Talk:Russian reverse engineers Skype; uploads source to public

I'm not sure that the last two paragraphs added are from a reliable source and are interpreted correctly. Is the "may be pirated" phrase by a "over a dozen of years user" from the forum post enough to interpret this like stated in the article now? ("The version of IDA Pro used was pirated, according to its creator.") I'm looking at [1].

"If Bushmanov hasn't taken this "clean" approach - and the presence of IDB files (IDA Pro disassembly databases) amongst his published downloads suggests that he has not" ("Skype protocol cracked - what happens next?" Naked Security - ‎Jun 3, 2011‎ [2])

It seems to be that the same team a)disassembled and b) wrote the code while the forum posts suggests different teams do that.

But I don't seem to be able to verify the fact that the IDA Pro software itself was pirated with the help of other sources. --Gryllida 13:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are some further details at next forum posts in the thread.. there, "Igor Skochinsky at Hex-Rays has verified it is a pirated version, but at least it is an old leak instead of a new one." I've added the 'Hex-Rays' keyword and some clarification into the article as 'IDA Pro creator' is bit confusing in terms of whether it refers to a company or to a person, and which one, but finding more sources on that might still be a good idea. --Gryllida 13:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1244735 [Passed]

Revision 1244735 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1244735 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.