Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
gfx gfx
76666 Posts in 13459 Topics by 2086 Members - Latest Member: vaminos December 08, 2021, 02:42:06 am
WinMX World :: Forum  |  Discussion  |  WinMx World News  |  Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)

Author Topic: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)  (Read 4674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sinner

  • Forum Member
Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« on: March 09, 2011, 12:26:53 pm »
This is the ChatLog from the conversation between Observer, KM and myself.
There where also some user comments that have been removed, I think this is the important part.


04/03/11  12:33:30> Going online...
04/03/11  12:33:30> Room is online on port 6698
04/03/11  12:33:30> Detecting Public IP...
04/03/11  12:33:30> Detected IP: 87.106.*.*
04/03/11  12:33:30> Save_WinMX_1DBB6A571A2A
04/03/11  12:36:07> + Save-WinMX911_10653 Joind from *.*.*.* to Primary Chan
04/03/11  21:56:21> + Observer197_18639 Joined from *.*.*.* to Primary Chan
04/03/11  21:57:31> <SaveWinMX911_91191>  /setuserlevel Observer197_18639 +vCc
04/03/11  21:57:31> < Command executed: +vCc
04/03/11  21:59:21> Config.txt has been reloaded
04/03/11  22:02:43> <Observer> can anyone pull up a current copyod the blocklist ?
04/03/11  22:03:23> <Observer> you will observe that since yesterday some ips have been cleaned up
04/03/11  22:03:39> <Observer> the ones km originally complained about
04/03/11  22:03:57> <Save-WinMX> can you please post a link so we can see?
04/03/11  22:04:07> <Observer> he now demands more ip be removed
04/03/11  22:04:16> <Observer> let me find one brb
04/03/11  22:05:55> <Observer> newbielink: [nonactive]   this seems to be the current list
04/03/11  22:06:35> <Observer> the issue at stake is simple if we give in to kms demands to remove more ips we allow attackers on the network
04/03/11  22:07:06> <Observer> aslo he has already spread files that show the primary rprotocol information
04/03/11  22:07:25> <Observer> its now simpkly a matter of time until someone else exploits that
04/03/11  22:07:39> <Observer> so making a deal is worthless
04/03/11  22:07:35> + NotKM333_10221 Joined from *.*.*.* to Primary Chan
04/03/11  22:07:49> <SaveWinMX911_91191>  /setuserlevel NotKM333_10221 +vCc
04/03/11  22:07:49> < Command executed: +vCc
04/03/11  22:07:51> <Observer> welcome in
04/03/11  22:08:02> <NotKM> your defenition of attacker is anyone you don't like, or anything you see that you don't understand (quite a lot)
04/03/11  22:08:14> <Observer> i dont agree
04/03/11  22:08:23> <NotKM> you are not blocking the flooders that the block list is for, you are blocking users
04/03/11  22:08:45> <NotKM> if a user shares files and doesn't obey your order to stop sharing them, you blocklist them, correct?
04/03/11  22:09:08> <Observer> km if you asked me on msn days ago to see what those ips are blocked for it would have been a few minutes work to resolve what is and what is not active currently
04/03/11  22:09:29> <Observer> you choose to deprive folks
04/03/11  22:09:50> <NotKM> why as you something? i already knew the answer, you told me when you blocked me that it was because you hadn't given me permission to share my files
04/03/11  22:09:55> <Observer> you have had my msn all week
04/03/11  22:10:04> <Observer> and the means to get the ips removed
04/03/11  22:10:17> <NotKM> and the tor exit nodes were when after you blocked me another user decided to share the files via tor to make a point
04/03/11  22:10:30> <Observer> i made a temp block to stop those files being shared yes
04/03/11  22:10:34> <NotKM> oh, so you listened when i told you to remove them?
04/03/11  22:10:38> <Observer> till we could talk
04/03/11  22:10:55> <Observer> you didnt talk you ranted
04/03/11  22:11:01> <NotKM> or are you claiming that you never saw the messages telling you to remove them? because everyone else did...
04/03/11  22:11:08> <Observer> i didnt no
04/03/11  22:11:19> <NotKM> so you admit abusing the block list to block users
04/03/11  22:11:20> <Observer> nor would i do as they demand
04/03/11  22:11:26> <NotKM> not attackers, users
04/03/11  22:11:28> <Observer> not users you km
04/03/11  22:11:33> <Observer> only you
04/03/11  22:11:57> <Save-WinMX> observer: you said this is the current block list: newbielink: [nonactive]
04/03/11  22:11:58> <Observer> no one else would endanger the network as you where attenpoting to
04/03/11  22:12:05> <Save-WinMX> right?
04/03/11  22:12:06> <NotKM> by sharing files that winmxworld does not agree to, someone is an attacker... yes, they are attacking your authority to dictate what people are and are not allowed to do on your network, right?
04/03/11  22:12:09> <Observer> its wrong
04/03/11  22:12:25> <Observer> who is they btw ?
04/03/11  22:12:30> <Observer> i only see you
04/03/11  22:12:40> <Observer> oh and your friend nb
04/03/11  22:12:53> <Observer> wwe old times remeber him
04/03/11  22:12:57> <NotKM> in your opinion, what is the purpose of the block list?
04/03/11  22:13:10> <Observer> its to protect the network against attackers
04/03/11  22:13:15> <NotKM> and how do you define attackers?
04/03/11  22:13:27> <Observer> those who seek to damgae or attack the network
04/03/11  22:13:30> <NotKM> is sharing a file an attack?
04/03/11  22:13:36> <Observer> its the files contents
04/03/11  22:13:39> <NotKM> is hosting a chat room an attack?
04/03/11  22:13:43> <Observer> your aware of that
04/03/11  22:13:51> <Observer> no thats not an attack
04/03/11  22:14:10> <Observer> sharing primary protocol stuff loses us the whole network
04/03/11  22:14:16> <Observer> you know that
04/03/11  22:14:18> <NotKM> then why did you blocklist channel hosts?
04/03/11  22:14:40> <NotKM> so, it is your decision what i do with files i created?
04/03/11  22:14:48> <Observer> i dont run the blocklist at the time your mentioning km so i cannot say at this exact moment
04/03/11  22:15:04> <Observer> i made the choice to block those yes
04/03/11  22:15:12> <Observer> by blocing you
04/03/11  22:15:20> <NotKM> if you don't run the block list, it's nothing to do with you, i want to speak to the person abusing the block list
04/03/11  22:15:22> <Observer> those will damage mx
04/03/11  22:15:43> <Observer> so now you dont want to speak you are back to demanding
04/03/11  22:15:46> <NotKM> i've wasted days going around and around in circles with you always ending with the "oh it's nothing to do with me" line then starting all over again
04/03/11  22:16:16> <Observer> km you and i both know i can do whats right for the network but you need to do whats right too
04/03/11  22:16:29> <Observer> stop attacking it as a sign of good faith
04/03/11  22:16:44> <NotKM> the block list is used to block users from the entire network, who is it that decides who is and is not allowed on the network? that is the person i wish to speak to, if that is not you then stop wasting my time going around in circles with the same BS over and over again
04/03/11  22:17:11> <Observer> aslo provide a list of ips your not sure are lkegitimately blocked
04/03/11  22:17:26> <Observer> ppl are watching you
04/03/11  22:17:32> <Observer> do the right thing
04/03/11  22:18:09> <Save-WinMX> may i interrupt?
04/03/11  22:18:13> <NotKM> i have made repeated signs of good faith when it looked like someone was about to update the block list to remove the abusive entries, then after several hours the changes had still not been made so i resumed... stop asking me to keep stopping in good faith when all i am getting from winmxworld is time wasting and bullshit
04/03/11  22:18:14> <Observer> please do
04/03/11  22:18:37> <Save-WinMX> km .. is that alright with you?
04/03/11  22:18:49> <NotKM> one second i'll provide you with the annotation of the list i gave you the other day because you're claiming to not know what to unblock again...
04/03/11  22:19:14> <Save-WinMX> ok... we'll wait for that
04/03/11  22:19:20> <Observer> hmm
04/03/11  22:19:26> <Observer> thats productive
04/03/11  22:19:47> <Save-WinMX> pls.. just lets wait a moment observer
04/03/11  22:20:17> <Save-WinMX> while he is looking for the list..
04/03/11  22:20:20> <NotKM> newbielink: [nonactive]  i will point out that from the OVH servers the specific one i told them i knew for a fact should not be on there was silently removed, the others appear to have not been investigated any further
04/03/11  22:20:37> <Observer> km used to be a part of wmw folks so he knows that some of the questions he has asked in othe rooms   wont be answered for security purposes
04/03/11  22:20:44> <Observer> i,ll look at the list now
04/03/11  22:21:20> <NotKM> the tor exit nodes should not be on there... if you wish to ban tor users from your chat room then you are free to do so, as you are free to ban users from your chat room for sharing files you don't want them sharing, however extending those bans to the entire network is not what the block list is for
04/03/11  22:21:46> <NotKM> what, the question of who is responsible for the block list is a security issue now?
04/03/11  22:21:59> <NotKM> who it is you're asking everyone to trust is a security issue?
04/03/11  22:22:00> <Observer>  hold tight km i cant gather info if you multipl post
04/03/11  22:22:18> <Observer> get some tea
04/03/11  22:22:33> <NotKM> i think we should ban newspapers from reporting on the identity of presidents/prime ministers for security reasons, they should not be held accountable, for security reasons
04/03/11  22:22:47> <Observer> do you want the info or not ?
04/03/11  22:23:00> <Observer> i thought we wanted openness
04/03/11  22:23:53> <NotKM> you've known for days what i wanted... how long will it take you to get the reasons behind all the block list entries, and to remove the ones that should not be there? (for example the tor ones)
04/03/11  22:23:55> <Observer> newbielink: [nonactive]  i cant see this
04/03/11  22:24:10> <Observer> can you use another service please
04/03/11  22:26:00> <NotKM> i assume you're planning on going and finding who added each entry to the blocklist and why, correct? then i imagine my annotated version of the block list from a couple of days ago is of little use anyway
04/03/11  22:26:10> <Observer> i am yes
04/03/11  22:26:48> <Observer> o can already see raps asked for the ovh to be blocked and it was confirmed as a cache hammerer
04/03/11  22:27:16> <Save-WinMX> newbielink: [nonactive]
04/03/11  22:27:47> <NotKM> then i imagine shortly there will be an updated block list with any entries that shouldn't have been added, or which were added ages ago and shouldn't be there any more, will be removed... and the remaining entries will have the detail of what they were doing and why they are being kept on there, then there won't be an issue, right?
04/03/11  22:27:52> <SaveWinMX911_91191>  /setuserlevel Save-WinMX911_10653 +c
04/03/11  22:27:52> < Command executed: +c
04/03/11  22:27:56> <SaveWinMX911_91191>  /setuserlevel Save-WinMX911_10653 +C
04/03/11  22:27:56> < Command executed: +C
04/03/11  22:28:23> <NotKM> so querying the cache multiple times?
04/03/11  22:28:29> <Observer> why do you say should no of been added when you know they require two ppl to see the problem before they get added ?
04/03/11  22:28:50> <NotKM> i would imagine if that was a criteria for blocklisting someone you would have a much longer list than that, considering how chat servers have been failing recently
04/03/11  22:28:50> <Observer> iif its there its up to no good
04/03/11  22:29:00> <Observer> your now off topicing
04/03/11  22:29:25> <NotKM> because i can give an example of one that should not have been added... mine
04/03/11  22:29:30> <NotKM> and another... the tor exit nodes
04/03/11  22:29:38> <NotKM> and another... the chat hosts
04/03/11  22:30:06> <Observer> you sod to josh chat host singular
04/03/11  22:30:09> <Observer> said*
04/03/11  22:30:21> <Observer> why do you peris in misleding
04/03/11  22:30:23> <NotKM> oh and another... josh, i always forget him, lol
04/03/11  22:30:27> <Observer> persist*
04/03/11  22:30:39> <NotKM> you even admitted you added him abusively
04/03/11  22:30:45> <Observer> josh was taken out of the equation
04/03/11  22:30:54> <NotKM> after you apparently resigned and were therefore not able to add things to the blocklist
04/03/11  22:30:57> <Observer> to ensure he was not the attacker
04/03/11  22:31:04> <NotKM> but nobody is believing that lie
04/03/11  22:31:05> <Observer> as his name was on the list
04/03/11  22:31:24> <Observer> you nbelieved that lie
04/03/11  22:31:38> <Observer> i spoke to you that same night
04/03/11  22:31:48> <Observer> you made no complaints
04/03/11  22:32:01> <NotKM> but at least now you're confirming the resignation was BS, and you in fact do speak for winmxworld, right?
04/03/11  22:32:08> <Observer> in fact it seems all this is to drag me back
04/03/11  22:32:21> <Observer> i resign you go ape
04/03/11  22:32:49> <Observer> all the folks in this room know me
04/03/11  22:33:19> <Observer> i,m a well known and trusted user
04/03/11  22:33:56> <NotKM> i don't give a shit about you, i got blocked from the network because i shared some files i had every right to share, i gave winmxworld (ie. you) plenty of time to correct that, but no... so i decided i'd have to force you to... i really didn't think you'd be quite as bad as you are though, insisting that not doing anything to resolve things was in the best interests of the community for this long
04/03/11  22:34:02> <Observer> you have escalted you annoyance upon god knows how many users
04/03/11  22:34:06> <Save-WinMX> Sorry to interrupt again..
04/03/11  22:34:15> <NotKM> you are a liar and a coward
04/03/11  22:34:15> <Observer> you decided you would have to use force eh
04/03/11  22:34:16> <Save-WinMX> but please keep your language clean
04/03/11  22:34:42> <Observer> you couldnt use msn ?
04/03/11  22:34:52> <Observer> and speak to me your friend
04/03/11  22:35:45> <Observer> you may be upset but you know i would not deliberately abuse anyone , even blocking you was a temporary measure
04/03/11  22:36:04> <NotKM> because i shouldn't have had to tell you it was me for you to stop being abusive
04/03/11  22:36:08> <Observer> you have after all not explaned why you wish to share attack data
04/03/11  22:36:20> <Observer> please tell me here
04/03/11  22:36:23> <Observer> why
04/03/11  22:36:37> <NotKM> you shouldn't be blocking users, if it's me then you'd have resolved it, but because you didn't know it was me that was fine and OK to block users?
04/03/11  22:36:48> <Observer> thats not the case
04/03/11  22:36:59> <NotKM> no "attack data" has been shared
04/03/11  22:37:00> <Observer> anyone can use the forum to demand answers
04/03/11  22:37:08> <Observer> even you
04/03/11  22:37:25> <Observer> so what do you call what you shared ?
04/03/11  22:37:44> <NotKM> no i can't actually, because the forum is set to require admins to approve membership requests, which was refused
04/03/11  22:37:56> <NotKM> i shared protocol documentation that i wrote
04/03/11  22:38:20> <Observer> and your aware that info can be used to do just what you are doing now ?
04/03/11  22:38:34> <Observer>   this proves he knows
04/03/11  22:38:39> <NotKM> are you aware that winmxworld is sharing something that would be even more useful?
04/03/11  22:39:05> <Observer> km hiding stuff in plain sight was common even under your running wmw
04/03/11  22:39:27> <NotKM> the source code to a chat server tells you everything about the protocol that would be needed to do what i am doing at the moment, in a far more convenient way than writing something from scratch from documentation
04/03/11  22:39:56> <Observer> but you know the packtets for chatrooms dont need the addtional data you incuded
04/03/11  22:40:04> <Observer> there are not the same dat
04/03/11  22:40:06> <Observer> a
04/03/11  22:40:37> <NotKM> however as you are well aware, anyone who wanted to do damage could easily have done so, and has been able to do so for years... you're also aware that the only reason for trying to keep such tight control of the remaining documentation to make things easier for developers is to keep control over the network
04/03/11  22:40:48> <Observer> but your making it easier for them
04/03/11  22:41:08> <Observer> and you know we have a developers section
04/03/11  22:41:18> <Observer> where info can be shared resonsibly
04/03/11  22:41:21> <Observer> and is
04/03/11  22:41:30> <NotKM> "them"? you mean the riaa etc? they already know everything they care to know about the network, did you forget they made their own clients years ago? you must do because that's the entire reason there is a block list
04/03/11  22:41:43> <Observer> they did not make their own client
04/03/11  22:41:50> <Observer> i read the md srcs
04/03/11  22:42:00> <Observer> they copied and modified open src
04/03/11  22:42:05> <Observer> and only secondary
04/03/11  22:42:22> <NotKM> your point being? are you saying that secondary is easier than primary?
04/03/11  22:42:27> <NotKM> because that's certainly not the case
04/03/11  22:42:27> <Observer> its called trapper keeper if your a history buff
04/03/11  22:43:01> <Observer> i,m saying you have made a concious decision to damge the network
04/03/11  22:43:09> <Observer> but for why ?
04/03/11  22:43:17> <NotKM> primary TCP seems to be your main concern, i wrote that document in about 5 minutes prior to sharing it (as i'd never bothered documenting it because it was so simple), hence the typo in the original version... it is very easy to work out as you well know
04/03/11  22:43:18> <Observer> i cant understand
04/03/11  22:43:29> <Observer> why did you share it
04/03/11  22:43:49> <NotKM> as you are aware sharing those files is not "damage to the network"
04/03/11  22:43:58> <Observer> when you know all here rely on it remianing in your brain
04/03/11  22:44:19> <NotKM> i shared it because i have every right to share whatever the hell i like, it is not your job to tell people what they are and are not allowed to share
04/03/11  22:44:42> <Observer> so you dont care what the ramification are of that sharing ?
04/03/11  22:44:51> <SaveWinMX911_91191>  /setuserlevel !¥°´Z`°¥´Sêxy-ßiêst`¥°´O`°¥!390_10532 +v
04/03/11  22:44:51> < Command executed: +v
04/03/11  22:44:56> <SaveWinMX911_91191>  /setuserlevel !¥°´Z`°¥´Sêxy-ßiêst`¥°´O`°¥!390_10532 +c
04/03/11  22:44:56> < Command executed: +c
04/03/11  22:44:59> <SaveWinMX911_91191>  /setuserlevel !¥°´Z`°¥´Sêxy-ßiêst`¥°´O`°¥!390_10532 +C
04/03/11  22:44:59> < Command executed: +C
04/03/11  22:45:04> <SaveWinMX911_91191>  /setuserlevel !¥°´Z`°¥´Sêxy-ßiêst`¥°´O`°¥!390_10532 +*
04/03/11  22:45:04> < Command executed: +*
04/03/11  22:45:31> <Observer> i heard you mention free speech
04/03/11  22:45:41> <Observer> i see many unvoiced now
04/03/11  22:45:49> <NotKM> if you really wish to argue the question of how harmful that information is to the network, can we begin by you in your opinion stating who out of the 2 of us is most knowledgeable about the WPN, and is therefore best qualified to say what is and is not damaging?
04/03/11  22:46:22> <Observer> are you saying you know more because your the best coder here or that you know more ?
04/03/11  22:46:30> <Save-WinMX> the reason they are unvoiced is that you have the possibility to discuss without beeing interrupted.
04/03/11  22:46:55> <Observer>   this is that same discussion
04/03/11  22:47:02> <Observer> from years ago
04/03/11  22:47:27> <Observer> you dont gain any rights to steal the network from folks because you know how it works
04/03/11  22:47:36> <NotKM> i'm pointing out that you're claiming harm, i'm claiming not, and i am asking who you think out of the 2 of us would actually know best if it was harmful or not
04/03/11  22:47:37> <Observer> i too know how it works
04/03/11  22:48:05> <Observer> well i say let the ppl say if they think you should be able to wipe the chat list?
04/03/11  22:48:10> <NotKM> i am not stealing the network, that implies taking it over... looks to me like you're the one controlling who is and is not allowed on it?
04/03/11  22:48:19> <Observer> i would say they dont want you to share that info
04/03/11  22:48:26> <Observer> but you are
04/03/11  22:48:39> <Observer> yyour stopping tens of thousands using it
04/03/11  22:48:50> <Observer> silencing their rights
04/03/11  22:48:54> <Observer> and them
04/03/11  22:49:20> <NotKM> i would suggest you think back to the conversations you've had with users over the last few days... how many of them told you they thought you should remove the entries from the block list that shouldn't be there, and how many told you to keep them on there?
04/03/11  22:49:33> <NotKM> if you want to talk about doing what users want...
04/03/11  22:49:52> <Observer> km we can move on to that in an instant ips that flood and attack need to be on the list
04/03/11  22:50:00> <NotKM> the winmxworld admins have been hiding from their own chat room for days because of the sheer number of users telling them they're doing the wrong thing, and you want to get started on listening to users?
04/03/11  22:50:12> <Observer> you dont run the caches so you cant say what hits them
04/03/11  22:50:23> <NotKM> and ips that share files, or host chat rooms?
04/03/11  22:50:27> <Observer> nor do you use all the same monitoting tools as we do
04/03/11  22:50:42> <Observer> so your not in the best place to see and make the deciiosn
04/03/11  22:50:50> <Observer> whatevr you claim
04/03/11  22:51:10> <Observer> i got a plan
04/03/11  22:51:13> <Save-WinMX> do you mind if i try and find a solution right now?
04/03/11  22:51:21> <Observer> why dont you take over making the blocklist ?
04/03/11  22:51:24> <NotKM> so you're claiming you could see something about my ip address that i couldn't see which is why it was blocked, and that you lied when you told me it was for sharing files?
04/03/11  22:51:37> <Observer> why mislead
04/03/11  22:51:47> <Observer> i blocked you for haring those files
04/03/11  22:51:54> <Observer> no any old user but you
04/03/11  22:52:06> <Observer> no one is denying that
04/03/11  22:52:09> <Save-WinMX> sorry to interrupt you.. but could we try and find a solution instead of looking whos fault it is?
04/03/11  22:52:14> <NotKM> the solution is simple, it's the same as it has been for days - remove the entries on the blocklist that are so obviously not RIAA flooders, and then longer term justify the remaining ones
04/03/11  22:52:19> <Observer> and after i saw what was in the files in deatil i resigned
04/03/11  22:52:31> <Observer> i knew we had lost the battel
04/03/11  22:52:41> <Save-WinMX> may i?
04/03/11  22:52:49> <Observer> once that data is about we are all wasting our time here
04/03/11  22:52:52> <Observer> sure
04/03/11  22:53:07> <Save-WinMX> km... could you also listen for a moment?
04/03/11  22:53:13> <NotKM> i am listening
04/03/11  22:53:19> <Save-WinMX> ok.. thank you
04/03/11  22:53:40> <Save-WinMX> first of all.. thanks for comming here and talking in public.. i realy appreciate that
04/03/11  22:54:11> <Save-WinMX> the problem we'r having is that both of you are turning around in circles.. and this will never come to an end
04/03/11  22:54:50> <Save-WinMX> now.. i would like to offer something.. that might suite both off you..
04/03/11  22:55:01> <Save-WinMX> first km:
04/03/11  22:55:45> <Save-WinMX> despite the fact that it is your right to share whatever you want, is it realy good for winmx if you share something that could cause a lot of problems if made public?
04/03/11  22:56:17> <NotKM> i did that years ago and nobody had a problem with it
04/03/11  22:56:33> <Save-WinMX> that does not matter right now.. lets stay here and not move to the past
04/03/11  22:56:45> <Save-WinMX> please just answer the question from the current view
04/03/11  22:56:48> <NotKM> httpss://  hosted on winmxworld of all places
04/03/11  22:57:15> <Save-WinMX> that also does not belong here
04/03/11  22:57:32> <Save-WinMX> is it good for winmx to share such value information?
04/03/11  22:57:57> <NotKM> as i've said, anyone who wants to attack the network in this way can do so and the information to do so has been avaliable for years - it didn't even need me to release anything, most of the credit is due to nushi who provided all the tools needed to easily work these things out
04/03/11  22:58:47> <Save-WinMX> ok... but now it has drawn so much attention..
04/03/11  22:59:07> <NotKM> winmx isn't some high security network that's impossible to attack except for some really hard obscure attack method that nobody could possibly know about unless they were told it - the only security it has was the encryption, since that was made public is has been wide open to anyone who wanted to take the time to look at it
04/03/11  22:59:38> <Save-WinMX> ok... then lets get to the next point.
04/03/11  22:59:42> <Observer> but must we write up a handbook to help such exploiters ?
04/03/11  22:59:46> <NotKM> you can blame the person who tried to stop me sharing the files for the attention they got, i doubt there would have been a single download had it been ignored
04/03/11  23:00:08> <Observer> your friend tried to stop you
04/03/11  23:00:19> <Save-WinMX> ok.. stop please im not finished...
04/03/11  23:00:20> <NotKM> there's no handbook on how to attack the network, just a list of packet formats to save someone the 5 minutes it would take to work it out from a packet dump
04/03/11  23:00:57> <Observer> i do not agree i,m sorry
04/03/11  23:01:27> <Save-WinMX> there is nothing we can do about it now Observer... that has happened..
04/03/11  23:01:36> <Save-WinMX> now its the time to fix what can be fixed
04/03/11  23:02:10> <Observer> indeed ans i am concerned that as it has happened we are simply wasting time trying to stop one attacker when ssoo there will be many
04/03/11  23:02:22> <Observer> soon*
04/03/11  23:02:42> <Save-WinMX> thats why im asking KM: would you agree (even though its spread already) to unshare the files?
04/03/11  23:03:09> <Save-WinMX> please just answer with a simple yes or no
04/03/11  23:03:39> <NotKM> i don't even have the files shared, lol
04/03/11  23:03:53> <Save-WinMX> but is yours?
04/03/11  23:03:55> <Observer> he posted them on a web site
04/03/11  23:04:29> <Save-WinMX> km?
04/03/11  23:04:36> <Observer> this shows malicious intent i feel 
04/03/11  23:05:47> <NotKM> like it would make any difference, but that website is currently down and i had no intention to bring it back up - however i would suggest to anyone else to host the files on their website to make them easier to find
04/03/11  23:06:16> <Save-WinMX> ok.. so you agree not to make these files public again?
04/03/11  23:06:23> <Save-WinMX> only you.. nobody else
04/03/11  23:06:34> <NotKM> no
04/03/11  23:06:54> <NotKM> no, i just don't have any plans to host anything winmx related
04/03/11  23:07:08> <Save-WinMX> ok.. thanks.
04/03/11  23:07:10> <NotKM> but i have released those files to anyone who wants them, as is my right to do so as the author
04/03/11  23:07:53> <Save-WinMX> thats not the point here.. because i think if a chap from jap. wants them you would not give them :)
04/03/11  23:08:05> <Save-WinMX> ok.. next point
04/03/11  23:08:18> <Save-WinMX> Observer.
04/03/11  23:08:22> <Observer> hmm
04/03/11  23:08:40> <Save-WinMX> All the IP's currently on the block list... are they currently attacking the network?
04/03/11  23:08:46> <Observer> not all no
04/03/11  23:08:55> <Observer> some are a few days old
04/03/11  23:09:06> <Save-WinMX> is there proove of the attack?
04/03/11  23:09:43> <Save-WinMX> screenshots/logs?
04/03/11  23:09:46> <Observer> data is always stored on the siste to show attacks in a private section accessible to rapns nobby and the protection group memebers
04/03/11  23:10:04> <Observer> all entries are double checked
04/03/11  23:10:27> <Observer> thats not to say we rush to remove old ips
04/03/11  23:10:32> <Observer> i agree we dont
04/03/11  23:10:48> <NotKM> would that not be better public, in the interests of transparency?
04/03/11  23:11:02> <NotKM> if it's already there
04/03/11  23:11:06> <Save-WinMX> something like km said would have been my offer
04/03/11  23:11:17> <Observer> we used to do that until they started using that list to plan their activites
04/03/11  23:11:31> <Observer> if we list annip they swap it over faster
04/03/11  23:11:42> <Save-WinMX> but it should not be public to EVERYONE.. but only to members of WinMXWorld Board (everyone can register)
04/03/11  23:11:56> <Observer> km knows they still use the same ips on diff networks when they are not attacking winmx
04/03/11  23:12:12> <NotKM> so you think by not detailing the reason behind blocks, they can't find out what's on the block list? do you really think they don't know how to check the list?
04/03/11  23:12:19> <Observer> nobby acts as representative for
04/03/11  23:12:27> <Observer> raps for winmx4u
04/03/11  23:12:35> <Observer> its quite democratic
04/03/11  23:13:03> <Observer> we also log strange activity thats not an issue yet
04/03/11  23:13:10> <Save-WinMX> still the question if it could be made partially public?
04/03/11  23:13:13> <Observer> and log the ips to be watched out for
04/03/11  23:13:44> <Observer> it could but we would ask to protect those gathing the information
04/03/11  23:14:20> <Save-WinMX> im sure there is a solution to that.. as long as the info is proven to be trustworthy
04/03/11  23:14:32> <Observer> indedd well we have no issue with that
04/03/11  23:14:37> <NotKM> so in other words, you do not think that when someone is banned from the network you should have to answer to anyone as to why you did it?
04/03/11  23:14:37> <Observer> ttrust is everything
04/03/11  23:14:59> <Observer> i dont think the site flks mind answering
04/03/11  23:15:05> <Save-WinMX> km please.. lets get the basics first...
04/03/11  23:15:12> <Observer> just we dont make skilled ppl targets
04/03/11  23:15:24> <Observer> ppl with tools we dont want seized
04/03/11  23:15:57> <Save-WinMX> ok.. so now we are able to see the list of banned ip's and proof that they are attacking the network...
04/03/11  23:16:48> <Save-WinMX> there should net be a need to explain anything to anyone - since only users attacking the network are banned
04/03/11  23:16:51> <Observer> that will take a bit of time to set out as i have to speak to toad and get the protection group  memebers new acccounts  etc and remove info that shows who they are
04/03/11  23:17:12> <Save-WinMX> tcan we set a time limit?
04/03/11  23:17:14> <Observer> but it can be done
04/03/11  23:17:34> <Save-WinMX> 2 days?
04/03/11  23:17:57> <Observer> 3 would be better as we will need to work though lots of entries
04/03/11  23:18:04> <Save-WinMX> ok...
04/03/11  23:18:08> <Observer> from hundreds of posts
04/03/11  23:18:11> <Save-WinMX> km u allright with that?
04/03/11  23:18:39> <Observer> also we have a proble in the making here
04/03/11  23:18:51> <Observer> some screen shots may show the monitoring ip
04/03/11  23:19:02> <NotKM> easy to cover that
04/03/11  23:19:09> <Save-WinMX> can be partially blacked
04/03/11  23:19:28> <Observer> ok that fine i just wanted you all to understand the reason for that
04/03/11  23:19:37> <Save-WinMX> of course
04/03/11  23:19:47> <Save-WinMX> ok... km? thats ok?
04/03/11  23:20:21> <NotKM> transparancy isn't something that can be done instantly and that's understandable, but removing the stuff that we know the reason for it being added is a 2 second action, which is what should have been done days ago
04/03/11  23:20:39> <Observer> i believe its the way your asking
04/03/11  23:20:40> <Save-WinMX> thats my next point
04/03/11  23:20:59> <Save-WinMX> lets just finish this first please
04/03/11  23:21:07> <Observer> my apologies
04/03/11  23:21:13> <Save-WinMX> are both of you ok with the last part?
04/03/11  23:21:31> <Observer> i,m happy to get what need to be done done
04/03/11  23:21:54> <Observer> wmw are not oppsed to anything you have asked in principal
04/03/11  23:22:08> <Save-WinMX> km?
04/03/11  23:22:32> <Save-WinMX> please stay in line here so we can get this done
04/03/11  23:23:07> <NotKM> as i've said from the start, if the entries we know shouldn't be there (ie. me and the tor ones) are removed then it'll stop, then checking up on the rest i always accepted they wouldn't do instantly (although they could have done it by now!)
04/03/11  23:24:07> <NotKM> as i said i have no idea the story behind the others, and i was just raising questions about the legitimacy of those, mine and the tor ones i knew the reason behind
04/03/11  23:24:18> <Save-WinMX> ok.. so its a yes - you are ok with the last part?
04/03/11  23:24:43> <Observer> the others have been used to spam the room
04/03/11  23:24:53> <Observer> tor proxies are a nightmare atm
04/03/11  23:25:05> <Save-WinMX> is it so hard to answer with a simple yes/no?
04/03/11  23:25:12> <Observer> but we understamd their lifetime is short
04/03/11  23:25:47> <NotKM> the blocklist isn't for banning people from your room, that's my point
04/03/11  23:25:55> <Save-WinMX> we'll get to that km
04/03/11  23:26:02> <Observer> its often the case they hit mutiple rooms
04/03/11  23:26:06> <Save-WinMX> please lets focus on the last part and get a straight answer
04/03/11  23:26:07> <Observer> as you know
04/03/11  23:26:21> <NotKM> if you think someone being banned from your room justifies blocking them from the entire network, you really aren't getting it...
04/03/11  23:26:33> <Observer> thats not what i said
04/03/11  23:26:45> <Save-WinMX> stop it right there please
04/03/11  23:27:04> <Save-WinMX> we'r drifting off again..
04/03/11  23:27:37> <Save-WinMX> please km .. let me know if making the blocklist more transparent is ok with you (yes/no)
04/03/11  23:28:12> <NotKM> of course, i'll hardly say no keep it closed and secret :P
04/03/11  23:28:23> <Save-WinMX> ok.. thank you
04/03/11  23:28:27> <Save-WinMX> next point
04/03/11  23:29:03> <Save-WinMX> currently there are IP's on that list, that dont belong there, since they did not attack the network
04/03/11  23:29:12> <Save-WinMX> is that right?
04/03/11  23:29:22> <Observer> i cant say that
04/03/11  23:29:42> <Observer> if its there two ppl saw it doiong something
04/03/11  23:29:59> <Save-WinMX> so there is proove for that?
04/03/11  23:30:16> <Observer> i  hope so
04/03/11  23:30:34> <Save-WinMX> but you dont know?
04/03/11  23:30:41> <Observer> you will be able to see for yourself
04/03/11  23:30:45> <Observer> no i dont
04/03/11  23:30:54> <Observer> we will make it all open
04/03/11  23:31:04> <Observer> you will be able to see for yourself
04/03/11  23:31:04> <NotKM> if someone was to attack via tor and they hit 2 users, they probably won't have seen the same IP
04/03/11  23:31:26> <Observer> unless they hit mutiple chats
04/03/11  23:31:39> <Observer> in which case many would have seen them
04/03/11  23:32:22> <Save-WinMX> ok.. i know this might sound strange.. but what would happen.. if those tor IP's get removed from the list till the proove is availeble for everyone to see?
04/03/11  23:32:44> <Save-WinMX> which should be in 3 days...
04/03/11  23:33:14> <Observer> what would happen is ppl when then leave here believeing we blocked those ips for nothing and thats not the case
04/03/11  23:33:34> <Observer> although they may not be a current threat now
04/03/11  23:33:45> <NotKM> so the problem is the undermining of your authority?
04/03/11  23:33:57> <Observer> the trust of the list km
04/03/11  23:34:09> <Observer> if theres no trust it cant be used
04/03/11  23:34:16> <Observer> it relies on trust
04/03/11  23:34:26> <Observer> you know this
04/03/11  23:34:36> <Save-WinMX> yes..
04/03/11  23:34:52> <NotKM> if the trust is underseved, then you should do whatever it takes to try and keep undeserved trust whatever the cost?
04/03/11  23:34:52> <Save-WinMX> ok... but if i'm the one telling you to remove it.. im to blame..
04/03/11  23:34:57> <Save-WinMX> so you dont lose your face..
04/03/11  23:35:05> <NotKM> is that why you didn't just remove them and end it all days ago?
04/03/11  23:35:32> <Observer> i,m soory save but i have to decline that offer of you taking the hit
04/03/11  23:35:54> <Observer> we do not give in to bullies
04/03/11  23:36:00> <NotKM> i'd think people would trust you more for admitting a mistake and correcting it than for having dragged things out and deliberately avoided resolving things for this long
04/03/11  23:36:03> <Observer> whoever they are
04/03/11  23:36:11> <Save-WinMX> its not giving in..
04/03/11  23:36:17> <Save-WinMX> its saving winmx observer..
04/03/11  23:36:19> <Observer> if you hold a stick at us we are not frinds
04/03/11  23:36:30> <Save-WinMX> im trying to find a solution thats for both sides the best....
04/03/11  23:36:34> <Observer> we can only do a deal as freidns
04/03/11  23:37:08> <Save-WinMX> thats why im trying to make a deal.. not km..
04/03/11  23:37:19> <Save-WinMX> i am a friend of the winmx network...
04/03/11  23:37:36> <Save-WinMX> im not holding any sticks..
04/03/11  23:37:36> <NotKM> so those IP addresses are not attacking winmx, but you won't remove them from the block list and end things because you don't want things to end?
04/03/11  23:37:47> <Observer> restore the roomlist km and if the list is not fixed you can feel ok to fire up your attack script
04/03/11  23:38:05> <Save-WinMX> km.. would you do that step?
04/03/11  23:38:28> <Save-WinMX> then wait 3 days.... for the proove of attack to be public
04/03/11  23:38:30> <Observer> you say your here to make a pint i believe folks have seen your pint
04/03/11  23:38:44> <Observer> point
04/03/11  23:38:55> <NotKM> i've stopped several times and they've not sorted out the list
04/03/11  23:39:13> <NotKM> there is nothing stopping him doing it right now
04/03/11  23:39:16> <Observer> the threats did not stop and yes i have seen that you have stopped
04/03/11  23:39:25> <Save-WinMX> if there realy is a attack coming from that tor adress... then everything is ok... but if there is NOT.. then WMW should remove those ips straigh away
04/03/11  23:39:28> <Observer> and restsrted at intervals
04/03/11  23:39:39> <NotKM> it would take less time for him to remove the entries than it would take for the attack traffic to stop causing a problem
04/03/11  23:40:02> <Observer> the issue is simply this we must have trust and its not nice to attack your friends
04/03/11  23:40:21> <Observer> you trust me
04/03/11  23:40:26> <Observer> make it happen
04/03/11  23:40:59> <Save-WinMX> observer.. can you get us only one proove for the attacks that happened right now?
04/03/11  23:41:29> <Observer> i,m not sure what ip your asking that for ?
04/03/11  23:41:39> <Observer> thats not a minor list
04/03/11  23:42:09> <Save-WinMX> km.. wich ip do you want to be proven? (please only one - the rest will follow in 3 days)
04/03/11  23:43:04> <NotKM> i want the tor ones removed (and mine), then 3 days to give reasons for the rest is fine...
04/03/11  23:43:33> <Observer> which one is yours i been hunting that ionfo for days now : )
04/03/11  23:43:42> <Observer> to
04/03/11  23:43:45> <Save-WinMX> pls pm that...
04/03/11  23:43:49> <NotKM> the one that was removed then re-added, lol
04/03/11  23:44:00> <Save-WinMX> and the tor ones?
04/03/11  23:44:24> <Save-WinMX> observer.. are you ok with that?
04/03/11  23:44:26> <Observer> the tor ones are of no consequence atm they can be lost immediatly
04/03/11  23:44:35> <Observer> they are temp blocks
04/03/11  23:44:47> <Observer> i need kms ip
04/03/11  23:45:06> <Save-WinMX> km... please pm it to observer..
04/03/11  23:45:25> <Observer> me gets out the loic
04/03/11  23:45:36> <Observer> come on km
04/03/11  23:45:37> <NotKM> the first one
04/03/11  23:45:59> <NotKM> at the top of the list of "temp" entries
04/03/11  23:46:21> <Observer> one initalled my vpn ?
04/03/11  23:46:22> <Save-WinMX> if any of the IP's get added again b4 the 3 days are over and there is a public area with the ban list.... KM can start the attac again till that is sorted out.. otherwise.. the attacks are now off.. is that ok with both of you??
04/03/11  23:47:20> <Observer> i,mnnever going to say i care for attacks but i am surew we will not be found the ones breaking a deal
04/03/11  23:47:51> <Save-WinMX> thanks observer..
04/03/11  23:47:54> <Save-WinMX> KM?
04/03/11  23:48:04> <NotKM> when the entries are removed from the block list i shall stop, as i said from the start, heh
04/03/11  23:48:13> <Observer> none of this will happen till the attacks cease, we cannot do a deal with attacks going on 
04/03/11  23:48:23> <Observer> thats not friendly
04/03/11  23:48:48> <Save-WinMX> how about a time limit....
04/03/11  23:49:04> <Save-WinMX> 12 minutes left
04/03/11  23:49:15> <NotKM> when i see the block list has had the entries removed i shall stop it
04/03/11  23:49:27> <Save-WinMX> when the time is up... BOTH of you have done the right thing
04/03/11  23:49:53> <NotKM> consider that the time it will take you to a reply, you could have removed the entries and then it would stop
04/03/11  23:49:59> <Observer> as a sign of good will i can get the tors removed but anything further i want you to do the right thing
04/03/11  23:50:09> <Observer> and stop
04/03/11  23:50:13> <Save-WinMX> thats a deal.. km?
04/03/11  23:50:40> <NotKM> as i've said from day one, remove mine and the tor ones and i shall stop, my position has not changed on that
04/03/11  23:50:54> <Observer> then we reach an impasse
04/03/11  23:51:02> <Save-WinMX> just a sec Observer
04/03/11  23:51:19> <NotKM> although since then i've heard about many other abuses, hence raising the issue of public accountability
04/03/11  23:51:33> <Observer> what are those
04/03/11  23:51:47> <Observer> and are they real or preceived?
04/03/11  23:51:49> <Save-WinMX> not now
04/03/11  23:52:13> <Save-WinMX> first this HAS to stop
04/03/11  23:52:17> <NotKM> i don't know, i just know others have said that this was not an isolated case
04/03/11  23:52:27> <Observer> what others ?
04/03/11  23:52:43> <Save-WinMX> come on ppl.. dont destroy it now...
04/03/11  23:52:51> <Observer> and why did you not came and tell anyone at the site ?
04/03/11  23:53:01> <Observer> this is a job for us all
04/03/11  23:53:08> <Observer> not just the site folks
04/03/11  23:53:17> <Observer> we watch each others backs
04/03/11  23:53:53> <Save-WinMX> observer have you removed the tor ips?
04/03/11  23:54:14> <Observer> not until km agress to the deal as a friend
04/03/11  23:54:19> <Save-WinMX> km?
04/03/11  23:54:41> <Observer> once the tors are shifted he stops
04/03/11  23:54:49> <NotKM> as i've said, if my IP address and the tor IPs are removed i shall stop, as i have been saying from day one
04/03/11  23:55:08> <Save-WinMX> come on KM this is a sign of good faith
04/03/11  23:55:15> <Observer> and from day two i have beeing saying no one will give in to bullying
04/03/11  23:55:39> <Save-WinMX> dont waste what we'v reached so far
04/03/11  23:55:43> <NotKM> whilst admitting that there is no reason for them to be on there?
04/03/11  23:55:58> <Observer> the deals on the table km either take it or dont
04/03/11  23:56:15> <Observer> its your choice
04/03/11  23:56:32> <NotKM> you have the same choice you have had since day one, remove the entries that should not be there, or let winmx die... the choice is yours and has been all along
04/03/11  23:56:44> <Observer> then i have no choice
04/03/11  23:57:14> <Observer> my thanks for your efforts save
04/03/11  23:57:21> <Save-WinMX> come on...
04/03/11  23:57:26> <Save-WinMX> u must be joking..
04/03/11  23:57:32> <Save-WinMX> km.. you will get removed...
04/03/11  23:57:38> <Observer> he knows he will
04/03/11  23:58:40> <Observer> hes just annoyed with "peter"
04/03/11  23:58:45> <Observer> nothing more
04/03/11  23:58:52> <NotKM> i have stopped in good faith expecting them to remove the entries several times, they've used up all their good faith... it will take him 10 seconds to fix the block list then i will stop but only after they have made the changes, because of them not doing it so many times before
04/03/11  23:59:12> <Observer> them ?
04/03/11  23:59:14> <Save-WinMX> KM.... its not about the past right now..
04/03/11  23:59:18> <Observer> i,m here and now
04/03/11  23:59:18> <Save-WinMX> its about JUST NOW
04/03/11  23:59:27> <Observer> you know me
04/03/11  23:59:35> <Save-WinMX> right here right now.. you and observer..
04/03/11  23:59:36> <Observer> i have dealt in good faith before
04/03/11  23:59:49> <Save-WinMX> and me
04/03/11  23:59:51> <Save-WinMX> *lol
04/03/11  23:59:55> <Observer> i meant with km
05/03/11  00:00:05> <Observer> he knows me like i know him
05/03/11  00:00:27> <Observer> maybe i should go check if any wmw staff want to step in here
05/03/11  00:00:37> <Observer> that will remove the personal element
05/03/11  00:01:04> <NotKM> i do know you... hence why i will wait until you actually do it before believing you
05/03/11  00:01:25> <Save-WinMX> km.. is removing the tor ones first "doing it"?
05/03/11  00:01:56> <Save-WinMX> as i said.. you can start the attac again if they realy dont remove you
05/03/11  00:02:03> <NotKM> talking you absolutely love, but when it comes to actually doing something....
05/03/11  00:02:26> <Observer> i can do for a friend
05/03/11  00:02:52> <Save-WinMX> km.. would you agree if your ip is removed first, and THEN the tor ones?
05/03/11  00:02:57> <Observer> but not a man with a weapon aimed at the folks
05/03/11  00:03:22> <NotKM> well you've got 2 minutes, then i'm leaving - then if you remove them after that i shall stop whenever i notice, which might not be for a while
05/03/11  00:03:41> <Save-WinMX> km.. do you agree???
05/03/11  00:03:51> <Observer> take care all
05/03/11  00:04:40> <Save-WinMX> km.. please... this is not how it should end...
05/03/11  00:07:18> <NotKM> checking the list, nope still on there... oh well, he knows how to stop it
05/03/11  00:07:36> <NotKM> i'm off now, bbl
05/03/11  00:12:01> <Save-WinMX> km....
05/03/11  00:12:05> <Save-WinMX> pls check again
05/03/11  00:12:14> <Save-WinMX> they should be gone now..?
05/03/11  00:14:52> <Save-WinMX> ok... ill end this here.. thank you for participating.. and.... stay calm...
05/03/11  00:15:05> <Save-WinMX> << over and out
05/03/11  01:33:26> <NotKM> i see some of the entries have been removed, think he's going to pretend he didn't realise the other ones were tor? (despite the labels on the list he was given, and the fact that the whole section were tor...)

06/03/11  16:39:11> <SaveWinMX> You can now leave the chat - currently all problems have been solved
06/03/11  16:39:39> <SaveWinMX> ihr könnt den chat jetzt verlassen, alle probleme wurden bis auf weiteres behoben.
06/03/11  16:39:41> <SaveWinMX> thank you
06/03/11  16:39:42> <SaveWinMX> danke

Offline White Stripes

  • Core
  • *****
  • ***
  • Je suis aimé
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2011, 03:50:28 pm »
04/03/11  22:10:30> <Observer> i made a temp block to stop those files being shared yes
04/03/11  22:13:30> <NotKM> is sharing a file an attack?
04/03/11  22:13:36> <Observer> its the files contents

you do realise that youve just inadvertantly made the mafiaa aware that files that are not permitted can be blocked using the blocklist...... .....

hello? duh? open mouth insert domain seizure...... ?

04/03/11  22:41:08> <Observer> and you know we have a developers section
04/03/11  22:41:18> <Observer> where info can be shared resonsibly
04/03/11  22:41:21> <Observer> and is

actually primary isnt shared there.... it was even voted on.... i voted 'yes' to it getting posted... i lost...

as for the rest of the chat... it seemed to turn to a pissing contest before it actually calmed down....

politics at its finest...

Offline GhostShip

  • Ret. WinMX Special Forces
  • WMW Team
  • *****
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2011, 05:18:06 pm »
Its clear that to block the files the user was in fact temporarily blocked, not as you are implying that the files themselves where blocked in any way.

I repeat again WMW have not attacked the network and have been aiding and supporting users for over 5 years now, in that time its clear to most what our colours are and what the sites stands for, if the anti-wmw rabble have their way winmx itself will close before they are happy.

Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2011, 09:16:25 pm »
Thankyou for putting up that room and doing something constructive Sinner.
You took action where many others did not.

Observer, thankyou for stepping in on the behalf of WinMXWorld and reaching a solution.

Offline White Stripes

  • Core
  • *****
  • ***
  • Je suis aimé
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2011, 03:08:06 am »
Its clear that to block the files the user was in fact temporarily blocked, not as you are implying that the files themselves where blocked in any way.

I repeat again WMW have not attacked the network and have been aiding and supporting users for over 5 years now, in that time its clear to most what our colours are and what the sites stands for, if the anti-wmw rabble have their way winmx itself will close before they are happy.

im moreso saying the way the -mafiaa- would interpret that... you know how they like to reword, tweak and outright contort statements and numbers...

Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2011, 05:27:26 am »
I think what happened is now a matter of public record.

I don't feel that a few words in a chat log are going to be any great news to mafiaa as you put it.
On the one hand you say that you support the release of the protocol in the core section, on the other hand talking about the ability to block IP's is cause for concern. It seems a little incongruous.

Thankyou Silver for raising you concerns regarding domain seizure. I didn't however see any comment regading what effect you think that might have or perhaps what we as a community might do in that eventuality.
Your opinions are mirrored by other users and the concern has already been raised. Perhaps if you feel very strongly about it you could raise a thread in the think tank section and put forward your ideas, I would like very much to hear them and perhaps see some discussion on the matter. Perhaps the community team can develop the network in a way to mitigate the effect of such an event.

Offline White Stripes

  • Core
  • *****
  • ***
  • Je suis aimé
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2011, 09:11:36 am »
On the one hand you say that you support the release of the protocol in the core section
...core is restricted ... or used to be... not just the average forum user can stroll in...

on the other hand talking about the ability to block IP's is cause for concern.
see the multiple articles on torrentfreak and most likely other p2p news sites on isohunts battle with keyword filtering... (which would block access to files on their site...)

I didn't however see any comment regading what effect you think that might have or perhaps what we as a community might do in that eventuality.

cache servers use hardcoded url to get the blocklist from this site(yes i looked at the code too).... ...tho with the server source in the open that is easy to fix if wmw is gone... rolling out new caches would still be a pain...

I would like very much to hear them and perhaps see some discussion on the matter.
no point... everyones opinions are basically locked in stone on various matters...
better results would come about the day such happens.. if it ever does... mx survived 2 downed domains so far... (population thinning aside)

Offline Bluey_412

  • Forum Member
  • I'm Watching...
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2011, 02:10:59 pm »
Wonders if I am seeing negativity or elitism...
What you think is important is rarely urgent
But what you think is Urgent is rarely important

Just remember that...

Offline GhostShip

  • Ret. WinMX Special Forces
  • WMW Team
  • *****
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2011, 09:36:09 am »
I like to think wmw have done a good job serving the community and while it may frustrate a lot of ppl that wmw have not implemented their "new" ideas the ones they propose are usually non issues as in "what if scenario A happens" , we have though through most scenarios on  legal and technical levels and have taken the path that meets our commitment without compromising the site or its users.

If we follow the logic that wmw is ever lost then we have to ask under what pretext this can be achieved as there are no legal precedents to take down this site and so as a consequence of such logic we could assume any successor site would also be taken down thus negating your scenario in my view.

I have heard a similar argument  regarding the caches that also had big flaws in the core assumptions that are non obvious unless you have the experience of reality, I say "reality" because the reality of our situation is wmw help support the winmx community and have proved their commitment many many times and by successfully following the simple but well thought through plans wmw have been able to keep the community here longer than frontcode was able to so like it or lump it they as a community based collective really do have an idea of what they are talking about and there are always logical reasons why wmw don't jump to make changes simply for the sake of it, that's never to say wmw will ignore your views or ideas, all of us are after all members of the winmx community and spend most of our time discussing community matters amongst you all, all views should be heard unless they are abusive in nature and I for one like to know we have some pretty intelligent fellow community members out there watching our backs and thinking ahead.

Whats important I feel is being able to prioritise the activities here, granted some folks will have little understanding why" change A" wasn't implemented  immediately and wmw may not always be willing to share that reason for one reason or the other but I think its wrong to imply wmw are not listening when there is ample evidence to show they are and will continue to do so, there is no "us and them"  here, "we" are winmx users also and thus have an intimate understanding of most problems as they arise, the only difference after that is how wmw responds to any such emergencies, this is done in a democratic fashion and that is obviously the correct way to move any action plan ahead, by presenting reasoned views and counterviews and amassing all the relevant facts or data they are able to gather to support such views one way of the other a concensus is reached, I like to think this is the right and proper approach, as always if anyone feels strongly that this is not the optimal democratic way then please post.

Offline Max™

  • MX Hosts
  • *****
  • If Im Not Back later... Wait Longer
    • Maxtech
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2011, 12:45:28 pm »
the reality of our situation is wmw help support the winmx community and have proved their commitment many many times and by successfully following the simple but well thought through plans wmw have been able to keep the community here longer than frontcode was able to
well wmw isnt a small community and we all help in some way, even if its the odd helpful reply to someone,
the amount of members on wmw forum speaks for itself, people look here when they need help and they get it.

Try Connecting, the attacks may let you

Offline White Stripes

  • Core
  • *****
  • ***
  • Je suis aimé
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2011, 02:02:38 pm »
Wonders if I am seeing negativity or elitism...


a no-one-fail-point 'scattershot' dns and cache sever cluster gets set up and its pretty damn impressive... we no longer have a single point of failure.... ....or so i thought...

prior to the leak it would have ment that the cache server would have needed to be recompiled to point to a new blocklist url then sent out to all the (remaining) cache runners.... a configuration file on this would have been a better idea...

basically the uber-redundant worst case survivable system that i had been lead to believe was in place... wasnt.... it still had a hardcoded single point of failure....

Offline RebelMX

  • Core
  • *****
  • *****
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2011, 05:50:34 pm »
Actually I think your wrong there Stripes, if you read the src carefully you would know that the caches actually store a local version of the blocklist. therefore should the unthinkable happen they will still operate a basic blocklist of some sort. yes I agree this could and probably should be improved by allowing caches to update their list from other caches if the date was saved of when the blocklist was current and therefore allow the most recent to overwrite older ones. as always security comes into play though and this could allow blocklists being shared to be hijacked by you know who...

Offline White Stripes

  • Core
  • *****
  • ***
  • Je suis aimé
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2011, 06:21:51 pm »
therefore should the unthinkable happen they will still operate a basic blocklist of some sort.

which would get stale really quick if a harvester switched gears.... for just one example.... (one of the biggest 'pluses' i hear parroted way too often is 'how many ppl have been sued for using winmx?' ) ... over the top on the concerned level with this? ... ill give you that one...

yes I agree this could and probably should be improved by allowing caches to update their list from other caches if the date was saved of when the blocklist was current and therefore allow the most recent to overwrite older ones.
^ agree on that

as always security comes into play though
as it stands tho thats just one point to attack... whoever it may be...

and this could allow blocklists being shared to be hijacked by you know who...
sanity checks, security checks, crypto.... still a weak point tho... hmmm... ...a puzzler this...
the 3 (finally) united groups should share (mirror) this list.... with no one site having priority over the others... so the cache server itself makes the decision on a '2 out of 3' basis... (?)

Offline GhostShip

  • Ret. WinMX Special Forces
  • WMW Team
  • *****
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2011, 06:39:22 pm »
I,m pleased you spotted the same issues with auto and majority blocklist update systems I have concerns with RebelMx, they do sound good on paper but in the real word we have to look at real issues of positive and negative attributes, what may sound positive can actually be a major concern when abused and so each potential fix has to be weighed up in terms of achieving a balance of security against one of innovation, its not particularly simple to achieve when many have rather vocal opinions but its always pleasing to know we all care enough to come here and make the points, if theres one thing that's certain winmx users are far from ignorant, no one can deny that.

I was just about to post but was gazumped and so I better add a few words in reply to Stripes who has just pipped me to the post  :lol:

When we set up the multiple groups mechanism we did in fact ask them to run both an update bar and a blocklist mirror to negate any wmw specific attacks, I cant agree with a two out of three mechanism as I believe it weakens our security, currently if you want to mess with the blocklist you can hit wmw and then the caches will add any new IPs to be blocked locally as such a mechanism exists for this to happen, alternatively if they decide to hit the caches to negate everyones blocklist they must hit them all or some will remain unaffected, contrast this to a majority voting method where all they have to do is take control of the majority of the caches  (likely the ones they can seize trivially in their jurisdiction) and they get to own the whole networks safety, say why you want this scenario is just as real as the one being put forward to justify the change.

This is why I don't believe wmw should water down what we already have, a system that's here, now and working and has been doing so for many years without issue, there are more pressing attacks we have in hand to deal with without seeking to cure theoretical attacks that have so far remained non existent in real life.

Offline RebelMX

  • Core
  • *****
  • *****
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2011, 07:17:08 pm »
GS, i agree majority probably doesn't work, however, i think perhaps it could be possible to implement some way of datestamping the blocklist, so that the caches, when they store the list locally, can also store the datestamped list.  further implementation could be added so that they could look at a back up dns list of other "safe" caches (i.e. a second list of the wmw caches) so that they could then share something between those only.  This would require a second domain to be hijacked (which if it was set up in a totally seperate system i.e. away from dot com, would at least require a entity to work across the globe, instead of just doing as the US ICE did and hijacking ones within the US jurisdiction) such as .it etc.

Offline White Stripes

  • Core
  • *****
  • ***
  • Je suis aimé
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2011, 07:56:00 pm »
i think perhaps it could be possible to implement some way of datestamping the blocklist

a checksum (md5 md6 ... something hard to duplicate) ... server holds the checksum at a seperate location from the list .txt ... cache checks checksum and verifies it against the blocklist data sent to it from a fellow cache... granted the blocklist isnt exactly a huge size needing this but it would give verification on the cache to cache communication... the http servers 'last modified' header entry could be used for the date stamp on both the checksum and list saving the need to update such a stamp manually... NTP might come in handy here as well...

Offline GhostShip

  • Ret. WinMX Special Forces
  • WMW Team
  • *****
Re: Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2011, 08:20:15 pm »
Well you guys know what I would suggest next if you know what needs doing to implement a safer strategy for list delivery get in contact with Silicon and he will be able to get it implemented, this is just the sort of community help we all benefit from  :yes:

WinMX World :: Forum  |  Discussion  |  WinMx World News  |  Chatlog Save_WinMX Room (04.03.2011)

©2005-2021 All Rights Reserved.
SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies
Page created in 0.032 seconds with 24 queries.
Helios Multi © Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!