Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Weird bittorent IP Address 30.110.x.x

Discussion about the BitTorrent Network and the Clients used to access it.
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Weird bittorent IP Address 30.110.x.x

Postby PPcd » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:57 pm

I was downloading this movie from bittorent and there were about 100 Fake seeders with IP Addresses that started as 30.110.x.x, I did a whois on one of them and it came out as a company "Performance Systems International Inc." Is it the MPAA? Will it have anything to do with me being in Canada? This torrent was on for about a day and downloaded 1GB of fake data and only like 20MB was real it seemed.

What to do?
PPcd
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:51 pm

Postby MrFredPFL » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:01 pm

interesting. according to what i see, the entire 30.110.* block is allocated to the United States Department of Defense. do you know something we don't know? is Canada preparing to declare war on the US? :shock:

:D
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15645
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby Nutty-Slack » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:07 pm

Certainly sounds like the spooks.
Apart from the I.P. addresses the clients are usually identical too (if you can see them) like all Azureus 2.5.0.4.
I'll bet it was high-profile pop music or a very recent movie?

Nothing much you can do about it now, but 'PeerGuardian' is pretty good at blocking the obvious I.P. harvesters like those guys.
Other suggestions.... VPN services, newsgroups etc.
I'm sure others will elaborate.

Quibus Societas Nobis Intemporaliter
User avatar
Nutty-Slack
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:08 pm
Location: Shit Creek (UK)

Postby enigmax » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:11 pm

Which tracker was it on?
User avatar
enigmax
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:58 am
Location: torrentfreak

Postby PPcd » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:45 pm

Demonoid was the tracker and yes it was a recent movie. The IP was owned by Performance Systems International Inc.

Does the MPAA send lawsuits to Canada?

Also I hear Peer Guardian is useless.
PPcd
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:51 pm

Postby MrFredPFL » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:53 pm

the MPAA has no authority to sue people in canada.

as far as peer guardian goes, that's a highly debated topic. at the risk of painting a target on my back, here's my opinion:

PG unquestionably blocks some bad addresses. however, they block a HUGE number of addresses, which inevitably blocks an enormous number of innocent people. additionally, there is no doubt that they do not block all IPs used by "them" (they could never know many of them) - and imo, the worst thing you can do, in any case, is to think "i use PG, and therefore i'm safe." you might be safeR, but you would not be safe.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15645
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby GraphiX » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:00 pm

the MPAA has no authority to sue people in canada.

err... you would think that applied to everything else
whats stoping the mpaa getting a canadian solicitor to fight for them?

this is exactly what topware based in germany is doing
with davenport lyons with the UK pinball game lawsuit.

people have this strange way of thinking just because the mpaa/riaa is in another country they cant do anything thats totally un-true.
GraphiX
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:19 pm

Postby MrFredPFL » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:11 pm

fair enough - perhaps i worded that poorly.

however, i am not going to tell all canadians to put on their tinfoil hats yet. can you cite even ONE example of a canadian sued by an agent of the RIAA or MPAA? i am not specifically familiar with the canadian laws about this. perhaps they have no legal leverage there for other reasons. what is done in the UK is done with UK laws, or should be. UK laws don't apply in Canada any more than US laws do, a fact i would guess most canadians are proud of ;)
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15645
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby Nutty-Slack » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:12 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:as far as peer guardian goes, that's a highly debated topic. at the risk of painting a target on my back, here's my opinion:

PG unquestionably blocks some bad addresses. however, they block a HUGE number of addresses, which inevitably blocks an enormous number of innocent people. additionally, there is no doubt that they do not block all IPs used by "them" (they could never know many of them) - and imo, the worst thing you can do, in any case, is to think "i use PG, and therefore i'm safe." you might be safeR, but you would not be safe.


I agree. :lol:
I've been known to slate PeerGuardian myself.
But having messed around with the program in conjunction with such conspicuously monitored torrents from a relatively safe environment (ie. the U.K.), it was extremely effective at blocking the I.P. monitoring services(?) that I encountered.
I think it's more so music (RIAA) than movies that are affected, on BitTorrent at least.
The fact that the program blocks good sources is really of less importance than a possible safety gain, even a slim one.

But yes, it's safe to put PeerGuardian in the 'better than nothing' category.
At the moment the O.P. appears to be using nothing.

A better way of minimising the risk factor is by staying away from 'popular' content via public outlets, but that's not always popular advice.

Quibus Societas Nobis Intemporaliter
User avatar
Nutty-Slack
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:08 pm
Location: Shit Creek (UK)

Postby ShawnSpree » Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:04 pm

I always ask this but never get any answer. Why the hell risk anything on a public site riddled with fakes, and bots. Take example off this thread to.
http://slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32554

MPAA have sued, and they have sent out letters to IP's, and you can get disconnected from your ISP. RIAA and MPAA have no problem going outside to canada to inforce laws, more likely the equivalent to the RIAA in canada will sue for music, and the movie studios have laws in place. Its a FEDERAL crime. And there is laws in canada as well that are prohibiting you downloading a movie.

I have used usent and private bt since 2003. I have yet to get any warning, nor have i used peerguardian. Take a check on the forums here. You would see lawsuits, and other things users are experiencing from other sharing methods.
ShawnSpree
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 8:20 pm

Postby enigmax » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:10 pm

Borders don't bother the MPAA. They took legal action against Alexander Hanff, Hawthy and Bardoid, all British citizens, all living in the UK. From memory, I think the MPAA demanded that they should all get flights to the US to take what's coming to them :roll:

Maybe they should consider it...the dollar is very weak against the pound at the moment so now's a good time to exchange the money to pay the $0.25bn settlement ;)
User avatar
enigmax
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:58 am
Location: torrentfreak

Postby Winston84 » Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:04 pm

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=30.110.0.0

OrgName: DoD Network Information Center
OrgID: DNIC
Address: 3990 E. Broad Street
City: Columbus
StateProv: OH
PostalCode: 43218
Country: US

NetRange: 30.0.0.0 - 30.255.255.255
CIDR: 30.0.0.0/8
NetName: ARPAX25-TEMP
NetHandle: NET-30-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Direct Allocation
Comment: Defense Information Systems Agency
Comment: Washington, DC 20305-2000 US
RegDate:
Updated: 2002-10-07

OrgTechHandle: MIL-HSTMST-ARIN
OrgTechName: Network DoD
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-365-3642
OrgTechEmail: **********@nic.mil

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-04-21 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

And the entire range is blocked by Peerguardian.
People who say Peerguardian is useless are idiots. period .
Winston84
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:14 pm

Postby PPcd » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:24 pm

Sorry it was 38.110.0.0
PPcd
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:51 pm

Postby LD50% » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:28 pm

PPcd wrote:Sorry it was 38.110.0.0


Well that changes everything..... :lol:

PS..use this
User avatar
LD50%
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:11 pm

Postby bincoder » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:33 pm

pg works ok, but is rather hoggish on cpu time.
pop the range into your firewall, it can block things faster. pg is really good to visually see who is attempting to connect and how often they try.

If it's too often, your cpu will have to deal with all that traffic, possibly causing lagtime in pg. If pg gets slow to block, some will make it through anyway.

If they are persistant, firewall them.
bincoder
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:09 am

Postby MrFredPFL » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:08 pm

ShawnSpree wrote:the movie studios have laws in place. Its a FEDERAL crime. And there is laws in canada as well that are prohibiting you downloading a movie.


as far as i am aware, this is simply not true. can you cite anything to support this?

enigmax wrote:Borders don't bother the MPAA. They took legal action against Alexander Hanff, Hawthy and Bardoid, all British citizens, all living in the UK. From memory, I think the MPAA demanded that they should all get flights to the US to take what's coming to them :roll:


correct me if i'm wrong (:lol: sif i have to ask ;) ) but weren't those criminal prosecutions? the OP asked about lawsuits. i have not heard the OP say he did anything criminal - he used BT to get a movie or movies. this is not a criminal act, either in the US or Canada. (yet)
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15645
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby LANjackal » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:40 pm

PPcd wrote:Sorry it was 38.110.0.0

Saw it in a couple music torrents earlier today myself. Fake sources usually don't bother me as long as the client can complete the download anyway. In this case, the hash fails were just too many and so I removed and deleted the torrents and all data from uTorrent. They appear to be fake sources like the dht* and mesh* ones on Ares.
Follow me around the internet!
[Windows 7 Pro x64 (Primary OS)
User avatar
LANjackal
 
Posts: 5895
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: Various networks. In the physical world I'm an adaptive AI that pretends to be human

Postby PPcd » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:18 pm

LANjackal wrote:
PPcd wrote:Sorry it was 38.110.0.0

Saw it in a couple music torrents earlier today myself. Fake sources usually don't bother me as long as the client can complete the download anyway. In this case, the hash fails were just too many and so I removed and deleted the torrents and all data from uTorrent. They appear to be fake sources like the dht* and mesh* ones on Ares.


OK so what does that mean just idiots flooding the trackers with fake crap, kind of like what they did with Kazaa.
PPcd
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:51 pm

Re: Weird bittorent IP Address 30.110.x.x

Postby ShawnSpree » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:51 pm

Here is from media defender EMAIL leak.
On 4/19/07 4:15 PM, "Steve Lyons" <steve@mediadefender.com> wrote:

Nope, not us, we’re on 38.99.252.0/22

Very close though. These IPs (both ours and the ones in the story) actually belong to Cogent, who bought PSI net a few years ago.

steve


On 4/19/07 4:10 PM, "Randy Saaf" <randy@mediadefender.com> wrote:

viewtopic.php?t=32539

I assume this is us. Haha.



ShawnSpree
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 8:20 pm


Return to BitTorrent

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com