Author Topic: OurMx History (Read 27623 times)

LongLostUser · « **Reply #60 on:** January 24, 2016, 06:21:33 pm »

"We are not speculating about the ability of the WPN to DDOs victims. the older hands here have all seen this undertaken in real life and know all too well of the effect it can have, I can give you names to check with if your interested in the carnage of misuse."

If you're talking about flooding someone with junk UDP traffic by spoofing search requests, then what I said is that I don't think releasing the ourmx source makes a difference on this matter, as people can just as well use something else already out there to achieve the same thing if they're going that route. The effect of the attack in such an event can of course be discussed, and I am sure it is possible, but I don't think it is as effective as you make it seem to be. You may perhaps be able to generate a few Mbit/s of traffic, but it is nothing compared to larger scale attacks like botnet DDoS attacks and the like. If you have any examples of people who have been hit, it'd be an interesting matter to look into.

I did a small test on myself just now by opening lots of search tabs in WinMX and setting them all off at once to see the results. When I checked the bandwidth graph, there was not a whole lot of traffic, perhaps 800KB/s for 1-2 seconds, then it quickly dropped off. The bandwidth also diminishes with each search so it looks like WinMX has some protection built in against this kind of attack already. The traffic generated is not really enough to knock out anything of "significance", and if you have something big that requires a "DDoS protection firewall" which relies on predictable patterns to work properly, I am sure your server can easilly soak up any junk traffic from the WPN without even filtering it. Such a connection will normally be at least a gigabit or 10 gigabit, and that's after junk traffic has been filtered away. The WPN can't generate that much, and it does not really put any stress on the server either as junk traffic is easilly discarded and forgotten. Even if it looks like a whole lot of traffic to the human eye when you see perhaps 12000 files popping up in no time, this is not a lot of traffic in computer/network terms. In fact it puts less stress on the connection and system than the load you have when you do something basic like downloading a file over HTTP. If anything you MIGHT be able to kill a slow residental internet connection by flooding it, but in that case you don't need the WPN to do that, and don't need the "advantage" of the unpredictable pattern of IPs and port numbers.

And regarding whether the source should be released or not to attract new developers, I see what you are saying about the likelyhood of that happening. Maybe the chances are slim. My overall point with my message was to make you open your mind for new ideas, and new approaches to achieve your goal. Releasing the source was just one idea, making the project more visible by keeping the discussions in the public forum and by releasing a demo .exe-file was another. If you don't think releasing the source is a good idea, then don't do it, but you should still consider the other ideas and keep your mind open for any new ideas - not only the ones I mentioned. The thing is, I don't use WinMX that much these days, but I do pop in from time to time to see what's going, and every time I've visited this forum it has pretty much been the same thing and the same issues that I mentioned in my previous posts. That's why I'm encouraging you to make the project more visible, with more open discussions around it instead of a hidden forum.

I can see that you have made a new post about an OurMX support group. I can't post there as a guest, but I think it is a movement in the right direction. I am not sure if you planned to do that already or if my posts on here have somehow contributed to that decision, but either way - good job. The only issue is that you are still doing this hidden "member only" forum section thing. I don't really agree on that concept, as I am sure the rest will miss out on many interesting discussions that don't have to go in a hidden forum. I am sure most of the discussions there aren't about the protocol and the flaws of the network in such a way that it needs to be hidden away.

So once we're on about that, I have another great idea for a change that I want you to consider:
There is a forum section called "Protocol Discussion" which has been collecting dust for ages. Maybe you can try to bring it back to life? Make it stand out more than it does today, and perhaps rename it to include any kind of WinMX development? Try to use it for any non-sensitive development discussion.

To make it stand out and give it the attention it deserves, maybe it is time to clean up the forum and combine many of the smaller sections that we have today. Remember that this forum is nowhere nearly as active as it used to be back when WinMX was at its peak popularity and it doesn't really need a whopping 44 (!!!) sections anymore. Many of these are obsolete or haven't had a single post for several years. It needs to be simplified to reflect the current activity of the forum. Make it simpler, try to minimize it down to just around 10 sections, and make each section stand out with the attention it deserves.

As a visitor, I have to admit that as it is now, the most useful way to read this forum is by going to the "latest posts" link at the bottom. It shouldn't be like that, which is why I am suggesting this. I know that this is not my forum, so I am not making these decisions, this is only feedback for you to think about.

Here are my quick thoughts/ideas:

- You have one section for "WinMX client", one for "WinMX without Windows", and one for "Windows vista/7 compatibility". Do they really have to be separate sections? Do these topics really require their own sections in the first place, or can they just go within the general WinMX help sections? Also.. vista/7? As you can see it is evident it's been some time since these categories were looked into, as we've had windows 8 and 10 since then and the topic hasn't been updated

- There are many different WinMX-related troubleshooting/help sections, like uploads/downloads help, connection help, etc.. "Other WinMX help" is also one. Combine them all into one.
- Do you need a "third party" section and an "archive" section? There are also separate sections for download managers, "other software", and probably others as well. Combine them into a single section?
- Do you need separate sections for different types of metis scripts, or even one specifically for metis scripts at all? My suggestion is to make those sections a part of the "bots" section. Maybe bots can even be combined into chat clients.
- WinMX compatible clients - maybe make that a part of the protocol/development section for development-related threads, and third party clients for non-development related topics?
- Combine the non-WinMX related help sections into a single one. You have one section called "Information Exchange" and another called "Tips, tricks and tweaks", can you tell me what the difference between these two sections is? Because I surely can't

- The international sections haven't had any activity for several years. I know that you want all users to feel welcome by inviting them to the website with flags and all, but the truth is that none of these sections ever had that much activity, and have even less activity today. Maybe it is time to let go of this concept. It is a niche which has failed. Combine them all into a single non-english forum? These days I am sure most international users have more use of visiting the english sections when they need information anyway.

White Stripes · « **Reply #61 on:** January 24, 2016, 06:36:02 pm »

Quote

...and setting them all off at once to see the results. When I checked the bandwidth graph, there was not a whole lot of traffic...

not quite the target area... connect primary then click chat then host... look at the bandwidth graph...

LongLostUser · « **Reply #62 on:** January 24, 2016, 07:00:06 pm »

Still not a lot of traffic. 4-5KB/s of WPN replies. Although chat servers may not implement the same limitations as WinMX itself does

GhostShip · « **Reply #63 on:** January 24, 2016, 07:57:39 pm »

@LongLostUser

I am not sure where to start as your posts seem ever longer however I will jump to the few points that I haven't already responded to in previous posts, when I talk of DDOs i mean websites not winmx users, just because your not aware of the scope for carnage many have already seen it in action first hand, I wont be discussing this again to give people clues on the potential for such annoyances, you have to take some things on trust.

We have a development area for developers strangely enough and those that show a hint that they are able and willing to learn about the network are all invited into that area after a quick perusal of their previous forum activity and a word or two around, we have done well so far at stopping the script kiddies and exploit makers that would pop out of the woodwork unchecked if we followed your advice, it seems to me that it is yourself whom has a closed mind, mine is very much open to the damage unfettered and irresponsible code releases can have, simply because you may not comprehend a problem you yourself need to look a bit above where your currently looking, we don't have the luxury of idle speculation and thus do our best to work with the few "anchor points" available within the community, that often means a lot of the work goes on under the radar and new folks are invited in to help when they make their presence known and show they have some interest in saving the community.

A quick perusal of the chat room lists that float about show many of the chat rooms are not in fact english, I see no reason to shut our doors to many potential users or even potential developers simply because they are not english speakers, what nonsense is this ?

We all know why the network is in a bad shape but the majority of us know theres no cure without a new client and are willing to hold firm as long as some folks are trying their best to resolve that hurdle, we don't like to be bullied by anyone and thus have a reason to continue the battle, giving up is not an option, the number of visitors to the forum means little or nothing as long as the network is functioning all is as it should be, we too use this network and thus have a vested interest in its continued operation, you speak of tidying up the forum but whom is going to undertake that given that the majority of our staff are already hard at work on the few remaining activities we already undertake, this is the same kind of thinking your pushing with the ourmx or other primary clients src code release idea, unfortunately it all suffers from the same flaws of logic, there are no spare folks idling about doing nothing here, all of the folks whom have a staff job here are busy doing it unpaid and for free, as with the lack of coders situation we cannot simply pretend theres an army of helpful folks standing around waiting for work to do, much as it would be nice its not a true state of our situation.

I am enjoying your discussion points so let me make that plainly clear however it would be more helpful to me and the community if you stopped posting the same points again and again in the knowledge that I have to take time away from vital OurMx work to respond to you, if your going to lurk about for a time that's great and it gives me time to show you some progress however I need time to deliver that progress and thus some patience would be great for a bit of time, your points have been seen and absorbed into the forum for all to see.

LongLostUser · « **Reply #64 on:** January 24, 2016, 08:08:02 pm »

Can I see a sample of your client in its current state then?

White Stripes · « **Reply #65 on:** January 24, 2016, 08:16:48 pm »

http://www.ourmx.net/OurMX.zip

note: delete settings.dat and start again if it is being fussy..

GhostShip · « **Reply #66 on:** January 24, 2016, 08:22:32 pm »

That's not the current state

I am working on tidying up the current one so the testers can start working with me to create a list of issues and the order of priorities they want them fixed in, this is why I am a tad not as laid back as usual as I am pretty much busy on this aspect.

The OurMx Support group will be the special folks chosen to see the more current version and I am sure whilst they will complain about some aspects they will be pleasantly surprised with some of the already undertaken work and bug fixes.

LongLostUser · « **Reply #67 on:** January 24, 2016, 08:24:05 pm »

Is this the new re-done version, or the one based on robomx?

White Stripes · « **Reply #68 on:** January 24, 2016, 08:28:22 pm »

robomx version was abandoned in infancy... this is the current 'release' based on its own platform...

White Stripes · « **Reply #69 on:** January 24, 2016, 08:38:32 pm »

Quote from: GhostShip on January 24, 2016, 08:22:32 pm

That's not the current state

thank god... cos the beta release is a fickle and moody thing ...

ale5000 · « **Reply #70 on:** January 25, 2016, 01:39:39 am »

With the app at the link I wasn't even able to do a single download, good that it isn't the last.
Please fix the port bug also, I always use ports over 50000, with OurMX ports over 35000 became negative, probably an overflow.

~~TOAD~~ · « **Reply #71 on:** January 25, 2016, 06:31:42 am »

Quote from: White Stripes on January 24, 2016, 08:38:32 pm

Quote from: GhostShip on January 24, 2016, 08:22:32 pm
That's not the current state

thank god... cos the beta release is a fickle and moody thing ...

That was not even Alpha let alone Beta.

GhostShip · « **Reply #72 on:** January 25, 2016, 07:05:38 am »

Thank god a chap like you would know Toad, it was so helpful to have you there with us sitting by and seeing all the internal functions being written so you could make that statement

Downloads and uploads do in fact work however there was scope for a lot of improvements in that area, I havent had any reports of a port issue, we did have some port conflict reports and to deal with those a message box now comes up if you try to fire up OurMx on a port already in usage as many folks fired it up whilst still running winmx on the default ports,

ale5000 · « **Reply #73 on:** January 25, 2016, 01:25:19 pm »

1) The port isn't in use. Try set port 35000 (not 3500), press OK, now open settings again and you see a negative value.

2) I'm on Windows XP, I search in OurMX, I press download and nothing happens, it doesn't appears in download list.

GhostShip · « **Reply #74 on:** January 25, 2016, 05:55:36 pm »

I think your trying to download in primary mode, we didn't have that side of the client covered at that time so that may be the issue, i have additional ping support to the newer version so its easy to scope out fake file listings that currently annoy many users but for testing purposes can i suggest browse and download from within a chat room as that's likely to be a real file to check the functionality, Its often a lot of guesswork for me to remember whats working in that older version btw so forgive me if something I mention is not in it.

I,ll do a test to check out the negative port values on that older build, its plain from what your saying that the wrong choice of datatype was in usage their somewhere.

Cheers for taking the time to play with it anyway Ale5000, as a developer yourself you will appreciate that whilst this is rather a ropey release theres a lot of good under the hood waiting to be hammered into better shape.

White Stripes · « **Reply #75 on:** January 25, 2016, 06:23:03 pm »

Quote

i have additional ping support to the newer version

ICMP ping or an internal method?
a -lot- of routers block ICMP

GhostShip · « **Reply #76 on:** January 25, 2016, 06:37:50 pm »

Not enough to ruin my tests it seems, whilst the Internet is well known for being a pain in the nuts its basic functionality is nearly always there to use, the ping test i added works fine in detecting spurious file listings at a glance its clear which files are as the result of a replay attack instead of being genuine ones, an internal method could be tossed in if anyone wished but so far the traditional method is doing the job

White Stripes · « **Reply #77 on:** January 25, 2016, 08:24:58 pm »

hmmmm... im going to have to play with this when wider testing starts..

~~TOAD~~ · « **Reply #78 on:** January 25, 2016, 11:20:19 pm »

Quote from: GhostShip on January 25, 2016, 07:05:38 am

Thank god a chap like you would know Toad, it was so helpful to have you there with us sitting by and seeing all the internal functions being written so you could make that statement

Downloads and uploads do in fact work however there was scope for a lot of improvements in that area, I havent had any reports of a port issue, we did have some port conflict reports and to deal with those a message box now comes up if you try to fire up OurMx on a port already in usage as many folks fired it up whilst still running winmx on the default ports,

Good job I'm here

ale5000 · « **Reply #79 on:** January 26, 2016, 02:09:29 am »

Download from chat room seems to work correctly, it was also very fast, more than 1000 KB/s.
Is there a planned date for the new beta?