<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Skype; is it cost effective from a security standpoint?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440</link>
	<description>Things I think I've thought about</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:52:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Security Insights Blog &#187; Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Skype</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440/comment-page-1#comment-5015</link>
		<dc:creator>Security Insights Blog &#187; Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Skype</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:52:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440#comment-5015</guid>
		<description>[...] part because it offered little benefit to the company. He arrived at this conclusion by calculating the potential cost savings from the software, which ultimately turned out to be rather insignificant. But Mike Rothman pointed out a problem [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] part because it offered little benefit to the company. He arrived at this conclusion by calculating the potential cost savings from the software, which ultimately turned out to be rather insignificant. But Mike Rothman pointed out a problem [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mcwresearch.com &#187; News and views from the experts? BAH!</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440/comment-page-1#comment-1021</link>
		<dc:creator>mcwresearch.com &#187; News and views from the experts? BAH!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:17:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440#comment-1021</guid>
		<description>[...] I was looking through my Technorati stats and found that a blog from McAfee commented on and linked to my article on a cost analysis of Skype. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I was looking through my Technorati stats and found that a blog from McAfee commented on and linked to my article on a cost analysis of Skype. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440/comment-page-1#comment-846</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440#comment-846</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;You incorrectly presume:
* The 100% loss of Skype is 100% loss of productivity.
* the use of Skype vs. other phone is either/or.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

My assumption wasn&#039;t 100% loss of Skype itself, but 100% loss of the host &lt;i&gt;running&lt;/i&gt; Skype.  

The statement that 10% of the users use Skype 100% of the time is merely to estimate 10% Skype usage of all calls.  This is for simulation purposes only and is how I derive my numbers.  

Clarity or lack thereof, notwithstanding, my calculations were intended to simulate Skype usage at 10% of all long distance calls and the downtime caused by a Skype-bourne worm or equivalent was a 10% productivity loss.    

Calculating risk analysis such as this isn&#039;t an exact science by any stretch of the imagination!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>You incorrectly presume:<br />
* The 100% loss of Skype is 100% loss of productivity.<br />
* the use of Skype vs. other phone is either/or.</p></blockquote>
<p>My assumption wasn&#8217;t 100% loss of Skype itself, but 100% loss of the host <i>running</i> Skype.  </p>
<p>The statement that 10% of the users use Skype 100% of the time is merely to estimate 10% Skype usage of all calls.  This is for simulation purposes only and is how I derive my numbers.  </p>
<p>Clarity or lack thereof, notwithstanding, my calculations were intended to simulate Skype usage at 10% of all long distance calls and the downtime caused by a Skype-bourne worm or equivalent was a 10% productivity loss.    </p>
<p>Calculating risk analysis such as this isn&#8217;t an exact science by any stretch of the imagination!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Libertate</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440/comment-page-1#comment-787</link>
		<dc:creator>Libertate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440#comment-787</guid>
		<description>You incorrectly presume:
* The 100% loss of Skype is 100% loss of productivity.
* the use of Skype vs. other phone is either/or.

Although I am not a proponent of Skype in business until they implement more robust and simpler administrative controls, your calculations, although mathematically correct, do not paint a true picture.

Unless the staff is all telephone work, such as call center or similar, the complete loss of Skype will not completely cripple productivity.

Additionally, the deployment of emergency or replacement telephones when only 10% uses Skype implies simplicity. If 90% &quot;still&quot; uses old style phones, how hard is to &quot;add&quot; or turn back on for the 10% which is out of commission?

I have seen Skype used as office-to-office more often then 100% use.  Users would default back to old telephone when the QoS dropped, without loss of productivity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You incorrectly presume:<br />
* The 100% loss of Skype is 100% loss of productivity.<br />
* the use of Skype vs. other phone is either/or.</p>
<p>Although I am not a proponent of Skype in business until they implement more robust and simpler administrative controls, your calculations, although mathematically correct, do not paint a true picture.</p>
<p>Unless the staff is all telephone work, such as call center or similar, the complete loss of Skype will not completely cripple productivity.</p>
<p>Additionally, the deployment of emergency or replacement telephones when only 10% uses Skype implies simplicity. If 90% &#8220;still&#8221; uses old style phones, how hard is to &#8220;add&#8221; or turn back on for the 10% which is out of commission?</p>
<p>I have seen Skype used as office-to-office more often then 100% use.  Users would default back to old telephone when the QoS dropped, without loss of productivity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LonerVamp</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440/comment-page-1#comment-755</link>
		<dc:creator>LonerVamp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:18:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440#comment-755</guid>
		<description>Aha! :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aha! <img src='http://mcwresearch.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440/comment-page-1#comment-754</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:46:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440#comment-754</guid>
		<description>I cleaned up my examples some to help clarify them.  

I mislabeled part of the first example as months when it should have been days.

Sorry about that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I cleaned up my examples some to help clarify them.  </p>
<p>I mislabeled part of the first example as months when it should have been days.</p>
<p>Sorry about that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440/comment-page-1#comment-753</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:44:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440#comment-753</guid>
		<description>I was just talking to my boss about this and he informed me that above and beyond the security implications of Skype, we charge our clients for all long distance calls, for a profit.  Therefore Skype would reduce our profits.  

That makes the score; 

Enterprise: 2, Skype: 0.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was just talking to my boss about this and he informed me that above and beyond the security implications of Skype, we charge our clients for all long distance calls, for a profit.  Therefore Skype would reduce our profits.  </p>
<p>That makes the score; </p>
<p>Enterprise: 2, Skype: 0.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LonerVamp</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440/comment-page-1#comment-751</link>
		<dc:creator>LonerVamp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/440#comment-751</guid>
		<description>Wouldn&#039;t that be 18 months of Skype use to cover 10% reduction? 18*33.2 = $6000*10%

What are the chances of a network-impacting Skype attack? And then one that affects more than just that stupid user? What about bandwidth costs (unless you&#039;re already using VoIP)? Will this impact firewall logging/monitoring with the crazy connections it likes to open and if so what is that amount? And then balance all of that against the estimated value of improve morale?

Just some thoughts...obviously risk and cost can be made as complicated as you want, but I like this little exercise you posted up above. :)

I wonder how this would work with VoIP as a replacement to the regular phone system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t that be 18 months of Skype use to cover 10% reduction? 18*33.2 = $6000*10%</p>
<p>What are the chances of a network-impacting Skype attack? And then one that affects more than just that stupid user? What about bandwidth costs (unless you&#8217;re already using VoIP)? Will this impact firewall logging/monitoring with the crazy connections it likes to open and if so what is that amount? And then balance all of that against the estimated value of improve morale?</p>
<p>Just some thoughts&#8230;obviously risk and cost can be made as complicated as you want, but I like this little exercise you posted up above. <img src='http://mcwresearch.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I wonder how this would work with VoIP as a replacement to the regular phone system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

