What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
42 Comments
- therearenorules, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52so write an article and submit it to digg. i'm sure people would like to hear your reasons.
- brasso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20No. However, it may, maybe, save you from some of them if you’re lucky.
I have been an administrator of a private torrent site, and we had a few incidents with anti-p2p companies that tried to infiltrate us. Their IP-ranges were in the database used by PeerGuardian so we could easily find them and in this case it actually would have protected anyone using PG that would have felled into their trap. - aeproberts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15PeerGuardian and just about any "protection" program (including many anti-virus applications) are not going to be 100% accurate. They depend on someone getting caught before they can add to their lists. That being said you are much better protected using it then not using it. Those people who are saying that it does protect you 100% so I am not going to use it are obviously pretty stupid.
That is like saying that a car alarm is not definitely going to protect your car from getting stolen, but the facts show that is certainly lowers the chances of it happening. - drogo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@crimsoneer
What are you talking about?? Where did you hear that a company looking to prosecute cannot use a regular DSL line to find people sharing?? - Alisic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13That stuff is redundant. An IP does not equal a person. Therefore if the RIAA has your IP, that's all they have, your IP. They can't prove *****. It might have been someone from your house or someone who has infiltrated your insecure WLAN.
- Dogpupkus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The false sense of security that PG2 gives me, gives me enough confidence to download torrents and via P2P.
- violentvinyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@ beckerist
The way BT works, if he downloaded it, he also uploaded it. The letters are worded with enough legalese that they are confusing to most people, but they do, in fact accuse you of uploading, not downloading.
Don't think for a second you can't get in trouble for downloading, it's only that there's a big difference between what's illegal, and whats financially worthwhile for a company to sue you for. Uploading just happens to be considered distribution, and is a lot more lucrative for companies to come after you for (sharing, what is potentially hundreds of copies, versus downloading just one, you do the math). - sulf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I would rather block 90% of innocent people than let a single RIAA computer get my IP. Maybe I'm too paranoid, though...
- xler8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12BitTorrent is just too dangerous for some content. If you want to download something that you know people have been sued over (music/movies), get it from Usenet instead.
Useful usenet guide:
http://digg.com/software/Usenet_One_Click_Downloads - BlackAle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17A tin foil hat is far more effective.
- NoOneButMe, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19Er.. 2 things that jumped to me off the top of my head:
1. Peerguardian uses the Bluetack lists. So the 'survey' is automatically skewed towards that - 60 days for one list, 30 for the other.
2. With Peer Exchange, you dont even need to connect to the person in bittorrent to get their IP.
There's more reasons then this that make Peerguardian/other things useless, but A. i dont feel like typing them out and B. If the post gets to long, it'll be ignored (after all, how many actually read those long-ass posts? xD) which is bad. - lithuin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I'm not sure I agree with that.
As long as you understand why these blocklists aren't foolproof, I'd say it's better to have partial security than no security at all.
I dugg this article because it makes people think about how secure these measures are(n't), but you're not helping yourself out by removing them from your system as a result. - gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8~WOW: remove the offending address from the guardian (whitelist it)
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I'd wager that p2p blocklists give the user a false sense of security at best (the feeling they can download what they want and not get caught cause "I'm blocking the RIAA"), and at worst give the various **AAs and their stooges a nice list of their IPs that they know the downloaders know about. Besides, a blacklist is only as good as the data that feeds it. How hard would it be for any p2p patrolling company to sign up with their local DSL provider and get a nice non-corporate IP once they find all their other IPs listed?
Want to share files and not get caught? Use portable harddrives or mail (encrypted) DVDs to people. - beartrash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8A bogon IP address is an IP address that shouldn't appear on the publicly Internet, e.g. 127.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/16. These IP addresses are generally unreachable and used as source IP addresses in DDoS attacks.
http://www.cymru.com/Bogons/ - snotrokit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8well, I guess it is better than whistling in the wind. OK, it is not 100%, but any element of security that you can add would be a plus in my mind.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Something I've always wondered is how do the blocklist maintainers know where RIAA or the cops connect from?
I mean, do they really announce that sort of thing? Or are *god forbid* the blocklist so stupid as to simply check the netblock of the RIAA website or something and assume they always connect from there? :-o
I'm just wondering how the accuracy is maintained. Couldn't they just connect from a random public network? - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I only have, or need, one reason for why Peerguardian sucks. It didn't protect me... er, a friend of mine. A computer on his home network was found to be downloading a movie, and he got a letter from NBC / Universal telling him that they'd really appreciate it if he didn't do that.
- xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@john:
http://www.sourcepeek.com/wiki/World_of_Warcraft_Realm_List
Has a list of the IPs of the realms, find yours and whitelist as gmillerd said. - Talus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hey...where did Safepeer for Azureus go anyway?
- Talus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Word is, that it doesn't work anymore... It hasn't been updated since 2004?
- PhireN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Just because an IP address is on the blocklist doesn't mean they are out to get you.
The blocklist contain a lot of dynamic ip ranges, which cover a lot of normal people.
I often find my p2p going slower than normal, and when I check I find my current IP is on a blocklist. There is nothing I can do except suffer untill I get another ip in another dynamic ip range. - pglowiak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6http://azureus.sourceforge.net/plugin_details.php?plugin=safepeer
- JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is the first I've heard of a bogon ip, does anyone else know anything about this? How would one obtain such unassigned IPs? Very interesting.
- EvilGnome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That's not necessarily true. They have been trying to crack down on downloaders as well. My roommate got a notice for downloading the full version of Adobe Reader. Comcast has sent several messages in regards to what he has downloaded, but that's the only specific one I remember because why in the world would he illegally download that when you can download it for free through adobe. But he also doesn't use any protection either, so I am not surprised he got something.
- Nightfall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree. Nothing is anonymous on the internet. These P2P blacklists just give people the biggest false sense of security. Who says the RIAA can't get a residential comcast account and do their tracing work on that? There is simply no way to know.
What amazes me are the companies touting these software packages as the way to "anonymous" file sharing. There are a lot of tin foil hats and snake oil out there on the internet, and anything touting anonymous file sharing is just that. - Cornloaf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Crimsoneer
That evidence would be allowed in court because you are typically being investigated by a private company and being sued in a civil case. It might get a little trickier if law enforcement was involved, but generally they are allowed to use ruse and deception in their investigations as long as it does not cross over into entrapment. - FrothyA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I use PeerGuardian2 for at times I noticed UDP blocks going to some shady ip ranges or when I have a sense that a link may lead to a no good site but I click on it anyway just to see what comes up (with the http block on).
Nothing is 100% effective but it is overall, another layer of protection. Better to have some anti-packet sniffing then none at all. - smallchaz, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Thought I was safe.. :(
- ng007, on 07/23/2009, -0/+1If it's free, I wonder if you'd get a warning letter for downloading something else that's free. Like a Jamendo torrent, or a Linux image.
- Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But if they don't connect to you, they can't prove that you were actually offering the file for download. "I was just setting up a honeypot to help you guys!"
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"No. However, it may, maybe, save you from some of them if you’re lucky."
There's really nothing that will keep you "safe" from evil Anti-P2P organizations, but that's not to say blacklisting known IP's of various anti-P2P organizations won't help make you *safer" - Not "safe", "safer".
It's not the be-all-end-all "Use this and you'll never get sued!" solution (if there is such a thing) - But blacklisting evil IP's is safer than not blacklisting them. - leukhe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2On eMule they seem to help against some p2p poisoning attacks. There are several things this kind of filter seem to help:
Fake server: server that are not actually servers but just make the client do nothing.
Ad /fake content spreaders. Some nodes spread fake content. most of this is infected porn spam. Easily detected and added to those blacklist.
However those blacklist are a little hard to get of from. ip ranges are added too easily and it hard to find out the criteria used. Also some people seem to forget that those block list are for p2p application, and not for browsing.
Research on this will be very hard because the good guys won't tell why they filter specific ip addresses, and the bad guy won't tell their ip's Hey the badguys do not even tell what ip's they gathered their data from when they go to court. - yardApe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Altlhough I use p2p and PeerGuardian, I do most of my downloading these days via usenet. It's faster and much safer at this point. However, with the growing use of usenet for file shareing, we're bound to attract the attention of anti-piracy folks at some point. So far, we've flown under the radar, plus the very structure of usenet makes it extremely difficult to regulate. For those interested, google newsbin and winrar for a start, and if you're interested check on getting a usenet account, maybe even through your current ISP.
- dralezero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1How do you come to this:
"Their main conclusion: a user who is not using blocklist software is practically guaranteed to be monitored." if "t doesn’t say much about the accuracy and effectiveness of these blocklists."
And how does:
"His guess was that approximately 75 - 80% of IPs used by the anti-piracy companies he worked with are on these blocklists." mean "blocklists significantly decrease the risk of getting caught by the MPAA or RIAA."
If I'm on the same tracker a blocked IP is using then the blocked entity still gets my IP because as evident by them trying to connect to me and showing up in my incoming blocks. But I guess it does still help significantly if my outgoing connections never reach the entity. However this means my torrent connection found their IP on the same list with which they will see mine. - Crimsoneer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@acceptab1euname
It would be illegal, and you wouldn't be able to use the evidence in court. So it would be hard.
Not saying PeerGuardian is god or anything, but hey. - john570, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Why did i get dug down for asking a question. Whatever. Thanks for the replies. I will give it a try.
- beckerist, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Except you can't get in trouble for downloading, only uploading (at least in the US.) Your *ahem* "friend" should turn around and sue NBC. Considering there's probably no letter, and more likely no friend I'd just as well leave it alone.
- everybod, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Blocklists don't do anything for you. The solution is to not share out anything and just leech.
- dark_ryan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1"Except you can't get in trouble for downloading, only uploading (at least in the US.) Your *ahem* "friend" should turn around and sue NBC. Considering there's probably no letter, and more likely no friend I'd just as well leave it alone."
Just set uploading in Azureus (or any BT client for the fact) to 0kb, and your fine :-). If that is correct, right? - louistsoi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0i agree
- john570, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2Peer Guardian breaks WOW. Anyone know how to fix that?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is