- This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 21 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Real neat – but no audio and/or video links? 🙂 What about skins – despite the obvious advantages of Trillian 3 :confused: I would prefer a choice of more than 2 skins 😡 which currently is all you get with the basic version [0.74 was easily the best and most user friendly skinable version yet :woot: ]
So yeah I’d love to try it – when it has a video/audio facility! 😀
Why would 99.9% of the people that use IM need 4096 bit encryption? Because they’ll find out what my friend Joe’s chemistry homework was, or who the girl I like is?
BSM is secure. Your current instant messenger is not. AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, MSN Messenger, and ICQ do not offer any level of encryption. Your sensitive online communications are leaking out all over the internet for anyone to see. Your privacy is being compromised.
I’m annoyed that they suggest that there is no security at all in any IM client. It takes quite a bit of skill to intercept an IM conversation, it’s not as if it’s freely available by anyone on the internet.
It sounds like a messenger for paranoid users to me. It’s cool, but I can’t see it being required for most people.
David wrote:I’m annoyed that they suggest that there is no security at all in any IM client. It takes quite a bit of skill to intercept an IM conversation, it’s not as if it’s freely available by anyone on the internet.It sounds like a messenger for paranoid users to me. It’s cool, but I can’t see it being required for most people.
You think?! Its actually fairly easy to eavesdrop.
n3td3v wrote:Its actually fairly easy to eavesdrop.
It really isn’t, only ~5% of IM users could actually do it.Frankly, who gives a rip if they do eavesdrop? Do you really want to hear about my lunch plans? Or “hey, have you heard the latest song from _____?” 99.9% of all instant messaging is not worth eavesdropping on.
People who have things to hide scare me.
Uh oh…you mean Yahoo! is not 100% secure? I wish some one would have told me….people might find out that I have a hankering for a hunk of cheese. Honestly…I agree with Jeff here….if you have that much to hide and the NEED to chat about over a messenger…there is something a little off. Business trade secrets and the like are generally NOT going to be discussed over IM anyway…SHEESH. People will do anything to pimp a product these days. It’s the “I’ll scare you into using this…because bad things will happen to you if you don’t protect yourself…MUA HAA HAA” PFFT!
David wrote:It really isn’t, only ~5% of IM users could actually do it.I must be in the five percent then. 😀
n3td3v wrote:I must be in the five percent then. 😀
Ok, so now you going to sniff my packets and find out that…. I’m not going to school today because I’m sick?!!As has been stated, most (if not all) people that use IM wouldn’t discuss anything sensitive enough to need 4096 bit encryption.
But what if they WANT the protection? Why do you care, Dave? It’s not the fact to argue that people don’t need it. It’s here, because people want it.
Firewalls are here to protect, do you NEED them? Don’t bother posting, it’s obvious — anyways………………… thx for the information n3td3v.
twistedmetal wrote:But what if they WANT the protection? Why do you care, Dave? It’s not the fact to argue that people don’t need it. It’s here, because people want it.Firewalls are here to protect, do you NEED them? Don’t bother posting, it’s obvious — anyways………………… thx for the information n3td3v.Great point! I agree with you completely. There is not much point in 4096 bit encryption for most IM users, however, for some users (and even more for some companies) this is interesting.
I think that the encryption would be better used in a corporate environment, more than for personal use.
Although, it makes me feel a bit more comfortable knowing that my data being transmitted is encrypted.
Granted, its not like you would have a lot to read lol
I do however know for a fact that you can retrieve instant messages(on yahoo anyway) without the use of middle man or trojan horse.
Thankfully this method is not well known, and thats as it should be.UnSaKreD wrote:I do however know for a fact that you can retrieve instant messages(on yahoo anyway) without the use of middle man or trojan horse.
Thankfully this method is not well known, and thats as it should be.Great, so don’t brag about it; that way even less people will know about the method.@DJHyperbyte]Great, so don’t brag about it that way even less people will know about the method.[/QUOTE wrote:
The people who know, know, and the the ones who don’t, don’t.
I hope that clears everything up.
n3td3v wrote:The people who know, know, and the the ones who don’t, don’t.Oh my, what an incredibly thoughtful comment! You never cease to amaze me, n3td3v.
n3td3v wrote:I hope that clears everything up.Oh, yes… yes… how about this one: The people who have a brain use it and the ones who don’t, well… they don’t.I’m gonna lock this topic now, before you will redefine ‘stupidity’.
- The topic ‘BSM Released!!!!’ is closed to new replies.