What is Digg?187 Comments
- lithiumsystems, on 10/17/2007, -7/+109buried because a complete dumb ***** wrote this article pointing people to SID. Way to ***** up a legitimate service for everyone else!
- tropican8, on 11/04/2007, -1/+87SilenceIsDefeat is great idea if you're using Bittorrent for legitimate purposes. I wouldn't recommend it if you want to pirate anything. The reason they require a $1 paypal donation is so you're documented if caught doing anything less than kosher.
- thesandbender, on 10/21/2007, -3/+81Shell accounts are supposed to be used for email, IRC and the like... hence the name "Shell". As soon as the admins figure out that you're using the service as a proxy/redirect they're going to terminate your account. This is a gross misuse of a legitimate and welcomed service. Don't be a d*ck.
- idefixxx, on 10/21/2007, -1/+49Publishing something like this is a really bad idea!
The only once that will suffer are the small free shell providers everyone with half a brain uses for irc or the occasional proxy pushing these amounts of data will kill their line and their finances.
Thank you ernesto for once again being a dumb ****! - ravan46, on 10/15/2007, -3/+46Open a terminal and type ssh
- jennamalia, on 10/15/2007, -0/+39you should 'iron' out your differences with those people; that may "alloy" your bitching.
(i hereby designate this typo as a pun free-for-all) - madvulcan, on 10/16/2007, -0/+39This is a really dumb article. What this article fail to mention is that by doing this you are using the bandwidth of the proxy server, in this case the server that gives you the (free) shell access. The intro of the article seems to imply that if you do this you're bypassing the restriction you have on your own bandwidth to run torrent, but using your own bandwidth. Again, this is not the case. If you do what the article say you're just abusing someone else's bandwidth, so no, this is not a workaround for a restriction on your bandwidth.
Of course, in the case that you have *your* own SSH server connected to an unrestricted internet somewhere, you could do something like this. But don't do this with a (free) shell account. - jennamalia, on 10/16/2007, -2/+37My concern with this is that there are very few free* ssh providers out there, and that after publicizing this list, there will be even fewer.
I understand that you're freaked about about the privacy issues of things like pirating digital content, but how does that compare to the people that utilize these ssh providers to avoid political persecution or disseminate information from censored locations?
I fear that many, if not most or all, of the providers listed on the dmoz list will either close, or severely limit their bandwidth.
I guess my plea is that you don't abuse the privilege of having access to free ssh accounts by doing something trivial (like torrents), illegal, or stupid.
*no, not free as in free beer. - albiniak, on 10/24/2007, -1/+27this is insane. who are the ***** digging this up? a) don't abuse a free us-based shell. those dudes are hardcore cool. b) don't think you're being uber-smart with this. copyright law still stands for us providers, and, uh, california is in the us. if anything, using a free, us-based shell to pirate is making yourself stand out even more, and not in the "hey look at me i'm the coolest ***** douche bag way." well, i guess it does, if that's your angle.
buried, with emphasis. - Kitsune818, on 10/21/2007, -1/+26Amazing, it's a triple threat! - Uses bandwidth on small free shell providers for incoming bittorrents -Uses the same bandwidth over again to get resent out to your machine, thereby using their pipe twice -Gives ISPs a good reason to throttle SSH ports/traffic too.
- Kitsune818, on 10/16/2007, -2/+26only ***** use BitTorrent over Tor.
- jennamalia, on 10/15/2007, -4/+22Ernesto's post, as well as a link to this page on Digg, has been forwarded (as an informational heads-up only) to abuse@silenceisdefeat.org.
- chris9902, on 10/15/2007, -1/+17Don't get so bent out of shape about it.
(terrible, truly terrible) - jennamalia, on 10/15/2007, -1/+16too much bending makes me fatigue...
and when i fatigue, i crack. - inactive, on 10/21/2007, -0/+14If you have a router that is compatible with DD-WRT, I suggest you put that firmware on it. then, go to the firewall settings and enter this command "iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport btport --tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP" without the quotes. substitute "btport" with your bittorrent port. that will block the RST packets. I'm on comcast and i'm seeding at over 100kbps right now...
- jennamalia, on 10/15/2007, -1/+15Predater missed out on all the fun. Instead of asking: "You hate being a pirate?"
He could have asked you why you hate being a pyrite. - jennamalia, on 10/15/2007, -0/+13either i'm the only one who thinks this is funny, "ore" nobody's feeling witty this morning...
- scorpioX, on 10/15/2007, -2/+14Specifically:
ssh -ND 8080 user@host.company.com &
This will open a SOCKS proxy tunnel and put the SSH command in the background. You can then close the Terminal. This is built into every major OS except Windows (IOW, any UNIX based OS). - Nalin, on 10/21/2007, -0/+11Comcast is using a program called Sandvine to send RST packets to both you and your peers if it detects that you are seeding something. This has the effect of killing all seeding. You are only able to upload if you are also downloading at the same time. So, you can complete a torrent, you just can't help seed it after you are done. If you do a Google search on Comcast and Sandvine, you will see many topics relating to it as well a more detailed explanation.
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -3/+13I have Comcast, and enabling Encryption solves the problem.
- scabbers, on 10/21/2007, -3/+13Until your shell account gets taken away for massive bandwidth use, and/or your isp throttles the mysterious ssh connection that's funneling tons of data through.
- LargeTrout, on 10/15/2007, -1/+11I think he meant to say "YARRRR" instead of "arghhhhhh". Either that or he's a crap pirate.
- ghettodev, on 10/15/2007, -0/+8He's upset because the Pyrites' nefarious and Mercurial plots have Lead industry Coppers to cry over all Nickels they are losing.
- InsaneMachine, on 10/15/2007, -1/+9To: DBNKR
yes, it should work. Just remember you are limited by your upload at home and you need to forward the port as well. And then you still have to configure your own apps to use it, say like internet so it bypasses the filtering. - jennamalia, on 10/15/2007, -5/+13People who knowing violate the law typically wish to keep their identities private. Very few of them would ever attempt to pirate anything with full disclosure of their actual identity and location.
Maybe you've read somewhere, recently, about the RIAA's recent crackdown on "pirates." With sufficient privacy, there is less risk of non-repudiation, and therefore a diminished risk of the RIAA being able to determine your actual identity or location.
Does that clear things up? - marcz, on 10/17/2007, -4/+12Why must every TorrentFreak article make it to Digg front page, regardless of content? Dugg down.
- gnarfel, on 10/15/2007, -1/+9yes, you can. and you dont need to open any ports besides 22 (SSH), and it would be wiser still to change that to something like 443 (assuming you're not running any secure http servers) because work firewalls tend to only allow port 80 & 443
- edzieba, on 10/15/2007, -1/+8Only the Demonoid tracker is blocked, so you only need to tunnel the tracker connections, not actual bittorrent traffic.
- cosmicv, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7Title is inaccurate. Checkpoint firewalls can filter out SSH on nonstandard ports as well as HTTP header filtering.
- TheSolomon, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7Any system administrator that oversees a server with shell accounts almost certainly would be blocking this kind of local traffic at the firewall level. If traffic is received across a port that does not have to do with your web hosting (or possibly ftp) and a handful of related services (identd, named, sshd, etc.), the traffic should be dropped. You most likely have no ability control whether the web or ftp server is running (given its a shared server), and the other related services are also system-wide (translation: not configured on a per-user basis), so its not like you could send BitTorrent connections across one of these ports instead.
It's not like its a masquerading firewall that must support any port under the sun for its network users. If traffic isn't coming across a very specific set of locked-down port numbers, no dice. Any system administrators that run fully open shell account servers need to have their heads examined--for this very reason. - Bootes, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7This is a really stupid idea.......
- cquilliam, on 10/15/2007, -4/+10This is NOT the fist time SiD has been posted on Digg, nor the second, nor the third, and most certainly not the last.
- tbyron666, on 10/17/2007, -6/+11In order to increase utorrent speed you should use:
1. Blocklist from bluetack website.
2. Protocol encryption in utorrent Preferences
3. In Windows download TCPIP.SYS update from lvllord site to changing tcp limit. - altidude, on 10/16/2007, -1/+6My god, leave the poor guy alone. He's just like the rust of us.
- Predater, on 10/15/2007, -2/+6You hate being a pirate?
- surgen, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5So how does SSH work then? Please explain it to me so that I can explain it to our netadmin and explain that he can't cap my ssh connections anymore becuase thats "not how ssh works".
- eatmorgnome, on 10/15/2007, -2/+6Cool, please post your name and SSN then.
- YDKCooKiE, on 10/15/2007, -2/+6Which makes me ask the question: Why are you doing this at work? I understand they probably have a decent internet connection, but why risk your job for a torrent download? Seems rather risky to me.
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -5/+9i have comcast and my torrents appear to have all stopped seeding for quite some time. it mentions comcast in the description, citing it as something that could make bittorrent impossible. can someone elaborate? is this yet another reason for me to switch to another isp?
- DBNKR, on 10/15/2007, -6/+10What if I have an account at a Linux machine somewhere, and that machine is not restrained regarding torrents? Could I use that account for the purpose? Or if it is windows xp?
And how would I go about doing this? My client machine is Ubuntu. - IEatHamburgers, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4Crap pirates? Are those the ones that drive around in the septic trucks with the jolly roger painted on them?
- smartssa, on 10/15/2007, -2/+5except for the fact that some ISPs like Rogers in Canada throttle _all_ encrypted traffic....
- SaumZ, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4comcast throttles torrents... nuf said
- devmnky, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3It should be noted that this is a very easily detectable method of tunelling torrent traffic. An ISP can see the volume of traffic generated in the SSH protocol and deduce that something is not right and throttle your connection. SPI can very easily pick out traffic patterns to show you that information.
- soiland, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4As the bittorrent would efficiently just run on the remote server, why not just run bittorrent there instead? There's command line tools available. It would be just as legal or illegal - perhaps unless you are crossing country boundaries.
- scribby, on 10/21/2007, -6/+9That all depends upon who hosts your shell loudmouth. I have linux boxen at home with a shell Iprovide to myself and I don't think that I'll be mad at myself for doing this. I also have a shell on numerous friends' boxes and none of those friends mind. It isn't unusual for people to have linux boxes at home nowadays. You shouldn't make such an ignorant blanket statement as to call people exercising shell's capabilities as being a dick. Idiot.
- mlwarrior, on 10/30/2007, -4/+7Elaboration: use this guide. Didn't this occur to you?
"is this yet another reason for me to switch to another isp?" -yes - T_dude, on 10/18/2007, -2/+4Is nobody here nerdy enough to point out the obvious flaw in this plan? You're very unlikely to get satisfactory Bittorrent downloads with this method since virtually every ssh implementation has a tcp windowing flaw that's going to limit you to a tiny fraction of the available bandwidth (sometimes as little as 10%-15% on your DSL/Cable connection).. You go from being throttled by your ISP to being throttled by your encrypted tunnel. I suppose it may be better than nothing... but it's clearly not a Panacea by any stretch of the imagination
- albiniak, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3i thought it was like 200gb/mo - http://www.techbasic.net/comcast/comcast.png
- theutopian, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2I ran into this problem myself recently when I moved into an apartment complex that had free broadband wifi. Thought it was great until I realized bittorrent was completely blocked on every possible port configuration. I attempted this method, didn't get very far. I don't have much familiarity with ssh, unix, etc. So, I found another solution that is working pretty well. Ever heard of torrentflux? It allows you to run bittorrent on an external server, then download your stuff via ftp. If you don't have the luxury of your own external server, there are many torrenflux hosting providers out there. I'm paying $8 for unlimited uploading/downloading and 50gb of storage and they set everything up for me. It's the best option for me. I know it sucks basically downloading your stuff twice, but it's better than paying $50-60 a month for decent broadband. Most of these hosting providers have super fast connections, so the stuff downloads fast. And your ftp download speed is only limited by your connection (mine is really fast, so I basically wait an extra half an hour while it downloads to my pc). Plus, you can check your torrents from anywhere. Just google torrentflux hosting and you'll find some providers.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 183 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 