Re: SKYPE - What's the latest in terms of Risk...

[Cal Frye <cjf () CALFRYE COM>]

David Gillett wrote:
>   As long as the application continues to fall back to HTTP/HTTPS/FTP(?)
> assigned ports if it finds its default ports blocked, essentially declaring
> enterprise network policy to be the enemy of the application and its users,
> then IMHO enterprise policy *should* forbid its use.
>   We have taken the line that our current network infrastructure is not
> engineered to carry voice (we're correcting that, but it will take some
> time yet) and that if users find our campus phone system is not meeting
> their needs, they should consult with our networks/telecomm group and not
> just try to jury-rig their own alternatives piecemeal.

We have unofficial and official Skype users:
Unofficially, our international students in many cases are unable to
afford the high cost of international calls, and use Skype to keep in
touch with friends and family back home. I'm loathe to interfere...

Officially, our Language Lab faculty are using Skype for connecting a
labful of students with a counterpart lab, say, in Barcelona for a hour
of bilingual "real world" communication. Very educational, and much more
immersive than a single videoconference would be using a Polycom camera
or such. Resource requirements are quite modest. If you can support
YouTube, you can support Skype.

If we were to bar all avenues of malware infestation, we really ought to
start with email and web, no?

--
Regards,
-- Cal Frye, Network Administrator, Oberlin College

   www.calfrye.com,  www.pitalabs.com

"si duae res sufficient ad ejus veritatem, superfluum est ponere aliam
tertiam rem" --William of Ockham (1285-1349)