Talk:LogMeIn Hamachi

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2008)

Regarding Use of Protocols, SHA-0 vs. SHA-1

It was implied on the Hamachi forums that there was a potential security risk in using Hamachi due to various parts of the program having used SHA-0 instead of SHA-1.

See here for the Hamachi development team's response clarifying how that is not the case, and there is no security risk in the specific uses of SHA-0 in Hamachi.

https://forums.hamachi.cc/viewtopic.php?p=68670#68670

Paul-lmi (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2

Since Version 2 became available, 0.9.x is unavailable for download from the Hamachi site for Mac OS X and Linux. The article should be updated to reflect this change. 129.107.59.249 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are, however, available from http://files.hamachi.cc/linux/ 68.84.192.76 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software

I am concerned that hamachi only discusses the software that is provided by LogMeIn. There is also a hamachi sushi (Yellowtale fish), and a hamachi which is the notch on a sword that is placed just before the sharpened edge. I could not find either of these in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lledger7 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Links Broken

Reference links 5, 6, and 7 to the Hamachi forums appear to be broken. Not sure what should be done about that. IAmTheCandyman (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use for piracy

Some internet chatter describes Hamachi as a frequent tool for piracy. For example:

"... the usual use of an Hamachi server is in order to play a cracked game online."

Some explanation, or at least discussion, of the relative importance of piracy in Hamachi use, would help me decide whether to comply with my daughter's request to install Hamachi on the family laptop which she uses.

C4dn (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable sources have discussed illegitimate uses of Hamachi, then we can't in the article either. One problem is that we don't give medical, legal, security, or parenting advice. Another problem is, this is not a forum for general discussion of article topics; it's just for improving the article. Me? I'd sit her down and explain the risks (privacy, security, legal), and I'd never trust that laptop ever again. For anything. --Lexein (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bs27975 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C4dn is confusing the tool with the use of the tool. Just because he has installed the tool for his daughter does not absolve him of the responsibility of monitoring how his daughter uses that tool. If use is entirely legit, then he has acquired valuable functionality. If one aspect of the tool's use is not legit, then he need control that aspect of the tool's use. In other words ... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It would be entirely legitimate within the article to indicate any VPN poses security risks that must be individually evaluated for acceptability. Perhaps via a 'See also: Potential security risks of VPNs (link to vpn)' type of reference.

Lexein, sadly, is promoting FUD with his comments. The presence of lack of a VPN doesn't change the manner in which you should look at or evaluate the trustworthiness of a machine. You shouldn't trust anything for anything in the first place. But people are going to, with due consideration and evaluation. The presence or lack of the VPN has nothing to do with it - merely the trust placed in the controller of the resource. In this case, the daughter in the laptop. No parent should trust such a machine in their home network, in the first place. Caveat emptor applies.

--Bs27975 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Largely covered by "The security risks due to vulnerable services on remote machines otherwise not accessible behind a NAT, common to all VPNs." However, the baby with the bathwater comment does still apply. Bs27975 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]