Confirms Homepoint Launch
  8. Metrocast Offers Fiber To The Home
Forums » Expert: Skype Hard to Block
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA

haha 0wn3d


GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast


1 edit

Re: haha 0wn3d

said by jose3030 See Profile :


If someone can figure out how to camouflage something, sooner or later, someone else will figure out how to ferret it out. The expert from APConnections just hasn't figured it out yet, but I am sure he will eventually. Besides the techniques he highlighted in his article, there are other techniques, used by the NSA and other spy agencies that can determine end points and type of traffic.

One technique to affect voice calls involves the modification of packet forwarding thru the introduction of jitter that can scramble all voice calls but that has no noticeable effect on other traffic. You don't have to block the voice call, but just make it unintelligible.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page

G_Poobah

join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY


1 edit

Re: haha 0wn3d

And what TECHNICAL benefit does adding jitter to any transmission add? name one...single...benefit?

There is none.. Yet you say they can and will and should do it?

You of course, have given us proof that Net Neutrality is REQUIRED to prevent this kind of thing. There is no technical reason whatsoever for the ONLY way to disrupt a VoIP call to exist. Thus, any company that uses said technique, is actively, not passively, ACTIVELY interfering with commerce. I can't wait to see Verizon or AT&T or Comcast get caught when an engineer spills his guts to the press about the devices they are using to interfere. The backlash is exactly what we need to crush these monopolies once and for all.
--
The central injustice of capitalism is the exploitation and alienation of labor.

phattieg

join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..

A codec can be made overnight if someone works hard enough. By the time these people start blocking all VoIP traffic, another codec and port will be used to mask the existing data. I am not worried, as my ISP does NOT manipulate my VoIP traffic to my Asterisk server. I can handle 40 active calls at once using ILBC, and 15 using uLAW. The day it becomes impossible to use VoIP in the US on a standard residential line is the day I move to another country with FTTH, or fast DSL, because at the rate the US is moving, we'll never beat the speeds offered overseas. It's a shame too.

go-go-OpenSource

@verizon.net

Re: haha 0wn3d

Asterisk looks really cool. I have to watch that Systm episode about it and play with that Asterisk @ home server. I hope it starts making it way into the Enterprise soon.
wilburyan

join:2002-08-01
There is one problem with your "Jitter" idea... how do you target Skype specificly?

What if the provider is delivering there own VOIP or multimedia service through the same connection?

GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast

Re: haha 0wn3d

said by wilburyan See Profile :

There is one problem with your "Jitter" idea... how do you target Skype specificly?

What if the provider is delivering there own VOIP or multimedia service through the same connection?
Comcast, Charter, others??, don't use std VOIP like Skype or Vonage does. They actually use a separate RF frequency on the cable(one not shared with the cable modem) to provide voice services. So their voice services don't share that std data internet channel. They use a private, separate path until they hand a voice call off to the POTS provider at a gateway. Therefore, anything they do to the data channel won't affect their voice services.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page

G_Poobah

join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY

Re: haha 0wn3d

Wrong, wrong and wrong. More lies and FUD from the corporate drone.

Packetcable 1.0 (and 1.5) specs use EXACTLY the same frequencies as regular IP traffic. In fact, when you make a voice call over your comcast phone, you are giving up some of your bandwidth to make that call. It's hard to see downstream, but VERY easy to prove upstream. Start an FTP upload to a site, let the speed stabilize. Then make a comcast call. BOOM, you've lost about 7KB/sec transfer speed while the call is in progress.

Lie #2: The cable modem itself, being docsis compliant, uses EXACTLY the same pathway to the CMTS. If your CMTS is overwhelmed, or sucks, your digital voice will suck too. However, they have the OPTION to offload the traffic destined for the POTS network, by creating a separate Voice Path to the Media Gateway. Now we all know that comcrap isn't going to run a separate circuit to each CMTS just to give their voice a clean path, so they grab some channels from the uBRxxxx at the CMTS, and take it AWAY from your paid for bandwidth. This is a mini 2nd tier network, which they work very hard to keep quiet. It's EXACTLY the same thing they want to do with the 2nd tier for ANY traffic they can extort from providers. Pull off some channels, and give it a dedicated pathway, without actually 'building' a better internet to provide 'better' service. Steal from the poor, to pay to the rich, that's their motto.

Asking Retire Rich to explain a TECHNICAL answer to corporate extortion is like asking a fish how to ride a bike.
--
The central injustice of capitalism is the exploitation and alienation of labor.
IsdnWolf
Premium
join:2002-05-24
Cleveland, TN

Re: haha 0wn3d

In charter areas, we use an entire diffrent channel (frequency). Granted, it could be done in the same channel as voice, but the design was to use an entire diffrent channel.

Also, in most, but not all Charter Markets, an entire diffrent CMTS is used for voice. In east TN, we are using seperate CMTS's and seperate channels.

GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast

Re: haha 0wn3d

said by IsdnWolf See Profile :

In charter areas, we use an entire diffrent channel (frequency). Granted, it could be done in the same channel as voice, but the design was to use an entire diffrent channel.

Also, in most, but not all Charter Markets, an entire diffrent CMTS is used for voice. In east TN, we are using seperate CMTS's and seperate channels.
You mean Poobah was wrong. Again?
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page

insomniac84

join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

One technique to affect voice calls involves the modification of packet forwarding thru the introduction of jitter that can scramble all voice calls but that has no noticeable effect on other traffic. You don't have to block the voice call, but just make it unintelligible.
Wouldn't that affect online games?

GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast

Re: haha 0wn3d

said by insomniac84 See Profile :

said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

One technique to affect voice calls involves the modification of packet forwarding thru the introduction of jitter that can scramble all voice calls but that has no noticeable effect on other traffic. You don't have to block the voice call, but just make it unintelligible.
Wouldn't that affect online games?
It could. But induced changes in latency(ping times) could be less troublesome to online games than to a voice conversation, as long as they don't get too lengthy.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page
iano0

join:2001-10-30
UK

Re: haha 0wn3d

It could. But induced changes in latency(ping times) could be less troublesome to online games than to a voice conversation, as long as they don't get too lengthy.
My understanding is that the opposite would be the case - induced lag in an online game (especially an action intensive one such as an FPS) would be far less tolerable than a minor delay in a conversation.

Consider for example a one second delay in a phone converation - an inconvenience but only slightly noticable. A one second delay in the middle of a Quake Deathmatch would be far less tolerable when trying to gun down a moving target.

GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast

Re: haha 0wn3d

said by iano0 See Profile :

It could. But induced changes in latency(ping times) could be less troublesome to online games than to a voice conversation, as long as they don't get too lengthy.
My understanding is that the opposite would be the case - induced lag in an online game (especially an action intensive one such as an FPS) would be far less tolerable than a minor delay in a conversation.

Consider for example a one second delay in a phone converation - an inconvenience but only slightly noticable. A one second delay in the middle of a Quake Deathmatch would be far less tolerable when trying to gun down a moving target.
You are probably correct. I'm not a gamer and I have no actual experience with what sub-second delays could mean inside some games.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page

Vig
Thread-safe since 1997
Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA

said by iano0 See Profile :

Consider for example a one second delay in a phone converation - an inconvenience but only slightly noticable. A one second delay in the middle of a Quake Deathmatch would be far less tolerable when trying to gun down a moving target.
It would be bad for both. A 1 second delay is quite perceptible and very annoying in a voice conversation. Even as little as a quarter second can be perceived.
--
Visit the land of the never-setting sun
iano0

join:2001-10-30
UK

Re: haha 0wn3d

That's true, but I gave a delay of one second as an extreme example. I can't imagine an ISP deliberately causing that much lag.
My point was to highlight which would suffer most, the phone conversation would still be possible, the game would be unplayable.
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
ISPs will never risk causing gaming issues, it is one of their biggest resons for promotings broadband is online gaming.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
Techman21

join:2005-04-14
Richmond, VA

Yet another one...

WTF. In the U.S there is absolutely NO reason this ability should ever exist. Like the above poster I would love to see the baby bells try to touch this. Of course if the pubilc outrage isn't enough we'll just get steam rolled in yet another area of technology. The gov.'t might have reason to use this for specific purposes which would most likely need a court order of some sort.

They take a step forward and we always seem to step back in defense.

JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC

uhuh... sure

"Perhaps a reader with inside knowledge will step forward and answer this and other questions. For now I have plenty on my plate, so I'll leave the mystery of Skype detection to my contemporaries."

Oh ya... I can see this happening.
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications.

Scott W
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Beaverton, OR

Re: uhuh... sure

I find it interesting the author was surprised by skype's distributed technology, everyone knows this and in fact skype is in a legal situation over their technology which they previously used in morpheus as they are currently being sued by StreamCast Networks:

»news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6054484.html

skypeisnotthatimmune

@ameritech.net

Skype is not that immune

I have a firewall/IPS unit we just purchased for under $1500. It kills Skype and p2p very very well. My office is full of software and hardware "nerds", they tried several trick, and the only way to break the blockage is by getting into SSL VPN. Guess what, I can get that throttled to the point Skype is unusable.

I will not disclose the manufacturer, but it is a known brand (not as big as Cisco though).

Denjin

join:2001-01-18
Schaumburg, IL

Re: Skype is not that immune

Even ISS' IPS products can block Skype... I'm sure a few others also manage.
--
Ningen wa, ningen da.
claudeo

join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA

said by skypeisnotthatimmune :

I have a firewall/IPS unit we just purchased for under $1500. It kills Skype and p2p very very well. My office is full of software and hardware "nerds", they tried several trick, and the only way to break the blockage is by getting into SSL VPN. Guess what, I can get that throttled to the point Skype is unusable.

I will not disclose the manufacturer, but it is a known brand (not as big as Cisco though).
And what exactly was the benefit of doing this? (In $, please, not in micromanagement short term satisfaction?)

BlockAllOutgoing

@etv.net

It's very easy to block all outbound traffic off your network. Most "Firewalls" should do this. I work in k-12 public ed. and it's very common to block everything going out (and in) except port 80. I think what this is getting at is where you can't just block the end users from getting "out" but you have to watch both incomming and outgoing and try and figure out what you need to "filter"

Mert

justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY

Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech

the author sounds less than technical

if he spent just a few hours googling he would have known about the distributed and encrypted nature of skype. The blocking would not be that hard to do but why should anyone selling blocking tools to ISPs be cheered on?
we pay for data, not for "easy" and "cheap" applications like web browsing on port 80, and everything else costs extra and must come from the ISP.
If he wants to help ISPs block skype then he should keep very quiet about it.
CSU

join:2002-10-21
Lagrange, GA

Greedy Bastards!

I don't see the big deal on using services like skype. If I pay my ISP to have access to the internet, then why can't I use it anyway I see fit as long as I'm not breaking the laws?
Forums » Expert: Skype Hard to Block


Sunday, 08-Nov 19:19:53 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.