What additional features or improvements would you like to see added to WinMX?

[achilles]

Since reading more threads on this  forum i see their has been several discussions on this topic in the past. Is there some way to merge all of the threads on this topic into 1 single thread?  I believe it would benefit everyone to have all of this info in 1 centralized location.  I would just ask that the tread be named something that would make it clear what the thread is about.  Would anyone have any objections to this?  I started this thread, and i would have no objection with it being merged with the rest. I believe it would make it easier for new users to locate the new combined thread  if it was located under Winmx Client, but if it were placed under protocol discussion then that would be fine as well.

[GhostShip]

There should be no reason why that cant be done however as you may have noticed some of the threads get a little bit off topic and it may be a bit off-putting to see the topic jump about or see off topic posts disappear, we often get a lot of complaints when we take even a single post away let alone a few tens of posts that wouldnt be appropriate in this single thread, I,ll see what can be done Achilles and I hope to be able to join some here if thats of help but please dont be disappointed if some threads are missed out for the reason explained above, cheers for your continued interest 

[achilles]

I know their were mentions of making a more secure client or better security.  This is a #1 priority for me. What could be done other than having an option to block a user's ability to browse your files.  Winmx seems to be already really secure.  Is it possible to have an option to connect to the network like a multi hop VPN?   I just ran out of time.  I will have to explain about the VPN when i get back.  Anyways what could be done to make it more secure?

[White Stripes]

Winmx seems to be already really secure.

the 6+yr old encryption it uses has been long since broken and file transfer data is plain http.... ...go from there... (nobody said this was going to be an easy fix overall .... think small steps ... since the old client simply cant be made obsolete all at once)

SSL for the http style and UDP (torrent/ares style)  have been proposed for the file transfers ...

running mx over a VPN would be the same as any other app... i think (dont quote me on this) it can be used over tor as well... just like other apps... the ultimate goal tho is to have it stand on its own two legs (so to speak) with its own strong encryption... (anyone have a dream pipe i can borrow?)

[achilles]

ok, i'm back, and i have a question about WPN protocol.  Does a secondary connection function similar to  an anonymous VPN service with a single hop, and the primary client acting as an exit node?  For instance; If i connect using a secondary connection then i am connecting to a peer running a primary connection, and all my searches are routed through the peer with the primary connection; in other words the primary peer is doing the searching for me.  His machine acts as a server or a man in the middle so to speak.  Once the peer on the primary connection finds the file i am looking for then am  i connecting directly to the peer with the file or does my traffic get routed through the client with the primary connection, and then back to me?  If this was the case then the client on the primary connection would be acting as an exit node, and the client with the file would be seeing the primary's IP address instead of the person downloading the file.  So does the primary client only assist in finding the files for the secondary or does it also act as an exit node as described in the above senario? 

[White Stripes]

For instance; If i connect using a secondary connection then i am connecting to a peer running a primary connection, and all my searches are routed through the peer with the primary connection; in other words the primary peer is doing the searching for me.

yes. his machine also holds the list of files you have shared so that other primaries can find them (and forward them to other secondaries if needed) as well... private messages are also routed through the primary to its target secondary... browse of course comes from primary too since they have your list of files...

His machine acts as a server or a man in the middle so to speak.

in most parts yes...

Once the peer on the primary connection finds the file i am looking for then am  i connecting directly to the peer with the file or does my traffic get routed through the client with the primary connection, and then back to me?

you get the file search/browse results from the primaries on the network but the actual file itself is a direct connection between the secondaries.... or primary to secondary if the primary has the file you download ... same for uploads...

So does the primary client only assist in finding the files for the secondary or does it also act as an exit node as described in the above senario?

it finds files, forwards pms, and fetches the chat channel list... the download/upload of files and connecting to chat servers is secondary directly connecting... ...the primary does not keep a secondary anonymous...

[achilles]

Thank You Silver Stripes!  You answered all my questions.  I have a better ideal of how WPN operates now.  I've had a few ideals on how to make a much more anonymous network.  Changes would have to be made to the patch, and the client.  Its not possible to implement into the current client.  Its more important to have a new working client than to implement an entirely new protocol in which the network operates.  I'm still going to be doing more research on this topic, and then make a diagram on how it could be done.  It would be the most unique, and secure P2P client ever created.  The whole network would be an anonymous  with each client acting as a multi-hop exit node.  It would change the entire network, and could never be done with the current client. It may never be implemented into the WPN, but its a project i have taken interest in. So i have plenty of time to research.  I would be happy if we could only find more good coders with the areas of expertise needed to complete a new client. Once we have a full working client it can be perfected over time.  I believe there is a lot of good coders out there that would be willing to help if they only knew how many users still use WPN.  I tell my friend about Winmx all the time, and most of them have never heard of it.  Its a shame because its so light on system resources that you can leave it running 24/7/365 and not even know its running.  There's a huge amount of files available on the network, and once the 2gb limit is uncapped there will be so many more. 

[White Stripes]

Thank You Silver Stripes!  You answered all my questions.

no problem

It would be the most unique, and secure P2P client ever created.

i think a few might have beat you to that... depending on your views...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASTE (the fork 'waste again' is still in development)

The whole network would be an anonymous  with each client acting as a multi-hop exit node.

been done.. its called ants;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANts_P2P

...didnt mean to rain on your parade but no need to reinvent the wheel...

once the 2gb limit is uncapped there will be so many more.

for many reasons... way easier said than done....

[achilles]

Thank You Silver Stripes!  Ants was closer to what i was talking about.   They both seem to be incomplete, but there still working on them so that is good! 

[achilles]

I have a question for those working on a new client. what would be the best protocol to provide better security without giving up functionality in a new client ( SSL, PPTP, L2TP, or IPSec) ?

[achilles]

Opps.. I forgot to mention SFTP to the above protocols.

[White Stripes]

something UDP based... UDP packets are 'slippery' to begin with.... and there are plenty of F/OSS encryption (twofish comes to mind) and error correction (UDP is quite a different creature than TCP) methods out there.....

....i say this because bittorrents UDP based uTP protocol is very good at what it does....

[achilles]

So what protocol is the current client using for file transfer between clients, and what protocol is it using for messaging in chat rooms?

[White Stripes]

So what protocol is the current client using for file transfer between clients

slight variant of http (no im not kidding) uses TCP just like regular http

and what protocol is it using for messaging in chat rooms?

its own... chat is technically part of the wpn protocol even tho the user connects to the chat server directly...  also TCP...

parts of the wpn use UDP and parts use TCP ... its why it openes two ports ... open UDP port is needed for primary functionality... secondary can get along on TCP alone but having UDP open helps...



-edit- typo, clarity, additional info...

edited tig: done as requested by Silver Stripes.

[achilles]

I was acqually aware of WinMx using TCP, and UDP.  All the the file sharing clients i use do.  Maybe i'm misunderstanding the function of TCP, and UDP protocol.   I understand that TCP stands for Transmission Control Protocol, and UDP stands for User Datagram Protocol. This probably has a lot more meaning to someone that is an expert in this area, but i am no expert in this area though i am learning more every day. Doesn't some or all of the following protocols use TCP, and UDP connections
 ( SSL, PPTP, L2TP, IPSec) ?  

P.S I wish i had started this conversion in the Protocol discussion area of the forum.  If i move it now though it want make much since without the previous post.

[White Stripes]

ahh.. i understand what you mean now....

TCP is basically a 'self contained' packet... it has the length, sender info, payload, error correction, and time to live data all in one packet (to put it very simply) and the reciver is expecting the packet and will send data back that it got the packet... ...or even if it didnt...

wikipedia most likely will do a better job than i can explaining it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol

UDP is as its namesake not fully 'complete' but rather 'bare bones'...  ... its a user created packet... it has length, sender, and payload infos... ...and thats pretty much it... what the programs do with UDP packets is completely up to the programmer.... as for error correction and responses the UDP packet either makes it or dont... whereas TCP is a 'tries its best to make it' ... when a UDP packet doesnt make it its up to the programmer what to do at that point... it can be ignored or they can send something back....

again from wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol

the operating system (its TCP/IP stack) gets more involved with TCP as well... whereas UDP relies mostly on the program that is sending&recieving the UDP packets...

TCP and UDP are simply one layer in the communication 'stack' that the other protocols you are talking about make use of...

SSL in the conventional sense uses port 443 (as apposed to port 80) and is primarily used for encrypted communication with a browser to webserver for.. say.. online shopping... like http, ssl is TCP...

PPTP is microsofts VPN protocol uses port 1723 and is TCP... (microsoft proprietary... avoid...)

L2TP is a VPN protocol that uses port 1701 and is UDP...

and for the oddball in your list;

IPsec is a packet layer (IP) encryption scheme... it is neither TCP or UDP... and next to those is comparitively new... was ment for IPv6 so support in various OSen may be spotty or non exsistant...

ICMP is another packet layer (IP) nugget that you may have come across

all in all if you want your project to be compatible across the widest possible OSen and networks TCP and UDP are your best bets... 
what you put in those TCP and/or UDP packets is ofc up to you....

[achilles]

Thanks for the reply Silver Stripes!  I'm always trying to learn more.