Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

WinMX programming ideas.....

Discussion about the WinMX program/network
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

WinMX programming ideas.....

Postby Widdle » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:35 pm

WinMX is an older network, but with the right settings and especially if you belong to a "clan" it is one of the top resources out there.
Having said that, it is in the process of a needed update and the industry folks have been hitting it with fakes and search "floods". Who out there can throw in some ideas for killing these problems in the next prog release?
User avatar
Widdle
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 10:17 am
Location: Sherwood Forest

Postby Psycho Ced » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:57 pm

WinMX programming ideas.....

Here is one: GET NEW PROGRAMMERS
Actually; GET SOME PROGRAMMERS

"New" implies that you would have to replace the old ones,
To have old ones; you would actually have to have some.
3rd party does not count.
User avatar
Psycho Ced
Psycho+
 
Posts: 5892
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:52 pm
Location: Relative to where?

Postby Widdle » Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:03 pm

I would have to say that they do have programmers. Unless there software is made by the toothfairy. I believe that they are open to ideas on the upcoming release, so I was looking for some constructive thoughts.
User avatar
Widdle
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 10:17 am
Location: Sherwood Forest

Postby Psycho Ced » Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:23 pm

Widdle wrote: Unless there software is made by the toothfairy.

hmmmmm that would explain a lot: They've been too busy collecting/buying teeth to make upgrades.
User avatar
Psycho Ced
Psycho+
 
Posts: 5892
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:52 pm
Location: Relative to where?

Postby tomy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:40 pm

What about changing the name to LinMX?
LinMX will be a free, open source file-sharing program that will be used to share files with other people using LinMX or the most well-known WinMX. WinMX runs only in Microsoft Windows when LinMX will create the possibility for Linux and other POSIX OS co
tomy
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:55 pm

Postby Widdle » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:27 pm

I agree, There needs to be a Linux version to get more hardcore P2P folks involved.
User avatar
Widdle
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 10:17 am
Location: Sherwood Forest

Postby nms04 » Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:59 am

hm it needs a new interface and more developement progress ;)
.
User avatar
nms04
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Nowhere

Postby sumfuka » Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:11 pm

I don't know about the next prog release, but how about a third-party plugin based on a Winsock Wrapper akin to MX Sniffer or BendMX-Bye-Bye-Bad-IPs, like:

WinMX <--Wrapper DLL--> WS2_32O.DLL

...that does something like the following:

*I'm not a programmer but here's my idea* ;)


Stage 1: Fake Servers Detection;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For Primary Connections: The plugin decrypts incoming TCP packets for identifier 0x03E9 (secondary client login request?) and stores the IP address into a database. If the database doesn't already have an entry for this address, then create a new database entry for it, then add "1" alongside the entry to log the number of attempts the address has requested hosting, then add the current date with the entry. If the database already has an entry for the address, then modify the number of previous connection attempts value +1, then modify the date to the current time.

Entry........Address........0x03E9........Date.................Banned
00001........1.2.3.4........1................2005-06-12........0
00002........6.5.4.3........2................2005-06-11........0
00003........9.1.1.1........8................2005-06-12........1
...

If the value reaches X or more (where X = the number of attempts by a secondary address for hosting allowed before the address is banned) then ban that address from further connection attempts for Y days (Y = 7 days or something). Every subsequent attempt at connection from any addresses already listed in the database resets the date to current.

Entries over Y days old in the database should be automatically cleared.

Faker addresses would be blocked fairly quickly with this as the fakers attempt connection to primaries very very frequently comparred to a normal WinMX user.

Now after running WinMX as a primary for 'a while' (hard to say how long it might take to build the database?) it should self-generate a valid and exact list of faker IP addresses operating on the network. Now we can apply rules based on information the database provides...

First thing is to simply block any communications to/from banned addresses.

The second thing we can do is...

Stage 2: Search Results Filtering;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Primary Connections: The Winsock wrapper plugin decrypts incoming UDP packets with identifier 0x177A (incoming search results). Then the plugin needs to parse the decrypted data for the IP address of the file server contained within the packet, which is not the primary IP address, but the actual file server's 'ping' address as required for ping functionality in the WinMX search results window. The ping address is 4 bytes preceding the username...

[id:4][pcip:4][pcudp:2][?:5][path:n][00][hash:20][size:4][line:2][options:*][ping_ip:4][username:n][00][queue status:n][00]

The plugin looks into the database for a previous entry listing of the ping_ip. If there's none there, it allows the search result. If it is listed in the database but has a value less than X, then allow. If the address is listed, and X is at or above the limit specified before address banning, then deny/drop the search result.

Secondary Connections;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pretty much the same as for primary connections though dealing with the decryption of TCP for the 0x177A identifier. Secondaries would only be able to filter these search results effectively if their blocklist (database) is accurate (upto date with current IPs of dynamic fakers). This is one problem that needs figuring... how secondaries can update their blocklist... (lots of possibilities, though, I think ;))...

As an aside, if this plugin became a reality and a lot of users started using it, then there would be an increased chance that secondary users became attached to primaries that are already operating the plugin, so the primary would do the work of filtering automatically, on behalf of all attached secondaries, meaning the secondary is even less likely to see any fake search results returned (double-filtering if both parties operate the plugin). Even so, if a secondary user's blocklist was out of date enough to be bothering the user then they could easily locate a new blocklist manually from 'somewhere', then all is good again.

~

That's about it. If this worked as hoped then all a user looking to clear up the shit from WinMX would need to do is drop the plugin DLLs into their WinMX folder and forget about it. The database of faker's addresses should generate itself over a period of time (primaries only) due to the extraordinarily high number of connection attempts to primaries the media company's companies attempt to make. Once the database is built up with these faker's addresses, then search results can be actively filtered to remove the fakes, leaving only legitimate results and fakers who haven't yet made it into, or haven't met the trigger value for being blocked in, the database.

There are only a small number of faker clients operating on the WPN as far as I'm aware, quite probably less than 30 active addresses in total, and far fewer if you omit the big & easy to block, guaranteed fakes, static IP ranges like 209.11.134.* and 38.113.214.*, etc, by default (include a pre-compiled blocklist containing these addresses in the plugin package). The database would, hopefully, excel at determining the much harder to block, dynamic addresses, that the fakers also use, though.

The only problem I haven't thought too much about is how secondary users plugins can update their blocked IP list (database or whatever), as they can't automatically determine faker IPs like primaries can. I think there's quite a few interesting possibilities for managing this, though... :)

So there's my idea. ;)
sumfuka
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 12:42 am

Postby no_dammagE » Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:43 pm

is there a WinMX protocol request for comments available somewhere on the net? Without an RFC it won't be easy to implement a third-party client...
Windows? Blah. Linux? Blah. BSD? Blah.
Just make sure you have a computer licence and I can open your fsckin files.
Vorbis | Theora | LaTeX | OpenDocument
User avatar
no_dammagE
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 9:37 am

hmmmmmm

Postby flagran » Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:56 pm

... :roll: hmmmm winmx also needs "skins" also like winamp.. Is there any graphic packages to custom make ur own?(I'm not that clued up in this area)
"When a feint ain't...Booya!!!."~Cyber General flagran
flagran
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:17 am

Postby Allied » Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:37 pm

I think the only ones that can make changes to WinMX is the WinMX people. To my knowledge knowone has back engineered their protocol. Not giFt, not mldonkey, knowone. I supposed you could res hack the program itself, but you couldn't really change the network.
Allied's Review:
Recommended: LimeWire | Ares | Shareaza | eMule | KCeasy
Not Recommended: Morpheus | Kazaa | eDonkey2000 | Manolito | iMesh
User avatar
Allied
Mostly Harmless
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:23 pm
Location: Behind You Shoe Size: 11.008 BitTorrent: µTorrent Nationality: Canuckian Newsgroups: GrabIt

Postby Dazzle » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:08 pm

The protocol has been available for a while amongst the users, but as Winmx is a closed source program no one is interested in making a client that could be locked out of the network at the peer cache stage, when the keys are exchanged.

As you say Allied without a genuine release, many of the annoying flaws will not be fixed
Whatever we want will either come from Winmx Technologies or not at all if we are to avoid any legal troubles, as regards copyright and network usage.

Uncompressed copies of the program are in circulation for those with the talent to make changes, but no one is bothering with a reverse of the source as that would be plain stealing.
Dazzle
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:50 pm

Postby Widdle » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:26 pm

Would someone kindly ask Kevin for permission to make another client or for him to open-source it. It doesn't seem that MX Tech is interested in development anymore, so why not release the code, they are in no legal danger anyways as they have never advocated illegal sharing or use. A released source would be the best thing to happen to MX in years. 8)
User avatar
Widdle
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 10:17 am
Location: Sherwood Forest

Postby no_dammagE » Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:29 pm

everything depends on the country you are releasing the app in. While in US it might fall under copyright acts to create a third-party client for a protocol, that is not the same in e.g. EU or here in Russia. Especially in Russia programmers are threated as programmers as not as shit. A lot of good applications are developed either in Russia or in other countries by Russian foreigners. A different mentality.For example WinRAR or Crystal Player. Big parts of Linux code and so on.
---
The other question is: if you just put the copyright of an open source (e.g. GPL) application onto a person in a different country, it is technically based in this country. Even if the main developer is a US citized. Just find someone in Bangladesh and you're out of trouble :)
---
I doubt that the WinMX protocol has been ignored just because it is closed-source. Actually I'm sure that it has been inspected by a lot of ppl (who avoided posting their results). I think that they avoided posting their results to make sure that there is no flame war.

My WinMX experience was very poor. It seems that the search protocol is VERY premature for today's standards. The horizon seems to be static and limited. Every time you do a search for more sources, the only new sources you find are those ones who newly entered your sector of view because the network is dynamic. The network fails to self-organize itself. Neither does [the client, not the network] it detect the most suitable mode for a peer nor does it protect itself against floods.

At the same time the client/protocol doesn't try to overcome such limitations. Because of such a limited search you fail to find/transfer rare content with only a bunch of sources. A good addition to the protocol specification would be at least alt-src-meshes. That is what made the transfers so much better reliable in the Gnutella and eDonkey world. In eDonkey's current situation this is actually the main source for additional peers carrying the same data - servers don't reply on external requests to increase the user count.

At the total WinMX needs:
---
a full rework of the protocol - it is not suitable for today's needs anymore.

automation - when will the client begin to properly search for alternative sources?

a new skin. While it is true that you can argue about tastes, the fact is that the general taste cries for a better face
---

It seems that Kevin understood that WinMX needs to be rewritten from scratch and either dropped it or is rewriting it. IMHO a loss of WinMX won't be a really big loss today. Either is the network so tiny or the network is so fucked up that it doesn't work anymore. A move of its users to any other network - so be it [[G2,[Shareaza,GnucDNA, misc]],[G1,[LimeWire, Phex, GnucDNA, giFT, Misc]],[eD2k,[eDonkey, eMule, aMule, misc]], [AresNet,[Ares,Warez,KCEasy, giFT]]]. In my eyes every of these networks and clients provide a great and better alternative for most WinMX users.

Sorry, WinMX, but don't make people wait 4 more years for a new beta update which fixes a typo in the GUI (up to now all beta releases were so)
Windows? Blah. Linux? Blah. BSD? Blah.
Just make sure you have a computer licence and I can open your fsckin files.
Vorbis | Theora | LaTeX | OpenDocument
User avatar
no_dammagE
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 9:37 am

Postby Dazzle » Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:50 pm

Its not as bad as the picture I,m seeing from you No_Damage.

The fact that they can flood the network so easily shows that the search features are efective and a few hidden atributes of the protocol are not discussed here for the sake of security but many of the techniques are also included in the MUTE file sharing app.

I wont complain about any glitches in an interface that works fine, old but solid and not full of fancy "eye candy" bloatware.
Compare the size of the P2P applications too, Winmx is one of the smallest.

It seems that some folks think new is better, those same folks have been queing up at the courts while Winmx is still running fine.

My only concern is regarding the peer caches as those are the lynchpin of the network, and if kevin has given up then that may be the way we find out..
Dazzle
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:50 pm

Postby Widdle » Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:51 pm

What you say about many of the search things in MX is true, but what you say about the size of the network is not. I can find anything I want on MX if I just go to a chat and ask. I would estimate that the network has well over 1 million simultaneous users if not well over 2 million. It is not a tiny network.

You are right about the development, it's been so long since it's been reworked, that it just plain needs alot of work. :(
User avatar
Widdle
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 10:17 am
Location: Sherwood Forest

Postby webSeeker10 » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:47 am

Hi,
One thing that could really not difficult to programm is a sorting feature
by name, title, size, user, etc....
It's really a shitting task to check where is some one in a Q, or to find some file in the ul or dl list...

:roll: :roll:
webSeeker10
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:09 pm

Postby Snip » Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:38 pm

The Winmx Encryption and Protocol is all on my website. http://www.winmxunlimited.net/protocol/
Snip
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:09 pm


Return to WinMX

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com