You see negative 2 billion???fire01 wrote:This just in. I don't know if anybody else noticed but i seemed to see -2 billions file shared on kazaa what does it mean. Is the same thing happening to kmd. Why mindness? The network must be really screwing up. Is it because of k-lite.
Could you give me an answer ashton!
ashton wrote:You see negative 2 billion???fire01 wrote:This just in. I don't know if anybody else noticed but i seemed to see -2 billions file shared on kazaa what does it mean. Is the same thing happening to kmd. Why mindness? The network must be really screwing up. Is it because of k-lite.
Could you give me an answer ashton!
hafnium wrote:The idea that the supernodes returning around 100k users are split off kazaa lite nodes is nonsense. This is the work of an external attacker trying to spam the network.
ashton wrote:hafnium wrote:The idea that the supernodes returning around 100k users are split off kazaa lite nodes is nonsense. This is the work of an external attacker trying to spam the network.
Nonsense? No it's a fact. Where did you get this external attacker idea? Spamming the network with what?
Funny I have connected to many kazaalite supernodes and gotten this low count I determined this via a FastTrack packet sniffer. And to note there was nothing unusual about the file count. Can you paste a screen cap of a segregated node showing an unusually large amount of files?hafnium wrote:ashton wrote:hafnium wrote:The idea that the supernodes returning around 100k users are split off kazaa lite nodes is nonsense. This is the work of an external attacker trying to spam the network.
Nonsense? No it's a fact. Where did you get this external attacker idea? Spamming the network with what?
Out of a sample of 100 supernodes which give a user count below 100k not a single one was a kazaa lite node.
Spamming with fake files of course. Hence the high number of files reported.
Some of the supernodes in the fragment are connected to the main network, however I don't see you finding sources outside of it unless you are connected to a SN that is linked to the main network, but if that was the case you would notice that your connection would sling you back onto the main network. This is just general observation from my research into this equation.tomy wrote:I still dont get something:
If im computer #1 in the network fragment and just 90k users,would i have access to users outside that fragment?Does it really matter when looking for more sources?Or is that fragment isolated from the rest of the network?
ashton wrote:the function disable_networklicense has been removed from the FastTrack stack because the recording industry would be able to proove they could shut FT down
Pre 1.7.X clients contain that function. This call is injected into the root Supernodes, I have a list somewhere of them. This is what used to broadcast the "Ugrade" packet that contained the payload of features and also a tailing and encrypted section that could disable a client license, a la Morpheus, so they could target any client. There really is no way to recreate this as the functionality has most likely been removed from the root Supernodes, iMesh no longer has to pay for their FT stack because A. The contract has expired from the "Consumer Empowerment" firm, a company that Joltid made up to license out the stacks which no longer exists and B. The function has been removed as i stated from the FT stack.tm wrote:ashton wrote:the function disable_networklicense has been removed from the FastTrack stack because the recording industry would be able to proove they could shut FT down
@Ashton,
Do you know when this happened - that Sharman no longer gave itself the ability to shut down any FT client? Does this mean that older versions with the "feature" can still be remotely disabled? And were you able to recreate Sharman's code that would enable you (or anyone else) to remotely disable an old FT client?
This certainly throws a monkeywrench into Sharman's legal strategy of claiming that they had no direct control over the network.
ESTABLISHED session to 65.94.20.96:1159 (total sessions: 1)
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_fasttrack.c:371(fst_plugin_session_callback): added 200 received supernode IPs to nodes list
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_fasttrack.c:445(fst_plugin_session_callback): received network name: "KaZaA", sending ours: "KaZaA"
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_fasttrack.c:468(fst_plugin_session_callback): received external ip: 67.22.122.26
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_session.c:258(fst_session_send_info): sending address: 192.168.123.51:2041, bandwidth: 0x60, username: Jolix
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_search.c:420(fst_searchlist_send_queries): resent 0 pending searches to supernode
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_fasttrack.c:420(fst_plugin_session_callback): received network stats: 2286726 users, -2137748904 files, 10547200 GB
ashton wrote:Back on the -2 Billion files thing, I was doing some testing and was able to reproduce this with giFT:ESTABLISHED session to 65.94.20.96:1159 (total sessions: 1)
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_fasttrack.c:371(fst_plugin_session_callback): added 200 received supernode IPs to nodes list
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_fasttrack.c:445(fst_plugin_session_callback): received network name: "KaZaA", sending ours: "KaZaA"
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_fasttrack.c:468(fst_plugin_session_callback): received external ip: 67.22.122.26
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_session.c:258(fst_session_send_info): sending address: 192.168.123.51:2041, bandwidth: 0x60, username: Jolix
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_search.c:420(fst_searchlist_send_queries): resent 0 pending searches to supernode
[00:22:04] FastTrack: fst_fasttrack.c:420(fst_plugin_session_callback): received network stats: 2286726 users, -2137748904 files, 10547200 GB
Whomever posted about the negative 2 billion must be using KCeasy...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests