qTox - secure instant messaging

[webfork]

Upgrading qTox:

There have been some rapid developments recently so I wanted to take the guesswork out of the update procedure:

Copy the following files from the old directory to the new: qTox.ini and anything that starts with your username (e.g. for mikewiz you would have mikewiz.tox, mikewiz.db, and mikewiz.ini).

[smaragdus]

qTox at version 1.3.0, latest changes:

qTox 1.3.0 release
All:
- New and improved sound code
- New HTTPS ToxMe protocol support
- Translation updates
- Miscellaneous fixes and polishing
OSX:
- Video!
Windows:
- Updater now works better with Portable mode

Source
@webfork
I suppose that the video chat might be working fine on Mac OS now.

[smaragdus]

I am not able to add/update the download link for qTox x64 build because the URL box isn't long enough, see the screen-shot below:

Is there a solution to this problem?

[SYSTEM]

I am not able to add/update the download link for qTox x64 build because the URL box isn't long enough, see the screen-shot below:

TPF - qTox download link - 2016-03-17 - 002.png

Is there a solution to this problem?

Please send Andrew a PM about this. The solution would obviously be increasing the maximum length of URLs in the database.

[webfork]

I suppose that the video chat might be working fine on Mac OS now.

Ah cool.

Please send Andrew a PM about this. The solution would obviously be increasing the maximum length of URLs in the database.

Agreed. Or we might look into one of those URL shortening links as a stop-gap.

[webfork]

Another cross-platform, serverless chat client: Sid.

What's interesting is seeing a growing focus on “cloudless” software that's easy and secure. Note that it's not clear if it needs the Internet to connect or if it will just work over LANs, nor is it clear whether this will stay freeware (meaning it's portraying itself as a “tech demo,” which often means it might go commercial).

Initial testing by another user has indicated this is definitely a late alpha / early beta program. As such, I don't think this is superior to some tools already discussed here on the site, which is why it's not in a separate thread.

Anyway, just in case someone's curious:

http://www.spherebox.com/
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/C ... /Sid.shtml

[smaragdus]

qTox at version 1.4.1, Change Log.

[smaragdus]

Today I did a brief testing of another Tox client, uTox (version 0.9.4 Alpha).

First- uTox is not portable, it creates two files- tox_save.tox & utox_save in AppData (C:\Users\UserName\AppData\Roaming\tox).
Second- uTox is really an alpha program- it is miles behind Isotoxin & qTox in terms of features and customization options.

Some uTox links:
http://utox.org/ - official web-site
https://wiki.tox.chat/clients/utox - uTox at Tox Wiki
https://github.com/notsecure/uTox - project page at GitHub - abandoned (the original developer of uTox is no longer involved)
https://github.com/grayhatter/uTox - project page at GitHub
https://build.tox.chat/view/uTox/ - project page
https://build.tox.chat/view/uTox/job/uT ... 6_release/ - download page - releases - x32
https://build.tox.chat/view/uTox/job/uT ... 4_release/ - download page - releases - x64
https://wiki.tox.chat/clients - a comparison table of Tox clients (outdated)
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/C ... uTox.shtml - uTox at Softpedia

I will follow the development of uTox but I think it won't be easy to catch up with qTox & Isotoxin. I hope it won't be abandoned like some other Tox clients (Toxy & XwinTox for example).

By the way qTox has a new web-site- https://qtox.github.io/.

[smaragdus]

How to use Tox over Tor, I haven't tested this because:
-Tox is an encrypted protocol and I don't need an additional layer of encryption.
-I don't consider Tor as secure as most people think.
-I suppose that Tor will slow down Tox.

[webfork]

Tox is an encrypted protocol and I don't need an additional layer of encryption.

Actually you should avoid using anything that isn't already encrypted on Tor. This is because Tor only encrypts things inside it's "onion" network. Anything outside of that (e.g. not connecting to an "HTTPS" web page) is as encrypted as it started. So plain text requests that come from a Tor endpoint are just as easy to sniff as they always were.

I don't consider Tor as secure as most people think.

It's probably just a stumbling block for state actors, but they (usually) only care if you're doing something illegal. Most of the successful attacks on Tor seem to come from those groups. There are many other types of attackers with all sorts of motives where Tor is very useful.

I suppose that Tor will slow down Tox.

Based on previous tests of the network, text exchanges wouldn't really be affected, but all other features including file transfer or audio/video conferencing probably won't work in any real way.

[LonerD]

Lazy qTox developers cut off WinXP support.
It's annoying. I never use programs without XP support (even if my main computer with Win 10, but also have old machine).
uTox has build for XP. It's not portable, but yaP is in help))

[webfork]

Lazy qTox developers cut off WinXP support

I agree that machines should try to maintain compatibility with older operating systems, both because XP still has a pretty high usage share and for use by cross-platform tools like WINE. However, I wouldn't chalk that up to laziness as it's becoming the norm here on the site.

[Midas]

I have been running Windows 7 in quite an intensive fashion this year. A few days ago, I had to boot up my former laptop, which still runs XP (and whose battery, incidentally, is now dead ), and was stunned by the sheer speed of the thing -- I'm talking here of something as different as a Core Dual in the old one to an i7 processor in the newer...

[SYSTEM]

I have been running Windows 7 in quite an intensive fashion this year. A few days ago, I had to boot up my former laptop, which still runs XP (and whose battery, incidentally, is now dead ), and was stunned by the sheer speed of the thing -- I'm talking here of something as different as a Core Dual in the old one to an i7 processor in the newer...

Well, the performance difference between Core 2 and Core i7 isn't that big. The main advantage of Core i7 is that it has more cores (four cores + hyperthreading), which isn't that helpful in day-to-day use.

[Midas]

That might well be, but the Lenovo machines in question are generations apart (first year of release is 2006 and 2011, respectively)...