Filtering Fake results from searches

[GnarlySnarly]

How exactly is the fake file filtering done?

The help pages imply the primary hubs do the work of parsing the search result packets and filtering/dropping those that match IPs on the current chaff-file flooder blocklist, so the searcher only sees mostly good files on their computer.

One 'in the know' says the computer that makes the search does the filtering instead, by the same process.

These seem incompatible/inconsistent to me, but what do I know?


Ok.. here's the setup:

[PH-B] Primary Host file w/o Blocklist <--- [Fb] block-listed Flooder secondary
   |
[PD] Primary DLL user
          | ---- > [SD] Secondary DLL user
          | ---- > [SH] Secondary Host file user

1] PD prevents block-listed flooder (Fb) from connecting, so Fb has to find a non-blocking primary who is not using PGx with the blocklist to connect to (PH-B).  On connect to PH-B, Fb sends its list of fake files to it which then indexes them.

Can we agree so far?

2] Both secondary users SD & SH that are connected to PD then search for chaff-protected files.  PD propagates those search requests to all primaries it is connected to including PH-B.  This triggers PH-B to send matching fake results back to PD.

I think we agree to this, right?

So now the questions:

3] Does PD filter the incoming results of ALL searches by parsing the search result packets to compare the file source's IP with the blocklist?

4] If so, then PD would filter fake files from the results returned to both DS and even HS, the secondary user with a hosts file right?  It would also expend significant CPU resources for this because it has to parse every packet, fake or not, since it doesn't know the fake file until this parsing is done.  If for example 10% of all search results are fake, then the primary has to examine the 10,000 packets to find the 1,000 that may match a flooder's IP.

5] Does PD do any other things to filter fake files from the results from searches?

OR, instead of 3-5...
 
6] Are all results merely returned to the searching users computer, leaving it with the task and CPU loads of filtering out the fakes?

If this is the case, It would appear then all of the fake file traffic and related CPU and BW loading over the WPN continues and likely increases as users are encouraged by this feature to keep promiscuously searching for types of files that tend to be protected by chaff flooding.  Of a user doesn't tend to search for such files, Then filtering by this method is of questionable significance since they probably don't see many fakes anyway.

I have been apprised that most people don't think about questions like this and it is unimportant to them.  That my asking such details makes me suspect with ill-intent.  I am obviously not like most users, since it is natural for me to analyze things, and care about others.  I am an INTJ, and as such we make up less than 1% of the general population.  So yes, my mind doesn't work like the vast majority.

Maybe all most users care about is their own convenience and to hell with any ill effects their behavior and choices may have on others.  I want to believe that most people are not like that, that if they are given rational and truthful information, they would be willing to make some small personal sacrifices for the good of others.

So no, it isn't so important that I personally get answers to my questions, but I believe that those making the patches that keep winmx online should give some serious thought to the broader implications of their decisions.  Maybe those that are currently working on the new DLL will show a little more interest in this than KM when I put him on notice of my concerns less than 3 weeks after v 3 was first announced a year ago.  or maybe they can explain why my skimpy analysis is without foundation or merit.

[GhostShip]

As you are not a dll user as you have stated many times and you are fully aware of the damage of not using a blocking solution I can only assume your a network flooder/attacker on purpose Gnarly, is there then any point in anyone here wasting yet more time in repetitive answering of the same questions, I have been helpful to you mainly as I understand your thirst for information, what has occured since your initial posting has been much ill informed propaganda from yourself that seems only likely to stir fighting amongst the diff patch using groups, such propaganda is divisive and unwanted on this site.

As stated elsewhere there is a path we can all travel to a renewal and expansion of the network, that path currently involves blocking as a primary consideration for the logical reason it is of benefit to all users, same with filtering although not of crtical importance as blocking, is seen by all as a countermeasure that removes the fake files from the results, you may not like this Gnarly but it works and is legitimate and for this reason many wish to have this function, whilst those friendly to macrovision would like information on how to bypass it.

Filtering then is a choice, many folks here make that choice when they obtain the patch, others make the choice to use other patches, whether you like it or not no one needs to answer to you in their choices one way or the other and your efforts to inflame or influence folks with your half baked ramblings are reaching the annoyance stage.

I have stated to you before and will do so again, that all the answers you seek are in plain sight, and btw after reading your other post made by you today I no longer have time to waste on yourself or others wishing to sabotage the network.




 
 

 

[GnarlySnarly]

As you are not a dll user as you have stated many times and you are fully aware of the damage of not using a blocking solution I can only assume your a network flooder/attacker on purpose Gnarly,

Again, as usual, off topic.  The topic is about FILTERING FAKES, not blocking or the need and benefits thereof.

And as typical from you, more misinformation and deception.  You just can't bring yourself to admit that users who like me who connect some computers in secondary mode don't need to be concerned about blocking on those computers since neither flooders, nor ANYONE else for that matter, can connect to secondary users.  The overreaching claim that any user who doesn't use a blocklist enables flooders and thereby helps the RIAA/MPAA is a lie.  That is an issues that relates only to those connecting as primary hubs.

is there then any point in anyone here wasting yet more time in repetitive answering of the same questions,

I don't ask repetitive questions that are adequately, clearly and truthfully answered.  What there seems to be an abundance of is repetitive, evasive, non-answers.

I have been helpful to you mainly as I understand your thirst for information, what has occured since your initial posting has been much ill informed propaganda from yourself that seems only likely to stir fighting amongst the diff patch using groups, such propaganda is divisive and unwanted on this site.

You have a strange concept of being 'helpful'.   But don't just think of being helpful to me, but of being helpful to thousands of others who need good information.  Isn't that what public forums are all about?  When one person asks a questions, perhaps hundreds are also thinking about the same, or would if they could.  This just gives you all great opportunity to give good advice and assistance.

I haven't posted much if anything here since june of 2006 until after the latest bruhaha caused when KM pulled the plug.  The fight between the now 3? groups has progressed well without me for the last year. I didn't cause or even know about the split in the mxpie groups until mere days ago.

I am not attacking persons, but questioning ideas, technical concepts.  It is you and your crew that prefer to stoop to ad hominem attacks when you can't stand to critical thought and questioning.  If you were honest, you would admit that I have approached you about burying the hatchet in the ground instead of in one another's backs, appealing to all factions to stop making mountains over molehills, to stop unfounded negative attacks and stop hyping what may be differences of minimal or even questionable benefit and diminishing the valid contributions of others.  the WPN community is not strengthened by the continued infighting, rumors and innuendos being spread by various groupies.

As stated elsewhere there is a path we can all travel to a renewal and expansion of the network, that path currently involves blocking as a primary consideration for the logical reason it is of benefit to all users, same with filtering although not of crtical importance as blocking, is seen by all as a countermeasure that removes the fake files from the results, you may not like this Gnarly but it works and is legitimate and for this reason many wish to have this function, whilst those friendly to macrovision would like information on how to bypass it.

Again...off topic.  My post was about filtering, not blocking.

As to your continued innuendos and attempts to bad-jacket me - pfffttt.  You already stated all the information I was seeking was in plain sight.  Well duh! then educated RIAA techs know all they need to know right?

I am not asking or seeking any confidential informations but am merely analyzing the skimpy facts i have learned, and speculating on some potential ill-effects related to scale.  Since you are not the programmer, my questions are more directed to those that know about such things.  And even if the answers to my questions can't or shouldn't be openly discussed, my posting the issues will at least apprise the programmers of what pitfalls MAY be in the procedures.

Filtering then is a choice, many folks here make that choice when they obtain the patch, others make the choice to use other patches, whether you like it or not no one needs to answer to you in their choices one way or the other and your efforts to inflame or influence folks with your half baked ramblings are reaching the annoyance stage.

exactly.  filtering is a choice.  but users needed to be educated so they can make an informed choice.

One of my questions is who's computers and whose bandwidth is being consumed based on my choice IF I decided to install the filtering DLL?  If I installed the DLL and did lots of searches for chaff-protected files, many more than I would tolerate if I didn't have this filtering, would my behavior affect only me and my computer and bw?  or would my actions cause a shift in CPU loads and bandwidth usage onto others?  And if so, would it be significant, especially if scaled to hundreds of thousands of DLL users with similar search tastes and patterns?  Could it be detrimental to others, to WPN?

I have stated to you before and will do so again, that all the answers you seek are in plain sight, and btw after reading your other post made by you today I no longer have time to waste on yourself or others wishing to sabotage the network.

Since you didn't want to answer my questions in PM, I certainly didn't expect you to expound here.  My posting here was to bring the questions to the attention of others who are a little more open-minded and less defensive.  Since the DLL seems now to be a work in progress, I think this is a great time to bring issues like those I raise for open discussion and a review by the new team of techies working on this.

[GhostShip]

Yet more politics eh Gnarly :roll:

Just so other users are no longer mislead or confused by your ramblings I shall state once more for the public record, both secondary and primary clients will not entertain connections or search packet content delivered by other primaries but originating from flooder secondary nodes.

I challenge you to either prove your claims regarding how folks search on the wpn and find reference information to back your the claims your implying/stating  regarding only DLL folks searching habits or retract your flawed claims that you have made 5 times now, this should at least include information that is in the public domain showing how host file users are searching differently, something you seem unable thus far to produce in public or private

If you are going to make further claims then at least back them with facts, your flavour of innuendo, half baked theory and the spreading of mistrust in the community in general is what gets you "bad jacketed" , nothing more.

[GnarlySnarly]

Yet more politics eh Gnarly :roll:

No politics, just alternative critical thinking.

Just so other users are no longer mislead or confused by your ramblings I shall state once more for the public record, both secondary and primary clients will not entertain connections or search packet content delivered by other primaries but originating from flooder secondary nodes.

Please stay on topic.  This would be best be done by answering the specific questions I first posted to open this thread.  Most require a simple yes or no answer.

I'll eliminate your references to "connections" in this comment since that is related to blocking and not filtering, and thus tends to complicate and convolute the issues.  That done, what I hear you asserting is that:

"both secondary and primary [DLL] clients will 1] [parse all incoming] search [result] packet content 2] [compare file source IP in results to those on the block list] and 3] [drop any packets thus discovered to be] originating from [known and blocklisted] flooder secondary nodes."

Is that a fairly accurate reading of the DLL fake file filtering method?

Does it do more?  less?  something different?  to effect filtering the chaff decoy files?

[GhostShip]

Would be nice if the "critical thinking" was backed by using your eyes and reading as most of our readers take the time to do, after all nothing here has been hidden from you.

https://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/fake_file_info.html

As explained to you Gnarly over a year ago by myself the flooders have a simple flaw and we make full use of that flaw, and as long as they are forced to use the WPN protocol there is no way they can bypass it without diluting their systems effectiveness to around 5% of its current strength.

[bughunter]

just lock the thread and ban this idiot...............
pie maggots know full well what there doing but attempt to make out there angels.........lieing scamming and distributing malware under the guise of a patch, which doesnt even work is nothing more then a sham and shows exactly what pie are.............
its pointless trying to explain to someone like knarly about filtering and fakes udp doss and denial of service attacks that they help implement, as the simply lack the brain power to comprehend it all...........
you only have to look at the original post to see he has absolutely no idea how filtering works,its laughable that he doesnt even have a basic grasp of how winmx even works let alone filtering or even more importantly why it must be done in order to protect both users and this network.............
ill give you 30 minutes quicks to make a reply before i lock the thread and ban this idiot...............
knarly go back to nobby and tell him you failed since thats all you pie maggots ever do is fail and fail misserably...........

[bugidiot]

since thats all you pie maggots ever do is fail and fail misserably...........

14:40:35 ¤l|[V\//¥\\/V]ICEDRAGON |l¤ either way all thats happined is yourve confirmed what vladd and pie have always said about you .........so you have blown it

You cant have it both ways Bugidiot, in the first instance you say pie always fails, yet your second shows Pie was right all along, usual hypocritical idiot, proven stupid by his own quotes.