Poll!Should it be possible to disable the Browse Host function!

Joakim Agren · #11 (**permalink**) July 17th, 2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Krieger88

I don't think the network really is that volatile. And even if it was, the spynode wouldn't have to gather all that information in one session since your client has an unique servent id, that will allow to identify it, even after its IP has changed. They could track you for weeks, before they finally think they've gathered enough information.

Hello!

I think it is pretty volatile I personally have never stayed in touch with one single Ultrapeer for longer then 15 minutes maximum so using the spynode approach to catch individual big sharers will probably take them atleast a couple of weeks to gather enough Query Hit messages like lets say a couple of thousand of them(so they have to spend alot of $$$$).And yes you are correct each servent do have a unique servent ID but I am not exactly sure if that ID is a steady one or if it changes everytime you restart your client using the Microsoft GUID system.Maybe you know better about that?

Quote:

You cannot identify hostile hosts. The spynode could use any user agent string without anyone ever recognizing the spynode. It's not a crime to spoof a user agent string.

Yes that is true but I think that the Gnutella developers are working one some kind of thrusted node system that will help alleviate this probably not entirely but atleast make it harder for them to do so.

Quote:

Advertising a huge index of stolen copyrighted material is proof enough for most ISPs to send their users a notice when the RIAA tells them to, and the ISP can shut you down, even it is not entirely proven that you actually uploaded those files. And if they did so, what are you going to do? Sue them? (You'd better not if you don't want your computer confiscated by the local police.)

Yes the QueryHits is probably evidence enough these days since the introduction of the 0.6 Gnutella protocol and its implimentation of the Bearshare extended QueryHit message that also contains a trailer message with amongst other things a flag indicating how many uploads from a servent that has been succesfull.And If I where under investigation I would probably receive a letter from my ISP varning me and actually I would prefer to receive such a letter so that I know what is happening so that I could remove my shares of Gnutella(After all I do not want to loose my Internet connection).Lets just hope that I will be among the lucky ones as most people will be personally I think that the RIAA are a bunch of lazy people and that they will most likely target their efforts against US citizens so I think I am more safe and so are you.

Quote:

And I think you should face reality. No judge would honestly believe you if you said you were just advertising this huge index of stolen copyrighted material to steal more copyrighted material and you weren't actually uploading anything. This is not only about proof. If a bomb explodes in your local mall and you happened to have bought the ingredients for that bomb, you go to jail, no matter what you did.

This is irrelevant know since I now know that the QueryHit messages is all the evidence they need.

Quote:

You simply don't get it, do you? THEY DON'T HAVE TO BROWSE YOUR F U C K I N G HOST, TO GET AN ALMOST COMPLETE LIST OF YOUR SHARES!

NO need to use such harch language!And you are correc they do not have to Browse my Shared directory to get evidence but I still think that they are lazy enough to use this method instead of the spy node tactic since that option will cost them much more and give them alot of work.Warner Music used the Browse Host method when performing a Interdiction attack against me which I wrote about in this thread:
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...threadid=13401

Quote:

That's it. Okay, I really don't get it. Are you dumb or something? Somebody tells you that freeloader blocking does not work as you expected and what do you do? YOU SIMPLY MAKE SOMETHING UP, AND SAY THAT'S WHY IT WORKS AS I THOUGHT! You are unbelievable. I have the source code on my hard drive. I read the source code. I edited the source code and never it occurred to me, that LimeWire would ever reject a HTTP connection without even sending an error code. Not to mention that the algorithm you described wouldn't even work, since you don't necessarily receive many pongs at all and identifying a client according to their IP number is anything but safe.

The freeloader algorithm is in StandardMessageRouter.java in the method handlePingReplyForMe() and in HTTPUploader.java in the readHeader() method and all it does is killing uploads to browsers (identified by their user string) and killing gnutella connections to hosts not sharing files.

You are correct that that Algorithm that I described do not work but the antifreeloader function does work anyway since pong messages with a less value then 20 files in shared directory will be rejected to connect to me over Gnutella so that means that my files will not show up in their search results.But I guess that this function is not bullet proof since I sometimes in my Monitor window see people that will initiate a http connection but the status will then imediatelly be File Not Found but I guess that many freeloaders are lucky enough not to send a pong message to me during a transfer so they will recieve the 200 OK value anyway and complete the download.Well it would be cool if the algorithm I described earlier did work.Maybe some genius could impliment it somehow in a future release of the Gnutella protocoll.

I would like to thank you for spiking me into seek out new knowledge of the Gnutella protocoll.Previously I had an extensive knowledge about the clients and a generall understanding of the Gnutella protocoll but now I know that had some knowledge gaps about some particular parts of the protocoll that I have now filled.

By the way I have looked at some of your posts on the forum and sometimes you are logged in as guest and sometimes as member.It is better if you are always logged in with your member account.

Since the facts in the previous posts are incorrect I am thinking of maybe delete this poll and re-write a new more accurate one.!

Krieger88 · #12 (**permalink**) August 1st, 2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Joakim Agren

I think it is pretty volatile I personally have never stayed in touch with one single Ultrapeer for longer then 15 minutes maximum so using the spynode approach to catch individual big sharers will probably take them atleast a couple of weeks to gather enough Query Hit messages like lets say a couple of thousand of them(so they have to spend alot of $$$$).

The spynode doesn't have to be connected to you directly. It can be anywhere up to seven hops away from you. Since your servent emits queryhits in all possible directions, they probably won't need weeks but days or even just hours. Even 15 Minutes could be enough if it is connected to you directly.

Next version of LimeWire will add information in the library table how often you sent a query hit for each file you share. Then you can see for yourself how aggressively you are advertising your shares to the network.

Quote:

And yes you are correct each servent do have a unique servent ID but I am not exactly sure if that ID is a steady one or if it changes everytime you restart your client using the Microsoft GUID system.

LimeWire's servent ID is steady. It's saved in the limewire.props file. I believe most servents keep their ID.

Quote:

Yes the QueryHits is probably evidence enough these days since the introduction of the 0.6 Gnutella protocol and its implimentation of the Bearshare extended QueryHit message that also contains a trailer message with amongst other things a flag indicating how many uploads from a servent that has been succesfull.

The flag is a boolean value and indicates if there have been any successful uploads at all.

bobomon · #13 (**permalink**) August 1st, 2002

Thanks to both of you for this dialogue - I find the discussion and the information contained within one of the best exchanges I have encountered!!!

Krieger88 · #14 (**permalink**) August 2nd, 2002

Here's the latest LimeWire from cvs, now showing how many results your client has sent for each file you share. It might still show you some error messages if it is hashing files, - just click them away, they don't matter.

Although I knew that LimeWire was sending out lot's of queryhits, I was still astonished by the amount. - A spynode can have a list of all your shares within a minute without even bothering to browse your host.

http://mitglied.tripod.de/mdsgeist/LimeWire.zip

Changes include:
- shows numbers of alternate locations / upload attempts / successful uploads & queryhits sent for each file
- does only send queryhits while there are upload slots available

It's usable, however there might still occur some errors.

MacTerminator · #15 (**permalink**) August 13th, 2002

I'm with Bobomon: an excellent exchange. After reading earlier posts about RIAA attacks, I was curious about how they would go about compiling information. This thread has cleared up a lot of doubts. Thankyou Joakim and Kreiger88.

I hope Joakim has some ointment to rub into the burns, though.

Bobo the Red · #16 (**permalink**) August 19th, 2002

What's the deal here ... the RIAA Nazi Gestapo isn't going to be showing up on anyone individual's door with a subponea ...

though I did enjoy reading what everyone had to say here ... I think that somepoeple are being just a bit paranoid.

[KOR]sungsuha · #17 (**permalink**) July 12th, 2003

Ooops I'm the only imbecile who said
"I like to get caught by RIAA"

Aro · #18 (**permalink**) March 19th, 2004

hehe, I voted for it too ;-)

Well, let's see. Everyone needs to do what they can to slow down [rectal orifices] like the RIAA who think simply because they control the music industry that they control the sounds my computer makes. Personally I see it as an invasion of privacy and a red flag when it comes to the destruction of basic rights and freedoms.

That being said, have you ever been to court? Have you ever had to pay a lawyer? Do you have any idea how much MONEY that costs? Be smart. The RIAA will go bankrupt if they have to chase every single person around to prove something, spending thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to persecute someone for a million dollars, who only has $5 to their name.

Not to mention, hackers who care about keeping information free, should find ways to create 'fake' limewire queries or whatever, so you can say "Well how do you know what you saw was real or not?" Confuse the matter, then watch how you manage your resources.

If you get a letter saying you're going to jail for software piracy. "Lose" your old hard drive. Where did it go? It stopped working, you replaced it, and it went in the garbage. Hopefully you throw it out before you get a subpoena otherwise you might get in a bit of trouble ;-P

Anyways, I'm not going to panic until people in my country start seriously getting persecuted. I share a few files, sometimes a lot, sometimes nothing; not terrabytes worth. Although I would really love to, (it's fun) I'm not going to take too many risks.

I'm sure my life won't be ruined if I had a few copywritten songs on my computer that were identified as being 'shared', but omfg. EVERYONE does this. It's like prohibition. You can't enforce a law the general public would be dead against.

The people who are pushing for this whole idiotic ban of the internet are the [non-bifurcated after exhaust vents] running / working for the major corporations that make billions of dollars off sellign propaganda to 12 year old girls/boys and getting them to spend all their parents money buying some stupid britney spears/nsync nonsense. Considering the techniques they use to sell and inspire desire for their products, I'm not really going to feel bad about making things difficult for them.

Welcome to the new war.

Welcome to spelling class !!!

The word for today is

subpoena

Thanks a lot ursula

ursula · #19 (**permalink**) March 19th, 2004

BTW...

Don't worry about any of this junk...

And, the poll is flawed because it does NOT include the ONLY rational reason for wishing to disable others from Browsing you...

It takes a whole big basketful of bandwidth !
A lot in comparison to that which is needed for many other things...
It's a really nice feature... It doesn't really bother me and I usually have it enabled...

The only other 'real threat' is that some people are sometimes going to Browse you and say, "Hmmm, OK... I'll just download ALL of it !!!"....
lol... It happens, a lot !
Sort of 'skews' the old sharing statistics, hmmm ?

Why shouldn't you worry ?
Because if you have not installed PeerGuardian than you're not really trying to protect yourself.

PeerGuardian blocks the IPs of the above mentioned baddies...

ursula · #20 (**permalink**) March 19th, 2004

btw 2...

Hey, Aro... Are you one of those ancient thread archaeologists ?

View Poll Results: Should LimeWire have the option to completely disable the Browse Host function?
Yes	29	49.15%
No	24	40.68%
Maybe	4	6.78%
I like to get caught by RIAA	2	3.39%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Browse Host function seems less useable lately??	Steve Gill	Download/Upload Problems	2	November 6th, 2006 03:56 PM
Browse Host function	Unregistered	New Feature Requests	1	November 29th, 2004 10:26 AM
Browse Host function..	aboo	General Discussion	4	November 14th, 2003 12:59 PM
Improved browse host function	Unregistered	New Feature Requests	5	August 22nd, 2002 02:43 AM
Browse Host Function?	Unregistered	LimeWire Beta Archives	3	January 19th, 2002 07:34 AM