Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Important News - WinMx Users Please Read - Remove PG2

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

Important News - WinMx Users Please Read - Remove PG2

Postby Dazzle » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:13 pm

Folks a matter of a serious nature has arisen regarding the Blutak list and the Peer Guardian list that is supplied by Blutak, basically it has been noticed that they are now blocking the WinMX P2P network caches, I have posted on their forum to discuss the matter with them but seem unable to asertain any logic behind their actions.

http://www.bluetack.co.uk/forums/index. ... opic=15428

As no further reply has been received from them I am concerned that something is not in order and that users should be notified of their unpublished actions.

Could all user of WinMx please either remove or disable PG2 or Protowall that use the p2p list.

I think its a sad day when so called defenders of P2P secretly attack P2P networks in this way.
Dazzle
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:50 pm

Postby serrebi101 » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:40 pm

There is a lot of crap going on behind the scenes in the new UserControledWinMX network Drama drama drama. Don't you think there's reason for these ppl to be less then ok with that IP range? Not to mention the music.net thing. If you care so mutch, update thee peercashes ip.

.
serrebi101
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:02 am
Location: canada

Postby MrFredPFL » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:44 pm

this whole MX soap opera is getting sad. i don't know, at this point, if i believe anyone involved. i saw the warning sent to PG users which said that running MX without a specific patch might be against the law. :roll: a lot of credibility went out the window with that statement. it's getting ridiculous. it's a damn shame.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15597
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby ColinPL » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:48 pm

PG2 was good when it had it's own blocklist (blocklist.org). Now it uses bluetack.co.uk lists which are completely unacceptable. They are blocking entire business/hosting ISPs including valid ED2K servers, WinMX caches, DC hubs and servers used by releasers to seed files.

It's impossible to use PG2 without 1000+ host exclusion lists. Many non-p2p servers are blocked too - websites, game servers, IRC servers.

All P2P users, not only WinMX, should remove Protowall/PG2/IPfilter.dat/Safepeer.
ColinPL
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:56 am

Postby Dazzle » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:12 pm

There is a lot of crap going on behind the scenes in the new UserControledWinMX network Drama drama drama. Don't you think there's reason for these ppl to be less then ok with that IP range? Not to mention the music.net thing. If you care so mutch, update thee peercashes ip.


Please re-read the post.

The peercache that Moore is reffering to on blutak (209 range) was closed last week and is no longer an issue, they are blocking all other ranges of winmx peer cache without any reasonable excuse.

If theres any drama going on its to be found on blutaks forums where it seems impossible to get a straight answer.

The exact amount of IP,s that PG blocks is more like 87 Million, while its never been a problem I need to worry about I feel blocking large p2p networks is wrong when they style themselves as the users defender.

this whole MX soap opera is getting sad. i don't know, at this point, if i believe anyone involved. i saw the warning sent to PG users which said that running MX without a specific patch might be against the law. a lot of credibility went out the window with that statement. it's getting ridiculous. it's a damn shame.


I agree Fred but this is a serious issue that should be addressed and I hope you can see why I am drawn to post this warning.
I want users to be on winmx at least, the patch fights are of minimal interest in the minds of many compared to this major imposition by Blutack
Dazzle
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:50 pm

Postby P2P_G » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:37 pm

ColinPL wrote:PG2 was good when it had it's own blocklist (blocklist.org). Now it uses bluetack.co.uk lists which are completely unacceptable. They are blocking entire business/hosting ISPs including valid ED2K servers, WinMX caches, DC hubs and servers used by releasers to seed files.

It's impossible to use PG2 without 1000+ host exclusion lists. Many non-p2p servers are blocked too - websites, game servers, IRC servers.

All P2P users, not only WinMX, should remove Protowall/PG2/IPfilter.dat/Safepeer.


That is so true, i stopped use PG2 for some months ago.... :wink:
Piracy Will Never Die.
User avatar
P2P_G
 
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:27 pm

Postby ToM » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:41 pm

:roll: :roll: :roll:

One of my own sites is blocked from PG2 for being hosted on Layeredtech, a datacenter that just happened to host a bunch of colo boxes that got taken in a bust earlier in the year. :roll: :roll: :roll:

I think method, the guy who created PG2 must feel a lot differently about what's happened with his idea since its creation. Hell, where is he hiding?

Blocklists are beyond pointless.

Edit: It should be noted that I'm just assuming that layeredtech is blocked due to busts. It could *easily* have been for another highly valid reason such as an engineer at the datacenter calling blocklists and their users moronic fuckwits.
Pirate.
ToM
©
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 6:57 am

Postby Mel_Smiley_VIP » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:45 pm

I think everyone should turn off PG and then be careful what they share on winmx. I don't fully trust anyone connected to the network anymore.
You see us as you want to see us...
In the simplest terms, in the most
convenient definitions.
User avatar
Mel_Smiley_VIP
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:36 am
Location: Dream Country

Postby SlyckScratch » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:49 pm

Dazzle wrote:The exact amount of IP,s that PG blocks is more like 87 Million

They're going to have to integrate a torrent client into PG soon for a more effective distribution method for the updates.
I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' To tell the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement - but as I deal in English, the most powerful language in the world with subtle nuances that may blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' Well do you punk?
User avatar
SlyckScratch
 
Posts: 8412
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:31 am
Location: D>E>X

Postby Dazzle » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm

They're going to have to integrate a torrent client into PG soon for a more effective distribution method for the updates


Luckily the PG designer worked out this may be a problem and they use compression for the downloads, its a useful program dont get me wrong but with such a massive blocklist its fast becoming a sprawling mess.
I am willing to take care of providing winmx numbers for them to block as we have the network specific tools to do whats required without any mistakes, but I do not know those providing the raw input from other networks and without the major p2p networks being looked after the point of running their list is lost in the flurry of activity, it really is a shame for me to ask folks to do this :(
Dazzle
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:50 pm

Postby ToM » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:44 pm

SlyckScratch wrote:
Dazzle wrote:The exact amount of IP,s that PG blocks is more like 87 Million

They're going to have to integrate a torrent client into PG soon for a more effective distribution method for the updates.


Amusing as that sounds, PG/Protowall blocklists have already been distributed via BitTorrent for quite some time.

Image
Pirate.
ToM
©
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 6:57 am

Postby Drake » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:51 pm

I think there's a problem when data from a list of banned IP addresses won't fit on a CDR.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby blargh » Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:02 pm

Alright, let's get ONE thing straight first, before you go spouting off about peerguardian this, and peerguardian that, you have to realize that peerguardian and bluetack.co.uk are two completely different communities with two completely different approaches to the same goal, safety.

The *peerguardian* team are in the midst of trying to get their own blocklist solution up and working, until they have that, they're using the blocklists that the people over at *bluetack.co.uk* are providing.

The bluetack people are paranoid, but they never stated any differently, their idea of safety is the ip address blockade method which is similar to the old style carpet bombing, drop enough bombs and you'll in the end get the bad guy. Bluetack reasons similarly but with blocking ip numbers instead.

So if you want to whine anywhere, don't take it to the phoenixlabs site, they're just making the application that are using the blocklists, take it to the bluetack team, which will of course, laugh right in your face.

So, instead, try to THINK a little instead, if you dislike the fact that your favourite blocklist is blocking a site, UNDO it instead! hell, I certainly don't agree with some of the sites that the bluetack people have blocked, but I can easily and with a few clicks undo it, courtesy of peerguardian of course.
(if you use any other solution, RTFM)

Also, you don't really need to get all the ip blocking lists available, just get those that make sense to block from your perspective instead.

So, again, THINK people and READ.

Edit: a quote from the forum post about these things really caught my attention though

As I have said before there are a lot of things that are very suspect going on with this network. We would be very irresponsible if we didn't somehow warn people that they need to be careful by using these caches we have decided to block. This is not a decision we take lightly.

There are alternative cache servers winmx users can use and we feel they would be a much safer choice at the moment ..

People should be questioning who is actually behind them , what are their intentions , and instead of blindly following bad advice like little sheep led to a slaughter , look around for those safer alternatives.

We aren't here to be popular, we are here to keep people protected. I encourage everyone to do their own research and start opening their eyes to whats going on.
This text makes my post look better.
blargh
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:44 pm

Postby -KM- » Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:59 pm

I think you have missed the point of why peer guardian is being mentioned - peer guardian uses those block lists, peer guardian is blocking it all by default, phoenix labs are providing the program *and lists* that are used in it, the fact they obtained the lists from somewhere else is up to them... As long as the default peer guardian settings are blocking something, people will continue to refer to the fact that peer guardian blocks it and not "some lists that are obtained from some website hardly any of you know about despite using all the time block it"

Everyone should be aware of the threats to p2p networks, the biggest threats are not the ones most people think they are. The direct threats are rarely a major problem, for example the flooding of fake search results (something they are doing on several networks) - directly it makes it hard to find a file, indirectly it completely undermines p2p in general, not just that program/network, but gets people thinking of p2p as rubbish.

Blocking 87 million potential fast download sources is a very real threat, although bluetack would no doubt claim it's a minor thing and not worth bothering with - but what about that file you want and the only decent download source is one of those 87 million? then you go away thinking that it is impossible to get that file, after several such attempts you eventually give up on p2p in general (although many would try 2/3 networks before giving up on all p2p, but if they get the same problems everywhere they will end up leaving)

A user who leaves because of the obvious reasons (a network shutting down for example) is likely to come back, a user who leaves because of the stealth threats (downloads not working because they were blocked, or not being able to find the downloads in the first place) is unlikely to come back to try again even after the problems are resolved.

Btw anyone wondering the reasons that they decided to block all winmx peer caches? (they initially blocked them all making winmx users completely unable to connect - and only removed one of the entries after finding out it wasn't my server and their blocking of anything related to me had got it by accident)

A few weeks ago I went to their forum regarding the fact that there were something like 140 entries on their block list down as "WinMX Flooder" when in fact there were only a handful of flooders on winmx. They stated I clearly don't know what I'm talking about and their lists are accurate and I should point out what I am claiming to be an incorrect block - so as requested I quoted a (large) section of the block list full of "WinMX Flooder" and pointed out that only one of the 20 or so entries in that small section was an actual flooder, and that this was extremely easy to check. Their response to this was to delete the thread (showing they clearly could not justify their blocks) rename all of the entries on that list to "p2p flooder" so that there was nothing solid to actually check (so they can say "it was a different p2p network" when asked no doubt) changed my accounts username from KingMacro to KingCRAP (showing their maturity there) and banned me from accessing the site let alone posting any form of response. Followed by adding all of my peer caches to the block list.

Btw, I suspect that the screen shot earlier in this thread is falsified, I very much doubt the claims that the compressed lists could fit on to a DVD ;-)
-KM-
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:15 am

Postby Swan Cake » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:15 pm

i think everyone can agree that peerguardian is a great well designed application rather its the blocklists that everyone thinks are a joke

i was locked out of my companys own internal network along with other organisations my company deals with due to these terrible lists . im a charity organisation. theyre probably compiled by kids with a grudge and too much time on their hands

any serious filesharer would take blocklists with a pinch of salt
Swan Cake
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:58 am

Postby LD50% » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:35 pm

Look, if PG2 keeps blocking us out from all the governments agency's of the planet, how else are we supposed to keep a handle on terrorists?.... :lol:
User avatar
LD50%
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:11 pm

Postby blargh » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:25 pm

KM, my point is that if you use your brain, you're not going to have these blocks at all, so to those that trust in these caches, they can unblock them with a couple of clicks with peerguardian, or any other software that supports list editing.

And no, peerguardian isn't "blocking everything" by default, you can set *exactly* which lists get allowed and which don't during install, you can even opt to add a set of your own custom lists and just use those, it's a very simple procedure really.
In fact, as a first time user you are strongly encouraged to choose which lists you think are appropriate, just clicking next and then complaining about it afterwards makes you look foolish.

As far as user education goes, everybody whose into security should have figured out where these lists come from, or else they shouldn't bother with them in the first place. If you're into security, you'll want to know who makes these lists, why they make them, and more importantly if they're trustworthy, again.. just blindly trusting somebody is NOT security.
True security will never be "set and forget", that's just a pleasant myth that vendors propagate.

My view on the winmx soap opera so far is this:

I still don't think that I'd trust a person who goes "you need to apply this patch, or you'll be breaking the law" over a guy who calmly goes "we have an obligation to protect our users with our blocklists"
Which would you believe? If you have too high security, what do you stand to loose? a few weeks of winmx access? what do you stand to loose if you have too low security and some rogue server admin fucks you over? .. well, a whole hell of a lot more I'd wager.

The sane thing from the winxm teams point of view would be to attempt to disclose as much as possible about how the infrastructure of the cache sites is configured, to make it clear to everybody involved that they have nothing to do with anything anti-p2p at all. Thus putting the bluetack.co.uk team in some serious hot water.

I'd advise everybody whose not sure about all of this to calm down and do the rational thing, staying secure and laying off the MX network for a while. Watch the pertinent forums as things unfold.. because on the internet, things have a tendency to reveal themselves fairly quickly. If nothing happens, or nothing gets revealed, reevaluate your situation, if you think it's all a bunch of paranoia, resume your mxing like nothing happend, if the shit hits the fan and something is exposed, count your lucky stars you stayed safe.

If I used winxm, that's what I'd do.

Edit:also, here's something which very much speaks against the winxm team, the initial statement which is essentially (as penn and teller would put it)
BULLSHIT:

Warning to peer guardian users
"Bluetack" who maintain the lists for Peer Guardian have been comromised by an unknown anti-p2p organisation. Anyone using their block lists (any peer guardian users by default) may find serious problems attempting to use p2p networks.

It is urgent that anyone using this compromised program remove it immediately, failure to do so may result in extremely poor performance of any and all p2p applications. Including WinMX.

WinMX Users are advised to run the latest WinMXGroup patch from http://www.winmxgroup.com which will block flooders and filter their flooded fakes and protect the network from anti-p2p groups attacking it. If you run WinMX without it then you may be breaking the law, as well as helping those trying to shut down WinMX.
This text makes my post look better.
blargh
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:44 pm

Postby Dazzle » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:11 pm

I have to laugh at your "cosy world" view of things Blargh.

If people who claim to be monitoring the networks don't know a single thing about WinMx that spells ignorance to me and for a network of the size MX was ( and is ), that's some serious deficiency, but lets look further into this what you seem to gloss over is the fact that they have taken this action against a large number of users secretly , where it not for the fact the new system was built to handle a blocking scenario (this is currently in operation), this and others places would be flooded with users asking who is attacking mx

If they think they are right in blocking winmx, multiple winmx websites and innocent winmx users then their claim to be a protector of p2p users is a lie.

If they think they have a valid reason then lets hear it, they made no mention of this stealth attack and many users may be suffering as we speak on older connection methods, hey it wont matter if they stay offline for two weeks will it according to you :roll:

It seems you are not a winmx user or a regular Slycks reader as we have had two news articles here both naming the operator of the caches and nothing has changed so are Blutack super inept at detecting the RIAA that it takes them a year ?
Or just plain stupid, if the cache operators where the RIAA dont you think they would just close shop and collapse the network at will ?

As someone closely involved in most things winmx I can show history for all the folks involved for the last 3 years online can the Blutak folks ?

My solution is for folks to uninstall PG or Protowall or anything that uses a set of flawed lists that are poorly maintained and wait till PG make their own list, perhaps this episode shows why its best to trust no one who is not prepared to discuss matter openly and be called to account if they abuse folks trust.

As for the comment here that is being repeated out of context lets lay the BS engine to rest shall we, the claim of winmxgroup demanding user switch to their patch or be breaking the law is actually legally correct ( due to the host file users operating as platforms in a ddos attack which is against their internet terms of service check your own if you think its wrong ), but was said by KM out of sarcasm after hearing from the pie team that IP blocking is illegal in their efforts to push the outdated host file that allows the attacks on the network.

I asked Moore directly for a reason why mx was blocked and none was forthcoming, people hiding things are not ones I generally trust.

While writing this I see you have edited your post, which part of that statement released very recently are you alleging is BS ?

It is not as you claim the initial statement, the caches where blocked way before that message was sent and I was offline so unable to discover why people where having issues, I was briefed on the matter upon my return and an urgent meeting took place to discuss what possible reasons they could have for doing this, I contacted Bluetack, you can openly read what I said there and their take it or leave it reply, action begets reaction.
Dazzle
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:50 pm

Postby blargh » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:26 am

Alright, since you wonder which part of the statement is bullshit, I'll tear it apart:

Warning to peer guardian users
"Bluetack" who maintain the lists for Peer Guardian have been comromised by an unknown anti-p2p organisation. Anyone using their block lists (any peer guardian users by default) may find serious problems attempting to use p2p networks.


Where is the evidence that bluetack simply aren't misinformed, or acting out of some false info?
why do they have to be compromised? where's the proof for that? So I call BS on this part.

It is urgent that anyone using this compromised program remove it immediately, failure to do so may result in extremely poor performance of any and all p2p applications. Including WinMX.


Again, this statement is false, from what's been posted in the thread over at bluetack, there exists a few servers which might be used by winmx users to still use the network, albeit at a diminished capacity, and also as I previously pointed out, the program itself is NOT the culprit, the lists are, and they're easily edited. Also, I'm an avid bittorrent user and I have absolutely no problems at all using it, even with vanilla bluetack lists installed.
So this part of the statement is yet again, complete bull and scare tactics.

WinMX Users are advised to run the latest WinMXGroup patch from http://www.winmxgroup.com which will block flooders and filter their flooded fakes and protect the network from anti-p2p groups attacking it. If you run WinMX without it then you may be breaking the law, as well as helping those trying to shut down WinMX.


I don't see how disallowing a certain ip adress constitutes an illegal action, if I want to block off the entire world from accessing my computer, I may do so, without asking anyone's approval. Also, from what bluetack states, this patch let's through some fairly heavvy hitters such as baytsp and similar things, also until bluetack themselves mentioned a certain site called "music.net" it was on the allowed list aswell, which was altered afterwards. Does that seem safe to you? I mean, how would they be any better than bluetack if they didn't know that music.net was heavily into the anti-p2p fray? So again, I call bullshit on that statement.

So, in my mind this whole statement is a big load of bullshit and scare tactics aimed to get unsuspecting users into applying this patch will unblock certain potentiall dangerous servers.

So, again, I advise everyone, read up on everything, learn how a blocklist works, and how a blocklist is maintained, do a whois on the servers that the winmx team wants you to unblock, and decide for yourself, but don't buy into this scare propaganda they're pushing.

And no, i'm not a winmx user, but I do know a thing or two about how networks function.

[/quote]
This text makes my post look better.
blargh
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:44 pm

Postby TcE » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:33 am

it blocks bad stuff on emule
winmx is teh suck so i dont care
it works fine and if you got a problem with then just turn it off and its time to move on winmx is junk guys i use it all the time and the only thing i had to allow is xfire lmao
<<I Just Read my PM's>> - - - YEY
TcE
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:45 pm

Postby SlyckTom » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:04 am

This thread is just becoming lamer than a duck that has been run over by a speeding pick up truck, flung several hundred feet into a piranha infested lake, and is being slowly nibbled to death as it sinks helplessly to the bottom...

In other words, if this thread can't be conducted in a respectful manner, I'll have little problem closing it permanently. No apologies and no explanations please, just continue like adults. Thank you!
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Postby ColinPL » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:38 am

TcE wrote:it blocks bad stuff on emule

It blocks good stuff too.
I have a server from LeaseWeb which is in almost all ipfilters for no reason.
ColinPL
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:56 am

Postby -KM- » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:03 pm

blargh wrote:Alright, since you wonder which part of the statement is bullshit, I'll tear it apart:

none of it apparently...
blargh wrote:
Warning to peer guardian users
"Bluetack" who maintain the lists for Peer Guardian have been compromised by an unknown anti-p2p organisation. Anyone using their block lists (any peer guardian users by default) may find serious problems attempting to use p2p networks.


Where is the evidence that bluetack simply aren't misinformed, or acting out of some false info?
why do they have to be compromised? where's the proof for that? So I call BS on this part.

did you try reading the posts on bluetacks forum where they are informed? the initial ones have been deleted, however there are now still posts where they state they are well aware and refuse to remove them...

blargh wrote:
It is urgent that anyone using this compromised program remove it immediately, failure to do so may result in extremely poor performance of any and all p2p applications. Including WinMX.


Again, this statement is false, from what's been posted in the thread over at bluetack, there exists a few servers which might be used by winmx users to still use the network, albeit at a diminished capacity, and also as I previously pointed out, the program itself is NOT the culprit, the lists are, and they're easily edited. Also, I'm an avid bittorrent user and I have absolutely no problems at all using it, even with vanilla bluetack lists installed.
So this part of the statement is yet again, complete bull and scare tactics.

poor performance refers to the fact that blocking potential download sources can never cause increased performance, several people have commented on improved downloads since removing peer guardian - which does show the huge numbers of users bloocked by it that shouldn't be...

as for trying to put the blame solely on bluetack, peer guardians default settings are to use a block list containing these blocks, so it is in fact peer guardians default behaviour to do it, the fact you can override it is irrelevant, especially as this was done in secret trying to hide it from the users so they don't know they need to allow it, even if they knew how to - and i believe the latest peer guardian version downloads the lists from the peer guardian website, not directly from bluetack?

blargh wrote:
WinMX Users are advised to run the latest WinMXGroup patch from http://www.winmxgroup.com which will block flooders and filter their flooded fakes and protect the network from anti-p2p groups attacking it. If you run WinMX without it then you may be breaking the law, as well as helping those trying to shut down WinMX.


I don't see how disallowing a certain ip adress constitutes an illegal action, if I want to block off the entire world from accessing my computer, I may do so, without asking anyone's approval.


You should re-read that, it states failing to use the winmxgroup patch may be illegal - it says nothing about running peer guardian being illegal (it's not) - this is a true statement, if a user operates winmx on a primary connection without effective blocking (currently the only effective blocking comes from using that patch) then they end up hosting a load of flooders, and their system is being used to participate in DDoS attacks against every user on the network (any search for a flooded term results in a flood of data which disrupts a lot of users connections) - which in some countries may be illegal

blargh wrote:Also, from what bluetack states,

I'll resist the temptation...
blargh wrote:this patch let's through some fairly heavvy hitters such as baytsp and similar things, also until bluetack themselves mentioned a certain site called "music.net" it was on the allowed list aswell, which was altered afterwards. Does that seem safe to you? I mean, how would they be any better than bluetack if they didn't know that music.net was heavily into the anti-p2p fray? So again, I call bullshit on that statement.

...or perhaps i won't?

according to bluetack churches are attacking p2p networks (perhaps p2p is unholy?)
according to bluetack workers in some town hall are attacking p2p networks (the only p2p activity I'd expect from them is the mayor downloading porn.. lol)
according to bluetack IP Addresses that are not in use, but have been allocated to a p2p network for future use are attacking p2p networks

every single company attacking the winmx network is contained on the winmxworld block list, unlike bluetack we actually detect these ourselves and don't just block something because a user took a guess at a flooders IP Address, we actually detect the flooders ourselves, verify them (it is extremely easy to spot the difference) then they are blocked - at this current point in time 100% of those attacking winmx are blocked, when they change an IP Address it is a few hours at the absolute most before it is blocked (compare to the several days minimum for peer guardian...)
as for claims that you need to block baytsb and such, that is a load of rubbish - firstly blocking a direct connection between them would achieve nothing considering they rarely bother to connect (they have no reason to) and if they did want to they would just go home at the end of the day and do it from their home computer

blargh wrote:So, in my mind this whole statement is a big load of bullshit and scare tactics aimed to get unsuspecting users into applying this patch will unblock certain potentiall dangerous servers.

installing the patch unblocks nothing, and in my mind the claims you are making sound very much like... well, care to tell everyone where you work? i wouldn't be surprised if it was an anti-p2p company from your statements!

blargh wrote:So, again, I advise everyone, read up on everything, learn how a blocklist works, and how a blocklist is maintained, do a whois on the servers that the winmx team wants you to unblock, and decide for yourself, but don't buy into this scare propaganda they're pushing.

i would advise anyone trying to get users to use any block list to learn at least a few basic things first, like first of all how anti-p2p things are detected (and no it's not "joe bloggs from the public took a wild guess at an IP Address" - that is not how any block list should be made), and of course how to verify them (for example if it has "smokeblower" written all over it then that's a big clue, macrovision... if it has "netsentry" written all over it, etc...), and of course should also understand a few basic things about the internet (like what a whois lookup is and what the results returned are/mean)

blargh wrote:And no, i'm not a winmx user, but I do know a thing or two about how networks function.

clearly not from your posts...

btw, for the record, if macrovision themselves wanted to run a peer cache then there would be no problems at all, as long as it returned correct data I can see no problems with that... although I hope that they never do so, purely because that would make a few people with no knowledge of winmx uncomfortable
-KM-
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:15 am

Postby SlyckTom » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:10 pm

-km-:

You're moving dangerously close to violating the guideline I posted. Please keep your posts polite, thank you.
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Postby Dazzle » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:26 pm

I am rather suprised that your taking that view Tom, but since I have been made aware that you where informed of this last week and made no effort to warn blutak list users I think that perhaps you may as well lock the thread, overt censorship is not likely to endear you to anyone.

I have been offline and return to hear a group of folks who know nothing about the winmx network blocking winmx users from connecting to websites peer caches and just ordinary users, I also do not work for the RIAA so the logical thing for me was to warn folks that the Blutak list is not in order, you make what you want of it but this is a P2P news site to deliver information to p2p users or has that changed ?

Blargh:
The evidence of butack being misinformed is all around them and they are not blocking for that reason, instead they are making claims now that the sites and folks they are blocking are "rotten", this no only sounds lame, it was said after a request for some information and sounds like the sort of thing we are likely to hear from someone who has another agenda than the one thats publicly claimed, politics is not their strong point at blutack.

The second point you claim as relevant is debatable, the servers that you claim are available to users are in the US and under the control of an unreliable operator, the same one responsible for the host file that allows flooders on the network, by blocking those caches that deliver the only winmx blocking solution in existence, blutak are helping allow users to be attacked and we will see this damage rise in the near future naturally its clear that two entities attacking winmx are likely to help each other when the light of publicity is shone upon their underhand actions.

I don't see how disallowing a certain ip adress constitutes an illegal action


Neither do we, luckily thats not what is posted is it, a short re-read of what you have posted shows that you have surmised this comment out of thin air.

You seem to not be following through with clear logic so let me walk you through it and make it clear to understand the serious concern and problem.

1 ) Winmx peer caches are blocked and the websites that offer help and support to the the users are blocked.

2) The users are unable to connect

3) user try to find out the problem , and cannot find the blocked websites and assume the RIAA are winning the war and give up on P2P, no doubt this pleases you.

I on the other hand am fully aware blutack have no legitimate reason to block winmx and are therefore under some influence to do this for an unspecified reason, that reason is open to debate and fully justifies the network wide emergency notice you posted here, we have of course their own anti p2p actions to demontrate our complaint is valid.

As for your own scare tactic you need to take a look at the virtually zero amount of users sued on winmx as against those on other networks who use blutaks lists and are sent a nice frindly reminder to leave p2p by the lawyers.

I feel its only right to clear a simple thing up this is not like torrent or edonkey with untold amounts of supporting servers, the winmx network has only two groups operating the servers and blutak are blocking the largest group with the majority of the servers which as I mentioned above are the only one feeding the blocklist to users so lets be honest here they are helping to enable DDOS attacks on users and helping bay tsp to have access to users to sue, good double plan there blutak :roll:

If it squawks like a duck has a bill and likes water I think we can call it a duck.
Dazzle
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:50 pm

Next

Return to WinMX

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com