Gnutella Forums

Gnutella Forums (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/)
-   LimeWire+WireShare Tips and Tricks (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/limewire-wireshare-tips-tricks/)
-   -   How to Force UltraPeer (Better searches whether using Pro or Basic) (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/limewire-wireshare-tips-tricks/81811-how-force-ultrapeer-better-searches-whether-using-pro-basic.html)

Sleepless February 24th, 2008 08:56 AM

How to Force UltraPeer (Better searches whether using Pro or Basic)
 
This is only for users that have upspeed, which can handle it!!! At least 30KB/s upload unused

You have to be connectable. That means there can be no wall in front of the blue earth i.e. no firewall blocking incoming

You have to be able to connect fast and get a stable connection quickly. If you have trouble connecting normally as a leaf, then there is very little chance that this will work


That major difference between Limewire Basic and Limewire Pro is that Pro connects to 5 UltraPeers (UPs) while Basic only connects to three. And also Pro let's you connect to 10 hosts for a download, while Basic lets you connect to 8 hosts (DSL and T1. T3 connection will allow more hosts)

But the most important part in using the Gnutella network is actually to be able to find the files, so on hard to find files, more connections for searching is better than few connections. Pro will give you 5 UP connections WOWSERZ :rofl: while being an UP will give you 32 connections :xeri_ok1ani: Also you will be helping the network by providing searches for other users.

So here is a little trick for the people that aren't automatically chosen for UP ;)

Even if you are not automatically chosen to be one, if your average connect time to the network is high enough (think 6 hours on average should do it), then you can just force it yourself by deleting the UPs you are connected to until you start getting many more connections (max is 32UPs and 32 leaves).

Important: There is an option in Limewire that gives you the choice of not ever becoming a UP. You can find it under Tools->Options->Advanced->Performance. Make sure the option called "Disable UltraPeer Capabilities" is not checked.

In Windows you can do this by going to Connections tab and highlighting a connection, then press Ctrl+A --> Del. You may have to do this a few times before you see the connections grow.

Also newer Limewire versions are to my knowledge not bug free, so you might want to use an older version. Just uninstall using the uninstall.exe in your Limewire program folder.

I had very good results using v4.12.06 but that might not be the case for you. It seems it depends a bit on computer setup.
Edit: Just tried this on 4.17.1 and two hours after install it worked ;)

Anyways, You can find older versions here: Download LimeWire Basic 4.12.6 - filehippo.com

Note: Limewire didn't have BitTorrent support until v. 4.13 but since their BitTorrent support sucks anyway, just use a proper program for that e.g. Azureus or uTorrent.

nkdy March 2nd, 2008 07:39 AM

good tips, wanna try it, thanks sleepless.....

Sleepless March 10th, 2008 01:08 AM

Update: Some ridiculous things I noticed when acting as UP.

It seems your advertised speed goes to dial-up for your shared files, at least in v.4.17.1.

Also in the same version it is not possible to choose higher connections when setting up. I had to choose between having Dial-Up or Broadband. Broadband gave me the choice to either have unlimited Up/Down speed or max 43.31KB/s using the slider. There is no choice for choosing any other option to set your speed.

Guess the Limewire Dev team continue to strip the the more advanced users choice for setting up the program. Reminded me why I dumped it for something better. What about the user that likes to use more than just Limewire for file sharing? If I choose Unlimited, I risk stealing bandwidth from other programs, so guess I'm stuck on 43.31KB/s.

I wonder when or if they ever will start listening to the users.

BTW CPU-usage had a lot of spikes at over 30% (mostly 3-12% between the spikes) and it was using 140MB RAM???? This was on a 1.7Ghz laptop, portforwarded, disabled TLS and DHT, although unfortunately they don't completely disable DHT even when you choose to disable it. They only disable outgoing. Maybe the integrated Limewire Store browser capabilities have something to do with it too :whistling:

My advise is find an older version, pre-BitTorrent support i.e. before v.4.13

[Sarcasm]Well at least it connected fast[/Sarcasm]

cs3007uk April 5th, 2008 09:43 AM

This doesn't seem to work for me, is there any other way to become an ultrapeer? I have left connect for hours sharing files and have a good connection but can't seem to get out of leaf mode.

Cheers

Sleepless April 5th, 2008 10:02 AM

No, that is pretty much it. I don't know why it doesn't work for you, it should work for everyone that fill the criteria.

dyep1988 May 18th, 2008 10:46 PM

Hi, when i go to the connections tab, there are no connections to highlight... all is shows is connect at startup and its checked... any ideas why?

kadeer July 19th, 2008 10:02 PM

im always leaf mode.,..NEVER ultra peer even after l;leaving my PC on for 5 hours..will revert to older one. don't wanna waste electricity.

titobhit85 August 3rd, 2008 04:21 AM

hello ever one it semm good

mansour40 October 15th, 2008 06:50 PM

thank you i love limewire
mansour

cgm707 March 8th, 2009 07:22 PM

Hi, I just tried this on Limewire 4.18.8. I had to go to View and choose Connections to add that tab. I deleted all the incoming connections. but I am not getting new connections.

Help!

Chip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleepless (Post 309268)
This is only for users that have upspeed, which can handle it!!!

At least 30KB/s upload

You have to be connectable. That means there can be no wall in front of the blue earth


That major difference between Limewire Basic and Limewire Pro is that Pro connects to 5 UltraPeers (UPs) while Basic only connects to three. And also Pro let's you connect to 10 hosts for a download, while Basic lets you connect to 8 hosts (DSL and T1. T3 connection will allow more hosts)

But the most important part in using the Gnutella network is actually to be able to find the files, so on hard to find files, more connections for searching is better than few connections. Pro will give you 5 UP connections WOWSERZ :rofl: while being an UP will give you 32 connections :xeri_ok1ani: Also you will be helping the network by providing searches for other users.

So here is a little trick for the people that aren't automatically chosen for UP ;)

Even if you are not automatically chosen to be one, if your average connect time to the network is high enough (think 6 hours on average should do it), then you can just force it yourself by deleting the UPs you are connected to until you start getting many more connections (max is 32UPs and 32 leaves).

Important: There is an option in Limewire that gives you the choice of not ever becoming a UP. You can find it under Tools->Options->Advanced->Performance. Make sure the option called "Disable UltraPeer Capabilities" is not checked.

In Windows you can do this by going to Connections tab and highlighting a connection, then press Ctrl+A --> Del. You may have to do this a few times before you see the connections grow.

Also newer Limewire versions are to my knowledge not bug free, so you might want to use an older version. Just uninstall using the uninstall.exe in your Limewire program folder.

I had very good results using v4.12.06 but that might not be the case for you. It seems it depends a bit on computer setup.
Edit: Just tried this on 4.17.1 and two hours after install it worked ;)

Anyways, You can find older versions here: Download LimeWire Basic 4.12.6 - filehippo.com

Note: Limewire didn't have BitTorrent support until v. 4.13 but since their BitTorrent support sucks anyway, just use a proper program for that e.g. Azureus or uTorrent.


Lord of the Rings March 8th, 2009 09:42 PM

You should not remove incoming connections. They are ultrapeers your LW is connected to or attempting to connect to. Only reasons I would suggest removing any connection would be (a) above point about getting into UP mode which might be a little hazardous, or (b) if you suspect you are connected directly to a spam ultrapeer, in which case, remove the longest connecting one. Wait a few minutes for LW to find a replacement & wait until your connection has stabilized. Then see if search has improved. Then repeat process only if necessary, (remembering spam is a fact of life nowadays). Same principle applying to (a).

But for getting into Ultrapeer mode, if forcing is not working, then perhaps your LW is simply not behaving well enough to become one, else there are more than sufficient ultrapeers in your region already & more are not needed. You should definitely need to have sufficient free up & down bandwidth available. Firewall & connection problems will prevent UP mode.

Sleepless March 10th, 2009 02:44 PM

lol why hazardous? If your Limewire has no trouble connecting, new connections are there 1-3 seconds after you delete them.

@ cgm707

If you have trouble connecting, then why on Earth try this? A UP has to have great connection, or it hurts the networks by dropping packages.

BTW I tried this on 4.18.8 and it worked no problem for me.

Lord of the Rings March 10th, 2009 03:29 PM

If you are using Pro .. you have 5 ultrapeers. If you have Basic you have 3 you are connected to. Take one away & your LW 'will' most likely lose connection momentarily. How long that takes to find another U.P. LW can 'actually connect to' varies from person to person & from case to case scenario. I've had the odd person complain it took 'more than' several minutes to find another U.P. ;) ie: what works for you with immediate results does not necessarily work that well for others. :) When it comes to connections, so many factors are behind it for each person's case such as isp, traffic on their isp, their set up, how many 'genuine' U.P's are available with free connection slots within fast access & other issues. Remembering there are all different types of U.P's out there including fake ones & spammer ones .. and poor behaving ones that should not really be UP's. :) That's one reason LW made it more difficult to become a UP using the T3 setting. UP's are needed for people to connect to the gnutella network. It's been known for several years there are 'fake' / non-responsive ultrapeers out there. ;) It means some people will need to be patient (& careful) when applying these techniques to force themselves into ultrapeer mode. :)

Sleepless March 10th, 2009 06:57 PM

Oh well I thought that was a given, that someone who's already having trouble just getting connected to a few (3-5) UP's should definitely not be attempting to connect to even more Peers.

I'll add a bit about stable connections.

Jillxz June 8th, 2009 08:03 AM

I found it and all are unchecked.

Sleepless June 8th, 2009 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jillxz (Post 344431)
I found it and all are unchecked.

Found what?

Lord of the Rings June 8th, 2009 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleepless (Post 344438)
Found what?

Jillxz's advanced options showing Ultrapeer capability is not disabled. She initially posted she could not find the option, but then edited her post just before I answered. :) LW 5's location for Ultrapeer setting is in a different location to LW 4. It's found at LW's menu bar, Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Super Really Advanced -> Performance. The options for disabling Ultrapeer, DHT, TLS & OOB are found there. But all these settings are enabled by default.

Need to be connected to network for 40+ mins for best chance for ultrapeer mode.

Jillxz June 9th, 2009 06:15 AM

Okay , thanks

Total Eclipse January 19th, 2010 10:17 PM

I changed some setting on my computer and put my firewall back on wile I was an Ultrapeer, I became a leaf but still had 32 people connected to me...

My connection is extremely consistent but on running Limewire Basic My connection will become turbo charged nothing has changed, then a day or two later I'll be fully connected again and just re- start my computer and limewire goes back into turbo charged. At first I assumed this was simply if I was running as a Leaf or an Ultrapeer but it seems to be totally irrelevant do you have any ideas whats going on...

Honestly I did not think you could even get a turbo charge connection with basic but I lost my code for my Pro its set to auto renew so I'm hoping when it does I'll get a new code to my email.

Mr. Shadow February 18th, 2010 05:49 PM

I think I managed a download from 12 hosts once, but that was an exception.

ottopcx May 11th, 2010 01:20 AM

Old Post but good info...
 
...I read your post and a light bulb came on. I tried what the first post detailed and I already see results. Also I can browse their folders and remove (for example) foreign language hosts.
Thanks

Mr. Shadow May 11th, 2010 08:18 PM

Glad to have been some help.

simpleideas May 17th, 2010 11:03 PM

will your idea work on a pc that has a pentium four processor

what should my incoming and outgoing bandwidth be?

Sleepless May 18th, 2010 12:48 PM

Minimum free bandwidth 30KB/s is clearly outlined in the first post and as for how powerful your processor has to be shouldn't matter much. There is only one way to find out;)

ottopcx May 18th, 2010 02:35 PM

Well I don't know what the experts say but I found that after checking your isp speeds online (google / yahoo speakeasy speed test) and review your actual speed capabilities...In my case I have about. .44 mps upload and roughly 1.6-ish mps download so go to tools / options / transfers tab click on settings under upload download limits...Check the boxes (limit speeds) & for upload I put 50,000 KPS (.50 mps) and for download OVER RANK it I put 500,000 kps (500mps) I believe 999,999 is Limewires limit but by over rating or selecting options like fiber optic or t-lines etc., I have been able to increase download speeds from (average) 40 kps to over 200 kps. It just seems that if you lie to the settings you can trick programs into assuming your pc can handle outlandish speeds & the results are usually higher than default / auto settings. Now speeds will vary depending on the source (of course) BUT I am now able to download most movies in about the same time it takes to watch them instead of 6-8 hours or even days...This seems to work regardless of limewire pro or basic & the technique works on other programs and download managers…Simple conversion (I’m a pc tech & still I have to stop and do the math)…1000 kilobytes =1 megabyte / 10,000 kb = 10 mb / 100,000 kb =100 mb (1000 mb =1 gb & so on)… I hope that helps, However, I would like to know what the experts here have to say on the subject as I have never collaborated with these knowledge-able forum folks, I’m curious to hear their input on this subject &/or my findings.
Streaming media is a misnomer & an oxymoron with INTENSE potential for security abuse & e-molestation...Download it you got it, it's yours / Stream or tube it then 'they got you' & you, your money & your pc are theirs...J

Voltonwarsled November 15th, 2010 11:55 AM

forced ultrapeer
 
I just did it exactly by your instructions and now I got 39 connections:super:

sleepybear91 June 26th, 2011 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the Rings (Post 340003)
You should not remove incoming connections. They are ultrapeers your LW is connected to or attempting to connect to. Only reasons I would suggest removing any connection would be (a) above point about getting into UP mode which might be a little hazardous, or (b) if you suspect you are connected directly to a spam ultrapeer, in which case, remove the longest connecting one. Wait a few minutes for LW to find a replacement & wait until your connection has stabilized. Then see if search has improved. Then repeat process only if necessary, (remembering spam is a fact of life nowadays). Same principle applying to (a).

But for getting into Ultrapeer mode, if forcing is not working, then perhaps your LW is simply not behaving well enough to become one, else there are more than sufficient ultrapeers in your region already & more are not needed. You should definitely need to have sufficient free up & down bandwidth available. Firewall & connection problems will prevent UP mode.


Anything new on this? I am running File_Girls Pirate Edition which I assume is pro and not basic? I have never been selected for an UP yet. I have sufficient up and download bandwidth. I disconnect one or two ultrapeer hosts after a couple of hours and 3 new ones will pop up "connecting" but only one will always stick, leaving me still with just 5 ultrapeer hosts stuck in a leaf node position.

Lord of the Rings June 26th, 2011 10:00 PM

2 Attachment(s)
You need to be sure that (a) you are not firewalled in any way. Go to LW's menu bar, Tools -> Advanced Tools. It must not say anything about being firewalled.

Attachment 5569 (click to see larger view, shows difference between my mac & windows LPE)

(b) probably best if none of the options in the Performance window are disabled. ie: LW's menu bar, Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Performance.

Attachment 5571

(c) becoming an ultrapeer might take some time. The longer your LW is connected, your chances increase.

LPE runs similarly to LW Pro. LPE might be lacking one or two things Pro has, though this would be in the internal code engine. When LPE was originally released, it was specified it was not Pro but built from the 'open source' LW Basic. It's based on the LW 5.6 Betas. Whether pro or basic, should still be able to become an ultrapeer regardless, if conditions are right.

Lord of the Rings July 2nd, 2011 02:39 PM

2 Attachment(s)
BTW I don't usually go ultrapeer mode. I share a very large number of files instead. However when I went UP I connected to 32 other UP's. (BTW when in UP mode, Peers = other UP's AFAIK.)

Attachment 5573 Just now. Though since doing these graphics has since increased to 40 leaves.

Attachment 5575 Last December, the previous time I was running in UP mode.

sleepybear91 July 2nd, 2012 02:22 AM

On the subject of better searches, I am losing more and more quality contributors as time goes by. I am still using LPE. I share music and music only. Usually rock, pop, soul and country. I live on the west coast USA and search late night hours. In the last 8-12 months or so the majority of my connections have been from Japan, and most of them are just contributing games and videos only, so they are bad matches for me. I drop them continously but they usually just keep reappearing back immediately. My port keeps resetting at 6346 although I have changed it with no luck on any other english speaking country popping up instead of Japan. Any suggestions? Should I stay with Limewire? Are there any other tricks I can do? I have had great luck for years with LW, but not too good in quite a while.

Lord of the Rings July 2nd, 2012 03:01 AM

4 Attachment(s)
If you are looking for the Security Updaters, see post #38 (can click link) further below. Or use these links: LimeWire Security Updater installers via MediaFire, OR via Sabercat


Not all the Japanese peers are good peers, but that's true for a number of countries I guess. In my connection lists I've posted for people having connection problems, I removed most Japanese hosts, only a few 'if any' left on the list from memory.

I've done the same thing as you at times, continually removed such hosts. If you desperately wanted to get rid of Japanese hosts full stop, you could ban all their ranges. lol :D I've tried that too.

Just as a note, I find Phex tends to get a nice mix of European and USA hosts. Not sure why LW attracts them, both LW 4 & 5, perhaps because it IS LW. ;) But LW was designed to give some preference to connecting to LW and LW clones (such as Cabos), also for search results. This is a common trait for most gnutella clients to be set to favor their own kind when they can. My Phex just connected to 3 French, 1 UK and 1 USA, then later a 6th ultrapeer.

Here's a funny episode. Whilst using BearShare, I accidentally replaced my hostiles with the original and ... these hosts, each time I removed them they were replaced with more of same ip address or similar, example 3 snaps joined here (all same port, all same shares): snapshots joined. These are in fact what I refer to as Download-BOTs; they attempt to fill all your upload slots. Their program ID's are fake & not what they advertise themselves to be. The security Hostiles file(s) blocks these BOTs (edit: WireShare blocks them by default internally.)

If you have a firewall that can ban ports such as Windows 7 firewall, I guess you could set up a disallow rule for port 6346 but this might also mean the possibility of missing out on some good hosts who are using port 6346 as a static port and not necessarily using Cabos or similar. But I would recommend banning ports 27016 and 7001 for both tcp and udp if you can, only LW spammers use that port. More on spam or bad addresses here http://www.gnutellaforums.com/open-d...tml#post368141. Note: the technutopia hostiles document itself is not read by any version of LW 5 due to its older address format layout.

If you want a full list of Japanese ip's I can send you one privately. Or else send you the list I use for blocking many of them. The majority of Japanese ip addresses below the 200.x.x.x range are static and do not change.

Edit: Port Block instructions
I have included some instructions on how to block port 27016 in your firewall (you should also block port 7001.) This example applies to Windows 7 firewall but most 3rd party firewalls will probably have a similar option. (Note: whilst LW 5 might connect to many spammers using port 27016, both LW 4 and FrostWire are total magnets for them.)

For Windows 7 and 8, go to Control Panel, open up Windows Firewall. Click on the Advanced Settings option. Once the Advanced Settings is open, look to the left-side and click on Inbound Rules.
Now, shift your eyes to the right-side of the firewall window and look for the Actions section for Inbound Rules and click on New Rule underneath it.
In the window that appears you will have 4 options for type of rule to add, choose Custom. Then click Next button.
You can either specify All Programs or simply one here. Then click Next button.
Protocol Type drop down menu: select TCP first (later do another identical rule for UDP.) Leave Local port set to All Ports. Then select Specific Ports option for Remote port and type in port 27016 into the port number box. Then click Next.
Set Scope to Any ip address (leave it as it is.) Then click Next.
The next window gives action choice. Check the option to Block the connection. Then cilck Next button.
Check all the options for Domain, Private and Public, then click Next button. This is the final window giving you the choice to name and describe the new rule. Description is optional. Name it something that represents the new rule. I named mine Port Block 27016 TCP then click Finish. I would recommend you do a new equivalent rule also for UDP. It is possible to duplicate a rule, double-click it and then simply change the protocol from TCP to UDP and rename it appropriately.

Port 27016 is not officially used for anything you would ever use it for. Port 27016 spammer hosts tend to use proxy switchers so there is little point in banning their ip's for longer than a week. Port 7001 is used by upload-slot container hostile hosts which not too many people know about, example image snapshots of upload attacks here and here.

Attachment 6193 (Click sample image to see larger view, click again to see in its own window unless you have pop-up blocker.)
* Sorry, last year I accidentally gave incorrect instructions for this. This is the correct way to block ports for Windows 7+8.

Attachment 6285 * This similar example might even be slightly better.



A Gnutella ip Group Block in Windows 7 or 8 Firewall
Windows 7's firewall has the option for doing a group block. I created one for TCP and UDP. In fact, you only need to do one then duplicate it and change the rule's protocol from TCP to UDP then rename it or alternatively a single rule and set the protocol to All. Sounds easy? :D Set up a new inbound rule, and set it to Custom in the window that appears. Choose either all programs or LimeWire/FrostWire, etc. path (my sample shows all programs but you can choose a specific program), then all ports. Then start adding the host addresses you wish to add. Then when finished, name the rule. I have created a sample image but note, the sample GiF is a little large in size and has quite a few frames. The advantage of a group block is you could disable it if or when necessary, or simply set it to only apply for LimeWire/FrostWire, etc. in the program/path option. For a good reference for hosts to block in a firewall see http://www.gnutellaforums.com/open-d...tml#post368141.
Why would you block these ip's in your firewall? To reduce very high pings directly aimed at your program (such as LW), so the firewall handles it instead. This will mean less lag building up in LW over a period of time. It will also mean less chance of LW being affected by the pinging and drop its performance as a result.

Attachment 6139 (sample GiF image 250 KB, click to see in large view) Attachment 6287 * (this sample only needs a single rule by using the 'Any' protocol and applied specifically to the program to be used for.)

How to add an ip group block list to Kaspersky Firewall:
Firewall -> Settings -> Network Packets -> select 'Addresses from Group' and click Add -> click Add to add an ip address and continue doing this. After adding all the addresses, name the rule something like 'ip address block list' & click OK. Make sure that rule is still selected in the Network Packets section and select 'Block' at top and 'Any Network Activity' in the middle section. Though you can select the Block option after selecting addresses from group option near beginning of the process.
Later versions of Kaspersky Firewall might look a little different but the process will most likely be the same or similar.

Kaspersky Firewall sample image (click to see sample image)


Outgoing rules?
Why set up outgoing rules to block certain ip ranges instead of only incoming rule blocks? Because if you are sharing files, your program sends your shared files details that correspond to a particular search. Do hostile clients search? Since some hostile clients are known to browse hosts, then chances are they also do searches. Hosts with port - 7001 are known as upload-slot containers, they will download everything you have, they get paid to do this to prevent you sharing to anybody else. Having equivalent outgoing rules may help to slightly reduce some incoming traffic from bad hosts. (I also strongly suspect 'they' have BOTs that search the network and every client they can find.)

Replicating incoming block rules for outgoing rules has an effect of keeping you partially invisible to hostile hosts. This also applies to the ports 27016 and 7001 block rules. I have found the outgoing rule for port 27016 UDP ping count now out-numbers the incoming. And some other blocks now count as zero incoming but high numbers outgoing. This suggests your shares details have been blocked from being sent to 'them' if you also choose to use firewall outgoing block rules. This also helps with reduced spam results, overall better performance without receiving as many pings from the hostile hosts. There was a very noticeable increase in search results (two to three times more than average in initial testing.) If running as an ultrapeer, then leafs in search mode.should arguably be receiving less results from bad hosts via searches that touch your client in any way.

OLDCODER July 12th, 2012 01:55 PM

So, is it possible to restrict searches to just one county, say the U.S.? Or, is it possible to find ultrapeers that are close by and restrict searches to just them?

Lord of the Rings July 12th, 2012 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLDCODER (Post 368933)
So, is it possible to restrict searches to just one county, say the U.S.? Or, is it possible to find ultrapeers that are close by and restrict searches to just them?

Not as far as I know. And I'm not sure the OOB (out of bounds) search option plays a part here for such searches.
There was a LimeWire Beta version, one of the 5.5/5.6 prototypes called Geo-Restrict which I believe was supposed to have the purpose you are asking.
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/gettin...-5-5-16-a.html, ie: released on May 4, 2010.

The only prototypes version I've tried in recent times was the Light version which was designed to use less computer resources than standard LW.

sleepybear91 July 29th, 2012 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the Rings (Post 368781)
Not all the Japanese peers are good peers, but that's true for a number of countries I guess. In my connection lists I've posted for people having connection problems, I removed most Japanese hosts, only a few 'if any' left on the list from memory.

I've done the same thing as you at times, continually removed such hosts. If you desperately wanted to get rid of Japanese hosts full stop, you could ban all their ranges. lol :D I've tried that too.

Just as a note, I find Phex tends to get a nice mix of European and USA hosts. Not sure why LW attracts them, both LW 4 & 5, perhaps because it IS LW. ;) But LW was designed to give some preference to connecting to LW and LW clones (such as Cabos), also for search results. This is a common trait for most gnutella clients to be set to favor their own kind when they can. My Phex just connected to 3 French, 1 UK and 1 USA, then later a 6th ultrapeer.

If you have a firewall that can ban ports such as Windows 7 firewall, I guess you could set up a disallow rule for port 6346 but this might also mean the possibility of missing out on some good hosts who are using port 6346 as a static port and not necessarily using Cabos or similar. But I would recommend banning port 27016 for both tcp and udp if you can, only LW spammers use that port. More on spam or bad addresses here http://www.gnutellaforums.com/open-d...tml#post368141. Note: the technutopia hostiles document itself is not read by any version of LW 5 due to its older address format layout.

If you want a full list of Japanese ip's I can send you one privately. Or else send you the list I use for blocking many of them. The majority of Japanese ip addresses below the 200.x.x.x range are static and do not change.

First of all Thank you very much LOTR! Secondly I PM'd you right after this post and then again today. Then when I go into my PM "SENT" box it shows "zero" It apparently it is not sending out any of my PM's. Yes I would sure like a list you use for blocking many of them. And who should I inform about the PM glitch?

Lord of the Rings July 29th, 2012 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepybear91 (Post 369079)
... Then when I go into my PM "SENT" box it shows "zero" It apparently it is not sending out any of my PM's. Yes I would sure like a list you use for blocking many of them. ...

You need to check the option to save a copy when sending a PM. Otherwise the default is not to save a copy. I will investigate but don't think this default PM behaviour can be changed.

I have been tossing a coin so to speak for a considerable time as to whether I should offer a copy of the ban list publicly or not. I've decided I will. A copy is attached below. This is a combination Japanese and Taiwanese list. Introduction then shows a list of the addresses arranged on separate lines. A 2nd list in middle of the document is the complete list, just in case you wanted to use more than I provided in the shorter list and use ranges of /19 or higher for the smaller sub-ranges. A 3rd list is provided at bottom of document describing how to add them to LimeWire. This 3rd list lists them horizontally exactly how LimeWire lists them. I hope that does not sound confusing. :D

The full list has 2,139 listings, the shorter one uses 873. The smaller list will block out the majority (probably over 98%), perhaps the odd one will slip through. (The full list excluded partial ranges that were smaller than a total of 256 addresses. The shorter list excluded ranges of 8,192 addresses or smaller.)

(Remember this list is only a country block, not a spam host block list. But it will have a similar effect since a significant percentage of spammers and bad clients do come from the two countries in question. And for those whom have been asking, it will enable you to get search results more regionally.)

If you find it confusing, just ask.

Scroll to bottom of the document and copy all the addresses listed after the BLACK_LISTED_IP_ADDRESSES=

Then paste them into the equivalent location in the limewire.props file. Or at the end of any banned address listings already there would be best. Make sure there's no spaces or carriage-returns before the numbers after you paste them in.
You might not see the .props extension on the file in the LW preferences folder. But if you get the file's properties, it will say it's a props file.

Edit: Just discovered if you have never previously banned hosts then the black listed ip address section will not show in the props file. Though I imagine most people have banned hosts. I've amended the instructions just in case of that scenario. ie: in that scenario, copy the Black_listed_ip_addresses= as well as the numbers as an entire paragraph into a new line at the end of the props file.

I've edited the file several times after some errors and some LW fussyness, I think it should be as good as it can now. Apologies. uh, maybe I should quit. :hrm:

Edit: I have provided an installer to do it all for you for MacOSX users. ie: simply run the installer once and it will place the block list exactly where it needs to be whether you have a previous ban list or not. The installer is only for MacOSX users. Warning: do not run the installer more than once, it's a large list so you do not want double that. ;) The applescript does it all in 1 or 2 seconds or less, takes fraction of a second on my computer (when you see the Quit menu, it has finished.) If you have a previous ban list then this list will be inserted at the beginning. If you have no ban list, the installer will insert one at end of the props file. LimeWire must be closed before you run this installer.

Edit: installer no longer needed, so has been removed.
The list updated to correct a few minor items of formatting and removed instructions for adding to LW. Re-attached in case anybody wishes to use for firewall blocking. For other purposes, the security list should be used instead. Firewall listing will reduce pings directly on LW and thus less chance of lagginess after multiple day long sessions.

(Attachment removed, needs updating anyway as the ipv4 addresses had not yet finalised in 2012.)

Lord of the Rings July 30th, 2012 01:31 PM

Oops I accidentally left 3 large ranges off the list yesterday, I've replaced the list. Sorry about that, because I know a few people downloaded it. :o

In my experience, LW 5 does not appear to be able to read a range x.x.x.x/11 or larger to /1.
Thus I needed to split those ranges up into /12 blocks which represents x.0.0.0.0 . to . x.15.255.255 for example.
I accidentally left 3 of those out of the shortened list since the longer list had /8 and I removed those when I reduced the list. Anyway, it's fixed.

Edit again, I fixed up a few other small errors. duh, sloppy work. I redid the list instead of using the one I had which is where errors crept in. I've amended it about 3-4 times now. I should have simply grabbed the ones from my firewall since they were all correctly done. And sorry again, I've been cursing myself for my errors. We all make mistakes. :o

Remember if you are copying this list to the end of any existing ban list, the last address of your existing list will need a semi-colon ; before you copy these to the end of that list. All addresses should be separated by a semi-colon with exception of the very last one on the list.

If you wanted to extend the filter further if too many hosts are getting through, then add the addresses with /19 at the end. That would take the total of listings up to 1,095. Or even also the /20. This is one reason I supplied the full list to refer to just in case.

For anybody who is wondering: /32 = 1 single ip address. /31 = 2 sequential addresses. /30 = 4 sequential addresses. etc. As you notice the range keeps doubling. Continuing to /24 =256 addresses, /23 = 512 addresses, etc.

I've confirmed BearShare 5 cannot read this ip addressing format. BS instead uses an older sub-net masking format.


Edit:
BTW if you installed/pasted my earlier postings of the blocklist, then you can remove them. Open the Japan & Taiwan block list file and choose the first host address listed near top of page, select and copy it. Then open the Limewire.props file, open the search function and paste the host address you copied into the search box. Then search. Then select that found first address and whilst holding the SHIFT key select to the last of them and delete/cut/remove. The first address will be 1.0.64.0/18 and the last address will be 223.223.0.0/17. The numbers are all in numerical order so should be easy to find the last one.

You can then replace that with the newer list.

I have an upcoming Shortened 'Hostiles' list from the BearShare Full-size Hostiles blocklist I will post soon. I am trying to make sure there is no needing to repost with this next block list, unless it is an updated version. As you might expect though, the Hostiles list is quite large. Even though it's a fraction of the half-million listings of the original. :D But I have tested the hostiles list with the additional Japan+Taiwan list also added and so far no memory issues, surprisingly. I will leave it running to see how it goes over an extended period.

My newer note for the Hostiles list will explain the two main areas that cause memory problems with LW 5 / LPE. And what to reduce if you do have LW memory problems. Reducing your hair, a haircut is always good even if it does not help LW. :D

Lord of the Rings September 18th, 2012 08:22 PM

I quite easily connect as an ultrapeer. If I don't, I find that if I close LW and restart this can often help invigorate LW into becoming an ultrapeer. That's for LPE at least. Not sure this approach is so great though since UP's are supposed to be users whom are in a way rewarded for their long times online. Sure I spend 1-4 sequential days online. But, LPE seems to be able to be kicked into UP sometimes. If I restarted LW after a long session and it starts to connect as a leaf, if I remove the UP's as it's connecting it can also kick LW into UP mode.

But I will confirm Sleepless's advice on page 1 of this thread still works for LimeWire 5. After an hour as a Leaf drop the first or second connections. Sometimes I may need to drop them all and this then pushes me into Ultrapeer mode (U.P.) And in my own experience, I seem to get much better search results and less spam when running as an ultrapeer. For example, when as a U.P. over the past two years I tend to get 50-60 results (and if it's 90-110 then I know I'm with good connections) for a particular search term I often use. When as a Leaf I might only get 20-30 results for same search.

The way LW is designed, normally connecting as an ultrapeer can depend on average time online (and not being firewalled of course.) I noticed this in the LW mediawiki.

Lord of the Rings November 3rd, 2012 07:21 PM

Security packages for LimeWire (help block out the spam and evil hosts)
 
Edit: Since September 2015, there has been considerable removals of blocked ranges from the list. These listings appear to be redundant. Probably over 90% of the original listings were put in place prior to 2011 (or prior to 2010.) Obviously this needed to be reviewed. Since then, many internet service providers have changed owners; purposes for some ranges has changed; whilst last decade most ip addressing was static, nowadays the opposite is true, mostly dynamic; some companies set up for attacking the network no longer exist. But at the same time, some new companies have been found in recent years.

There is now a combo WireShare-LimeWire Hostiles-Updater. The WireShare hostiles included within the program installer is from July 2015. The older WireShare versions' hostiles even older.

(Original text from 2012): It has been a few months since I suggested I would do it. But I have finally created a blocklist (security list) based off the original BearShare Full Hostiles but continually updated over past few months. I realised the props file is a terrible place for a large amount of data to be stored because LW copies that information into memory and totally rewrites the data back to the props file every 5-10 minutes.
(obsolete): Based on my work on the MacOSX Portable Mac, I had an inkling of an idea I might be able to force LW to read a settings option from a separate file. And it works! I recently packaged all the LW 4 and 5 installers with the security installers. These installers included with the LW installers include a base LW.props (settings) file which includes the directive path for LW to find and use the security file. (/obsolete)

Nobody is pretending these files will block out all spam but definitely reduce it very significantly.

I use the CIDR host format which is more memory friendly than the older netmask format BearShare uses (50-55% less memory.) Also my large (Strong) lists are notably smaller than the BearShare list but does not take any strength away. (My list is also smaller than the FW list which uses the old BS netmask format.)
A comparison of characters needed in memory between the LW CIDR blocklist and the BearShare Full Hostiles:
LW-NJ (441,000 hosts) = 6,609,430
BearShare Hostiles-NJ (477,000 hosts) = 14,042,472
LW full (418,000 hosts) = 6,259,398
BearShare Hostiles Full (453,000 hosts) = 13,320,053
LW-Light NJ (31,000 hosts) = 473,592
LW-Light (30,000 hosts) = 458,626

The security lists have been tested with LW 4.14 to 4.18 and LW 5 (Pirate Edition.) I presume the security lists will also work with earlier versions of LW 4.

LW 4 and 5 seem to be able to handle the large security list fine, though for those with very large shares and whom have long sessions (several days) may find LW 5 becomes a little laggy after 2-3 days. There should be no problems using the large list in general. But if you do, swap to one of the light lists. The large list is about 14 times larger (I refer to the large list as Strong Security.) I will be updating the Security files every 4 to 6 months. (- edit). I will date them so you know.
With 6 lists to update (two for BearShare), it's a lot of work. Incredibly slow, tedious and boring. :D
I will not be adding spam hosts to the list unless they are sighted again after a month (but will keep a permanent record of them.) Some spammers use proxy switchers, and some other spammers use dynamic addresses. This bothers me about inheriting a previous list because I have no idea of the prior methodology used. Edit: If there had been enough interest shown I might have started from 'almost' scratch but seems not many persons have shown interest in this security concept.

Not a bad idea to clear out any banned lists of spammers you have done after a week or month. Chances you will never see most of them again using the same host address after a day or a week. Clearing the list out will save on memory use.

The 'Full' Japanese block versions are really 'full' blocks. There's only a very minor chance you might see any Japanese hosts. Yes you may see Cabos hosts but they will not be from Japan. Unlike my partial Japanese blocks I did a few months ago. If you used those previous Japanese block lists from 3 months ago you should remove them from your props file Banned list to save some memory.

* I would recommend removing most if not all of your previously banned hosts to save memory. Using the Security list you will probably find any hosts you banned previously are no longer needed. You can still add fresh ones by the usual method of banning if any hosts are spammers or are problematic.

(obsolete): Once your limewire.props file has the directive instructions for LW to find the location of the security file, after that in future all you need to do is install updates to the security file itself. Unless of course you delete your LW preferences folder for any reason or your LW props file becomes zeroed after a severe crash. (/obsolete)

WireShare or LimeWire will not read or re-read a fresh hostiles file until after the program's next restart. So it's best to install the hostiles-update whilst the program is closed.

The options:

1. 'Light' Security
Choice for keeping things light. The main known static spam companies are blocked. Though you might still receive spam from dynamic/proxy spammers.
Filename: LimeWire Light Security-NJ 2012 Windows Updater

2. 'Light' Security with 'Full' Japanese blocks for those whom only wish to connect to and search for similar cultural content. This will also remove any chance of spam from Japanese hosts.
Filename: LimeWire Light Security 2012 Windows Updater

3. 'Strong' Security
This will maximize blocks against spammers. Not to say you will not still get spam, but will greatly reduce it significantly.
Filename: LimeWire Strong Security-NJ 2012 Windows Updater

4. 'Strong' Security with 'Full' Japanese blocks for those whom only wish to connect to and search for similar cultural content. This will also remove any chance of spam from Japanese hosts. This is the strongest of all the packages and is 6% smaller than the other Strong security package due to not needing to block individual or small ranges of known Japanese spam/hostile hosts.
Filename: LimeWire Strong Security 2012 Windows Updater

* In case you are wondering, the initials -NJ represent No Japanese blocks. Though really means just basic blocks against known static Japanese spammers and business ranges. But you will still be able to download and share with regular Japanese hosts.



Windows users: (as of Feb 2013 only one installer): The installer gives the above 4 options. As of 31 April 2013, the updater will no longer replace your props file if first time installing. Instead the necessary instruction is inserted into the props file by the installer.

(obsolete): If you would prefer to do it manually, then uncheck first option in the installer or download the separate zipped Linux security file of choice. Open your limewire.props file in your LW preferences folder and create a fresh line and type in the following:
PATH_TO_BLACK_LISTED_IP_ADDRESSES=Home>AppData/LimeWire/Hostiles.txt
Save the file as standard text, keeping the .props file extension. This line is necessary for LW to find the security file. If you simply install the security file and LW's props have no instructions on finding it then LW will not use the security file. (/obsolete)


MacOSX users: all 4 packages are included within the one installer. Choose from the installer's menu options. The installer script will insert a line of text into your props file which will tell LW where to find the security file. This makes it very very easy for you. Filename: MacOSX LimeWire Security 2013 install-Updater

Linux users: download the Linux security file of choice, unzip and place into your LW preferences folder found at: ~/.limewire
Edit 8 June 2013, I have now included a .sh bash script for installing, all inclusive in one package. I used 7z format as it compresses to 1.3 MB compared to zip or tar.gz at 3.4 MB. Uncompress, open the folder and simply run the script via terminal and your choices will show. Line inserted into the props file for you. The manual method below is then not necessary. (I used bash v.4 syntax for suppressing i/o error messages, let me know if this causes problems for anyone using an earlier bash version. bash v.4 was released in 2009.)
(obsolete): Locate and open your limewire.props file found at ~/.limewire/limewire.props and type into a fresh line the following text:
PATH_TO_BLACK_LISTED_IP_ADDRESSES=Home/.limewire/hostiles.txt
Save the file as standard text, keeping the .props file extension. (/obsolete)


* Edit 14 May 2013: I just discovered on Linux the hostiles file needs to start without a capital or else it will not work. I have adjusted the files for linux. Sorry to anybody who might have been inconvenienced and thought these files did not work.

The Linux files include manual instructions for both Linux, Windows and MacOSX.

Linux Filenames: . linux_LW_Security_install.7z (recommended) - uses a script to install it.
(Edit: the Manual lists are no longer being hosted! Not enough demand for them.)
. Linux Manual Light LW Security 2013, . Linux Manual Light LW Security-NJ 2013, . Linux Manual Strong LW Security 2013, . Linux Manual Strong LW Security-NJ 2013.


LimeWire clones are unable to utilize the hostiles file. I did create a multi-clone blocklist installer but discovered most LW clones did not use the hostiles. I find LuckyWire highly problematic to connect and only seem to be able to connect via forcing hosts. It's my guess it probably only works with LuckyWire and certainly seems to. The reason being most of the clones were earlier breakaways from the LW code before LW introduced the portable code options within the main code.


What is a Hostile Host? - my definition:
Nobody is pretending these lists will block out all spam but certainly greatly reduce it, and even better it will reduce chances of you connecting directly to known spam/hostile hosts. There's different types of spammers and hostile hosts. Some you may not be aware of due to their approaches. For example, some will ping your client to reduce your program's abilities at downloading, uploading, searching and even connections without attempting to connect, browse, or download from you. At worst the constant ping attacks (DDoS) will make you lose internet connection. Some will browse you as soon as and every time you log into the network. Then some may browse you robotically every 10-15 minutes for hours on end without downloading from you. Then there's some whom will attempt to fill and constrain your upload slots. This is a well known approach of theirs for many years. They will normally either choose your largest files to download all at once or your largest collection of files. -> These are all what I would refer to as hostiles. Spammers are 'almost' another category. And this is what the Hostiles list is about. Such recently identified hostiles are listed on the security lists to block them out. By recent I mean over the past 18 months because I only took upon this project this year and whilst aware of hostiles from the previous couple of years, I do not know the full history of the block list I inherited from the BearShare blocklist which had not been updated since June or earlier 2011.

Download links for the LimeWire Security Updaters: (choose appropriate version for your system and your choice of security from the folders. Feel free to Bookmark any of these links to periodically check for updates):

* LimeWire Security Updater installers via MediaFire *

* LimeWire Security Updater installers via Sabercat *

(Note: you need to use an up-to-date browser to use MediaFire. Pre-2013 Safari versions struggle to load their pages.)

One other piece of spam and hostile host advice is, if you have any firewall or security software that can block ports, set up a rule to block ports 27016 and 7001 for both UDP and TCP which is only used by spam companies. Windows 7 instructions bottom half of post #31 here.

If anything confuses you or you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Also, if you find any problems with the installers or the way the security packages work, please let me know as soon as possible. :) As mentioned at beginning of the post, these have been tested on both Windows and MacOSX with LW 4 and 5. Edit: And Linux, but the hostiles filename & props reference must not use a capital letter on Linux systems. The MediaFire link has 2 options for Linux users, .tar.gz compressed file which is about 3.4 MB or a .7z compressed file which is about 1.3 MB in size.
Another note, these blocklists might conflict with using torrents.

Edit 18 September 2013, removed a character from each of the Full & Light Japanese block lists which prevented a range from working. Not sure how the odd character (looked like the letter a with a mark above it) became inserted, but it has since been removed.

yokku December 8th, 2012 06:04 AM

ありがとうございました。

Lord of the Rings December 8th, 2012 04:34 PM

Your welcome. :) Thank you for letting us know you found it helpful. :Smilywais:

soubeagi January 6th, 2013 09:40 PM

I looked over this thread, but no one seems to have mentioned my favorite way of getting LW to run as an ultrapeer, so I thought I'd outline it here for whoever might find it useful.

First, exit LimeWire if it's running and check your taskbar, task manager, etc. to make sure the program is completely shut down and not just hiding. Next, find your LimeWire config file and open it in your favorite text editor; on Windows 7 machines, this will be at "C:\Users\{you}\AppData\Roaming\LimeWire\limewire.props". In this file, locate the lines starting with "DOWNTIME_HISTORY=" and "UPTIME_HISTORY=". (One way LimeWire decides if you're worthy of being an ultrapeer - possibly the only way - is by saving stats on past program performance and examining them each time it starts up. Ostensibly, ultrapeers should be on reliable machines, with reliable Internet connections.)

If your machine isn't trying to be an ultrapeer, chances are you have a lot of small (three- or four-digit) numbers in one or both of these lines, which will happen if you don't keep your PC running for long periods of time, or if you frequently run LimeWire in short bursts, say, to look for and download one file at a time. To increase your chances of LimeWire starting up in ultrapeer mode, add digits or remove semicolons in these lines to make every number listed at least five digits long - and, for good measure, find the line starting with "AVERAGE_UPTIME=" (this is usually the last line in the file) and delete it to force LimeWire to recalculate this number.

In my experience, every time I've done this, LimeWire has gone directly into ultrapeer mode at the next run. YMMV.

Sleepless January 9th, 2013 07:48 PM

As long as people with terrible connections don't misuse it, that's actually a very nice approach :xeri_ok1ani:

Lord of the Rings January 9th, 2013 07:58 PM

Nice approach! :xeri_ok1ani:

I tried experimenting with those numbers last year or so. It does seem to have an effect.

However I tend to have long sessions anyway. My LW will sometimes start up immediately as UP or at least after an hour or occasionally after a few hours.
Most likely because I already have good average uptime stats, I find that when I first open LW, if I continually remove the first peers that connect to me, it seems to force LW to become an ultrapeer. Again, not a recommended approach for those whom are firewalled or often have connection problems.

I find with LW 5 that I tend to get 40-50% better search results connected as a Leaf than when running as an ultrapeer. It can all depend upon the peers you are connected to and whom they are connected to of course. But I also often get less spam results when running as a leaf.
Example: 120 to 150 search replies whilst in Ultrapeer mode. 230 search replies whilst a Leaf. A concept that remains true year after year of testing this. My program is not firewalled which can play a significant role in search results obtained due to not losing UDP search result data.

Thus, the argument of connecting as an ultrapeer gets you better/more results for searches is a bit of a myth.
I recall one of the original FrostWire devs saying the same thing about 10 years ago. He made the point a leaf sees more of the search horizon than an ultrapeer.

On the other hand, connecting as an ultrapeer will help others to connect to the network.

Sharing files also plays an important part in search results. The more files you share, the more likely over time you will obtain better search results. This probably has something to do with how shared files are cached across the network and reaches out to other peers possibly beyond the standard horizon(s).


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.

Copyright © 2020 Gnutella Forums.
All Rights Reserved.