Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:04 pm
by blargh
I'm going to do the smart thing for once, and decline to discuss this matter any more, since I've said what I need to say, and really don't feel it would be of any use to continue arguing with anyone.
Slycktom, please don't close this thread, whatever happens needs to be discussed deeply here, and apparently I chose a too harsh phrasing when I wrote my replies, so I came into the discussion at a bad angle.

So really, I'm out of this one.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:35 pm
by Neutron939
The PG2 program itself is good, I like it, but the blocklists on there are rubbish.

There are 2 kinds of anti-p2p agents that could be added to the list. I think it's important that you know the difference of them.
1. Those trying to disrupt networks by attacking them or flooding them, like macrovision do on WinMX
2. Those who track and monitor users on a network to sue them for file sharing.

Number 1 is simple if you know how to detect them. If they are causing damage, of course you can easilly see what is causing it.
Number 2 is nothing you can do about. You won't know if someone downloading from you is a legitimate user or an anti-p2p organisation tracking you. Those downloading PG2 to block these agents are very mistaken. they cannot be spotted, and therefore they can't be blocked. That's how the nature is.
Even I can get a job at some anti-p2p organisation and download from users from my home connection with the official p2p client of the network I am using. So how would they go about blocking me? They can't. They can only do a guess, and that's what they are doing.

The p2p list is probably designed to be a combination of both of these 2 kinds of anti-p2p agents, but it's very inaccurate. If you ask me, adding 87 million random IPs to the list would be about as inaccurate as the IPs they have added. They don't know how to detect the anti-p2p agents.
If they are going to maintain a list of IPs attacking p2p networks, then they would know how to spot them, but they don't. Have the cache IPs ever been used to disrupt p2p networks? I don't think so, but somehow they ended up on the blocklist.
You also see how they add IPs of people they don't like to their list thinking it can be used as a weapon to lock people they don't like off the internet. "Do as we say, or get added to our blocklist". They think they can push their list on as many users as possible, then monopolise the internet. At least that's how I see it.

So my advice is to stop using PG2. As I stated above, the PG2 program itself is a good program, it has a good blocking engine, but it's blocking the wrong things. I know the blocklists aren't in control of the PG2 team, but at least they have control of what blocklists can be selected by default.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:26 am
by -KM-
just thought i might add this here:

http://www.bluetack.co.uk/forums/index. ... opic=15495

bluetack were literally handed a list of macrovision IP Addresses, none of which they had blocked - it is now 16 hours later, none of them have been added to their very accurate block lists, and a large number of them have now changed IP Addresses (no doubt in response to the post) - macrovision responded to a post on the bluetack forum faster than bluetack did...

they don't block any macrovision systems apart from those that everyone knows about that they have no choice but to block - anyone want to take a wild guess as to why not a single one of macrovisions dynamic IP Addresses was on bluetacks lists? (the only ones on there are the ones publicly announced on winmxworld, and those that happen to be on an ISP that bluetack have blocked)

i don't believe for a second that it is purely due to incompetence that they somehow managed to miss every single one of them, and then once told about them took this long and have still not blocked any of them

what's the betting that bluetack will wait until macrovision have had time to change them all before they start blocking any of them?

just in case you needed more evidence to support the arguments that bluetack are working for an anti-p2p organisation

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:51 pm
by thejynxed
In that thread on Bluetack, the spurious argument is made that the peercaches are infallible and can't be subverted for nefarious purposes. What a bunch of hogwash. A peercache operates just like DNS. It is a list of named nodes on the network. It is accessed by the client machines to determine who is online, who to connect to, and whatnot. This is expoitable in so many ways as to be laughable.

Peercache poisoning works just like DNS poisoning. Very easy to tell clients to connect to the RIAA itself if the peercache is manipulated to have only anti-p2p peers cached as active nodes. Thusly, it is impossible to trust any peercache server hosted by known media companies or anti-p2p establishments. See the media.net example for a good reason why.

I didn't think Moore had to hold your hand while he spelled it out for you.

As for blocklists, I take what Bluetack provides and roll my own customizations into it. That is what the Blocklist Manager is for. You can put in custom Exclusions and Inclusions and compile them into the list. For instance, I have the entire netblock owned by China in a customized blocklist I exported to my firewall. I do think my Great Firewall outdoes theirs :P

Spurious arguments made by people too lazy to take the effort to tweak the lists to their liking, or even to take the time to learn how to do so. Or to even provide people with a tutorial on how to do so on their own sites.

I have no sympathy, and feel the burden is on YOU to prove that the peercache servers in question are legitimate, not the other way around.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:50 pm
by Dazzle
Spurious arguments made by people too lazy to take the effort to tweak the lists to their liking, or even to take the time to learn how to do so. Or to even provide people with a tutorial on how to do so on their own sites.


I think you need to read the winmxworld site before talking hogwash like this, there is a how to install in multiple languages made by the site operators and others showing how to add or remove numbers.

I have no sympathy, and feel the burden is on YOU to prove that the peercache servers in question are legitimate, not the other way around.


I think anyone using the winmx group patch will laugh at whats being said here, please read a little more than the propaganda from Blutack, there are two winmx factions operating caches not umpteen and this has been the same for the last year, even a child using google can gather this simple information.

Perhaps we should hear from anyone how many winmx users have received C and D letters this year, I am 100% sure the same is not the case with most other networks.

I suppose you now want to credit the RIAA with developing the only 100% working fake flooder blocker in existence, please do some homework before posting.

We unlike Blutack are more than familiar with the properties of a peer cache having been operating them for the last year for users to connect to the network, we deplore Blutacks anti-p2p stance and attacks against users websites and peer caches for p2p networks, lets stop dancing around the bush here, folks know openly who runs each winmx server or site, the same cant be said of the folks at Blutack who refuse to answer legitimate queries with anything like reasonable replies , I came away knowing that they know as much about the WPN as I do about spot welding, (next to nothing).

Lets take a look at a post by FirstAid who willingly takes numbers gained by our software tools to add to the blocklist.

http://www.bluetack.co.uk/forums/index. ... opic=11284

These numbers where gathered by the winmx blocking group to protect winmx users and lo and behold they all turn out to be IP,s of network disruptors, now all of a sudden we see an about face by the same guy ..

http://www.bluetack.co.uk/forums/index. ... opic=15416

Lets remember the date on the top post (oct 2 2005 )

Hmm so now all those IPS are fakes maybe :roll:

We dont need Blutacks poor research and ignorant blocking team who seem unable to work out why they "hate" (Sabres words ) winmxgroup/winmxworld and are blocking the caches, blocklists and websites in clear censorship of an opposing opinion to theirs.

Lets be clear, we provide the users with a blocklist better than that used on PG2 for use soley with winmx, ours is well maintained and accurate, so much so that we have seen netsentry and macrovision virtually give up rotating the IP,s they use to flood from as they have no chance of using the winmxgroup dll users to launch their activities from.
We have people that pass any IP changes to Blutack who are members there for this very reason.

So lets turn this around now, why does blutack think it can decide who joins the winmx network, a network they are unable to provide any knowledge of ,that has at a minumum 1/4 million users (over 50% Japanese )and lets end this by asking why are they attacking p2p, the folks want to know.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:38 pm
by -KM-
thejynxed wrote:Peercache poisoning works just like DNS poisoning. Very easy to tell clients to connect to the RIAA itself if the peercache is manipulated to have only anti-p2p peers cached as active nodes.

which would be immediately obvious to anyone
Thusly, it is impossible to trust any peercache server hosted by known media companies or anti-p2p establishments. See the media.net example for a good reason why.

you mean for example someone who is an active campainger for macrovisions rights to attack p2p networks? well they "gave him permission"... but the only person currently fighting for p2p (in the form of blocking) is clearly not trusted? someone who actively supports macrovision and netsentry is "trusted" but you think that someone who actively fights them is not? makes sense...

As for blocklists, I take what Bluetack provides and roll my own customizations into it. That is what the Blocklist Manager is for.
well that's fine then, while you're there you see how many ISPs are willing to say "we'll half of the internet, but allow specific IP Addresses you ask us for permission to connect to" - there is no ISP that does it because that is utterly stupid, what is worse is doing that and not telling people that you are doing it

Spurious arguments made by people too lazy to take the effort to tweak the lists to their liking, or even to take the time to learn how to do so.
good job you maintain block lists but we have no clue, where do you think every single one of the flooders on dynamics that bluetack blocks come from? certainly not their own lists... you'd look stupid if it turned out they came from our block lists wouldn't you?

Or to even provide people with a tutorial on how to do so on their own sites.
good job we don't have the most popular winmx tutorial for peer guardian in existence or you'd really look stupid, especially if the above were true as well

I have no sympathy, and feel the burden is on YOU to prove that the peercache servers in question are legitimate, not the other way around.
no, the burden is on you to prove that you are not a pedophile, do it or you will be found guilty and treated like the pedophile you are...

that statement is utterly stupid, there is absolutely no evidence proving something therefore it must be true?

here's some proof for you: the fact that there is absolutely nothing linking me to any anti-p2p companies? or let me guess the fact that something is clearly the case doesn't make it true?

of course the huge number of things I have done to keep a p2p network running, to fight against the anti-p2p companies and the fact that i am soely responsible for keeping a very large p2p network alive... they clearly are nothing, but the fact that I was added to a block list which is very openly unreliable and admits they are completely unreliable with absolutely no justification given... well that proves it, i must be anti-p2p

I'd like to see what bluetack have done that is pro-p2p, I have seen MANY anti-p2p actions and no pro-p2p actions, for example when given a list of macrovision IP Addresses the first thing they do is try to claim that the clearly macrovision IP Addresses are nothing to do with macrovision so they can stall as much as possible, then when macrovison have had enough time to change most of their IP Addresses bluetack finally block some of them (mostly by blocking some more huge ranges of innocent users)

there is a lot of evidence showing bluetack to be anti-p2p, and I see no evidence showing otherwise

there is also a lot of evidence showing me to be pro-p2p, and absolutely no evidence at all to try and claim otherwise

it's clear who should be on their block lists, and their website is located in a data center that they themselves have classed as anti-p2p...

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:28 am
by Viking
Ok Folks, that's a lot of discussion about Winmx-PeerGuardian and Blutack.
The outcome of all this is that I completely don't know anymore what's the right thing to do.
I use PeerGuardian with the Blutack lists and the Winmx block and allow list but never have any trouble in finding and downloading files in Winmx (uploading seems to be no problem too, my hard to get files from vinyl & tape, converted to mp3, are found by a lot of people) so I think I just keep running PG, because I don't have any problems with using Winmx or any other P2P applications.

Actually I hope that SlyckTom can have a last say in this matter, that's someone who's advice I would really appreciate.

Greetings to you all.

Viking
:lol:

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:38 am
by Dazzle
Viking if your using the Winmxworld Allow list you need not take any action as it has the blocked IP,s in it.

I am asking folks to remove it as Blutack seem not even able to say why its there, this is my concern and a valid one.
How many IP,s on their list are truly genuine if they do not have any information on why and how it became blocked.

My confidence in their technical skills is now also zero as its clear from the discussions on Blutack that they do not have the tools to differentiate primary users from secondary users and have also blocked many of those in error claiming they are flooders when its well known the flooders use secondary to try to prevent detection, would you trust people who make a list but cant check its validity and are too arrogant to admit error ?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:28 am
by Viking
It sounds like a good reason not to trust them, but how will disabeling the Blutack P2P list effect the other P2P applications, like KCEasy, Ares, KazaaLite++, Frostwire etc etc.
Are you completely unprotected on those applications then?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:40 am
by Dazzle
I had hoped my visiting Blutack in person and asking whats going on would move the situation along so that issues as you point out would not arise but as you can see if you have followed this thread and also the link to their forum its not going to be possible for me personally to say "yeah just use our blocklist on allow and use theirs as normal", although in your position that is the most common sense route.

I cant and wont say this as its been further researched that they are blocking many dynamic IP's that block legitimate users and those are being left on their list in perpetuity even though the numbers are reallocated from normal consumer blocks, this not only means they have an ever expanding list, but that the list has no effectiveness as shown by the fact that folks are still receiving letters via lawyers representing Baytsp etc, well maintained list will halt this overnight if the tech folks where on their toes.

This is the choice, block innocent users, sites and servers, because the maintainers of the lists are not doing a good job or face going it alone and maybe leave yourself open to a nasty letter from our friends, while I can virtually guarantee we can block wholesale efforts by the cartel to farm data on the winmx network on the others we cannot claim to do so and never will unless we studied the network protocols and technology to understand the weaknesses and how they are exploited by the cartel operatives.

I can only advise that until Blutack answer what the problem is I and the others of the winmxworld tech team, and the operator of winmxgroup share the view that something is amiss at blutack and beyond recovery by us alone.

I,m sorry for not being able to say much more, I am like you concerned and will be so until I obtain information that allows me to get to the bottom of this whole wasteful mess.

I,m sure macrovision and others will be having a laughing fit over blutack blocking the only 100% proven blocking solution for their winmx flooding campaign, talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:54 pm
by -KM-
use the lists or not? well, let's see:

cons:
blocking potential download sources
allowing someone else to dictate which p2p networks they allow you to use or not
all downloads of their block lists are logged, so those who run it to try for some reason to pretend they aren't using p2p...

pros:
anyone?

i can think of no reason at all to use it - for example go to their forum and find the post I made on there giving them a list of macrovisions dynamic IP Addresses at the time, several hundred of them - they confirmed that they did not block any of them (macrovision not anti-p2p enough for them? but a p2p network is of course)

sorry, I forgot, you can't, because after confirming that they do not block even someone like macrovision they then removed the post to stop others reading it (most companies performing anti-p2p roles do so as merely a side line of the business, macrovision is a company dedicated solely to attacking p2p - someone who clearly has the full backing of bluetack)

do you think that who you connect to should be controlled by yourself, or by someone who has stated that they do not wish you to connect to legitimate download sources but do want you connecting to a company like macrovision?

note: i only mention macrovision specifically as that is the most anti-p2p company in existence, and it is also the one i made a point of mentioning to them that they do not block, the same things however are true of all anti-p2p companies that i am aware of, currently they only block either legitimate users or a handful of the large blocks that some anti-p2p companies have in their own names

PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:28 am
by Dazzle
I have just noticed Blutack are now claiming a DDos attack on themselves as justification for blocking WinMx, while wondering why this has taken weeks to reach the public ears I also noted they are locking any threads from users asking what its all about, this then is a signal that they are making untrue allegations and have no material proof of any attack originating from WinMx, no wonder someone decided to close them down for the day if this is how they go on.

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

Censorship of unpalatable facts does not make them any less factual, Blutack is not capable of detecting WinMx flooders and does not protect the winmx network, blocking the network connection methods seems more like the work of the RIAA.

There is is seems nothing more to be said, you folks make up your own mind if you trust an org that canot justify its claims and censors discussion.

I intend to do more research on other p2p protocols to help those users block the threats that Blutack/PG is allowing through, someone has to make the effort and it may as well be someone who has an idea what they are doing.