Author Topic: Will the Real Winmx Patch please stand up (Read 13019 times)

Valor · « **on:** June 18, 2006, 12:40:04 pm »

When winmx.com closed down back in september we could no longer connect to the network because the connection depended on passing through peer caches run by winmx.com. New caches were set up by users and because winmx.com is hard-coded into winmx.exe as the cache servers address, we had to take advantage of yet another gaping Windows security hole and redirect winmx.com to the new cache IP's using windows "hosts" file for a quick fix to save the network.

The Hosts file is an archaic part of 1970's ARPANET technology for networking setups that was originally meant to be used on a LAN and was the legacy way to look up Domain Names on the ARPANET - DNS History. It tells a PC the fixed numeric IP of the internal server(s) so the PC doesn't have to go looking for them through all possible addresses. This works as long as the site's numeric IP address never changes. But IP addresses do change and they're supposed to be able to.
The Web operates via "dynamic" naming, where a human friendly name (www.google.com) is actually an alias for the real address, which is a numeric IP. The numeric address can and will change from time to time as a site or server is moved or reconfigured.

People with out-of-date addresses hardwired into their Hosts File will no longer be able to connect to any site whose numeric address has changed. The Hosts entry will permanently point them to a dead location!

It's almost impossible to update a Hosts file frequently enough to keep up with dynamic naming and even if you did, large Hosts Files also cause Internet related slowdowns due to DNS Client Server Caching. Disabling DNS Client Server Caching[setting windows Service"DNS Client" to manual] is not a solution. The overall performance of the client computer decreases and the network traffic for DNS queries increases if the DNS resolver cache is deactivated. Considering how easily a Hosts File can be exploited, it is strongly recommended NOT to waste time using Special Hosts Files.

Most frequently Malware/Spyware/virus exploit the Hosts File to redirect you Web Browser to other sites or block helpful anti-virus sites. They can also redirect Windows to use a Hosts File that has nothing to do with the one you keep updating. Anti-virus and antispyware detect and remove changes to the Hosts file for this reason.

The host file fix for winmx was shared between winmxworld and vladd44.com to save the network and it did, with users being able to reconnect within three days. However it was only ever meant as a quick and temporary fix.Winmxworld/winmxgroup immediately began working on a more stable and permanant solution which also incorporates blocking the companies responsible for forcing winmx.com to close down from flooding the network with fake file bots. Vladd44.com immediately began working on designing badges for themselves, posting misleading propoganda and making a simple host file edit look like a proper patch for winmx. You don't even need "MxPie" to use a hosts file to connect to winmx. You can edit the host file yourself in notepad to redirect winmx.com to the new cache IP's and it does nothing to protect the network from the fake file flood.

Congratulations to KM, winmxworld and winmxgroup for continuing to ensure the safety and health of winmx. The new version 3.0 of the winmxgroup patch, once installed
1.requires no updating as it is linked to the winmxworld blocklist site to block the fakefile bots
2.automatically updates to reflect any changes in the cache IP's
3.automatically blocks fake file search results
What more could we want ? Thankyou very much to all concerned for saving Winmx

KM · « **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2006, 12:49:36 pm »

Quote from: Valor on June 18, 2006, 12:40:04 pm

What more could we want ?

well, i have a list actually...

lol

LavaGale · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2006, 07:19:25 pm »

Valor....... you've hit the nail right on the head

freddysdead · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2006, 12:04:40 am »

This is very interesting, indeed, but I'm still confused. Worse, I've tried, I think, most if not all of the patches and I don't even know what state my system is in now. The MXGroup patch is now in place and does appear to work. I have been perplexed by repeated mention of "the DLL" without finding any other reference to this dll. Then I found the "WS2_32.DLL" which is presumably a patched Winsock file, but not much help as to what to do with it. I put it in the WinMX directory, that being the most logical place for it, but I don't see by what mechanism it works. Nobody talks about it.

The more one researches this subject, the more one becomes suspicious of hidden agendas in all directions. Fingers are being pointed regarding various entities attempting to hijack the whole network.

Meanwhile, the current patch, which is working, and which claims to have nothing to do with the hosts file, is nonetheless updating the hosts file with a new WinMX IP every time the program starts. So, it either uses the hosts file or it doesn't. Who is telling fibs?

What makes this more urgent is that I am conducting an experiment involving running WinMX totally from a flash drive on a corporate network. All program files as well as the share folder are on the flash drive. All terminals on this network are running XP and have Internet access. For obvious reasons, tinkering with the hosts file is a no-no. Forwarding ports is also not an option, so so we lose ability to accept incoming connections.

As the consequences of being caught diddling with the network include instant dismissal, I want to be very sure of what any patches I use are actually doing.

While the above post is one of the most informative I have ever read on this topic, it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Anybody willing to fill in the gaps would be most welcome.

Comments from anyone who has tried running WinMX from a flash drive in this sort of environment would be also very welcome.

KM · « **Reply #4 on:** August 04, 2006, 12:23:27 am »

some versions of the winmxgroup patch (also known as "the DLL patch" as it uses a DLL file to get loaded in to winmx) do modify the hosts file in order to redirect the update bar at the top of winmx to a new web server - as that is actually a small IE window, not an essential function to get it to connect (if the hosts file were read only for example it would still work perfectly fine, just with no update bar)

version 3.1 of the winmxgroup patch (which is currently beta but seems stable enough) replaces the IE window with a custom control so now works perfectly fine without touching the hosts file at all

https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?topic=2932.0.html

the main feature for 3.1 over 3.0 (it still includes the huge feature of fake filtering of course) is it also adds a faster channel list for chat in secondary, and it also adds upnp support for automatic router configuration, however i doubt that would be applicable in your situation (very unlikely they will have upnp support in their NAT systems) and can be turned off in settings (under advanced settings)

version 1.9 also did not modify the hosts file, however it had a few small problems with certain things, like IE7 for example, and of course doesn't have the fake filtering... it's rather old and you are strongly advised against using that, 2.x versions do modify the hosts file for the update bar (and undo the changes when winmx is closed) 3.0 does too (for the same purpose)

*^*Åü§§ïëgïrl*^* · « **Reply #5 on:** August 04, 2006, 02:37:16 am »

This is the best thread I've seen to date regarding the winmx situation and the why's and wherefore's of patching. The full explanations with openess and honesty is what is really needed to keep WinMx going in a forward direction. I will be directing roomies with queries regarding the patch to here so they can see for themselves what the patches are doing and why because I do get questioned a lot about who is doing what and why.

Well done.

nylly444 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 04, 2006, 04:54:24 am »

Just to clear up things even more:

The .dll used to hook into winmx has been WS2_32.DLL with versions 1.9 and 2.2 and
has been replaced by OLEDLG.DLL since Version 3.0.

Bearded Blunder · « **Reply #7 on:** August 04, 2006, 05:01:59 am »

just to confuse ppl regarding nylly's post it's only accurate if you ran windows xp or 2000, for windows 95, 98, & ME it used to be olepro32.dll
for those very few running NT4 they had to choose the 98/ME install despite the choice stating "NT based systems"

3.x versions of the patch use oledlg.dll regardless of operating system

SamSeeSam · « **Reply #8 on:** August 04, 2006, 05:11:21 am »

Quote from: freddysdead on August 04, 2006, 12:04:40 am

I have been perplexed by repeated mention of "the DLL" without finding any other reference to this dll. Then I found the "WS2_32.DLL" which is presumably patched Winsock file, but not much help as to what to do with it. I put it in the a WinMX directory, that being the most logical place for it, but I don't see by what mechanism it works. Nobody talks about it.

The dll refers to the dll that KM has made so that winmx tries to connect to his caches instead of frontcode's . The dll is needed as nobody has winmx's source code so that it can be modified from within. Hence we need to do it externally.

The patch: Blocks flooders from connecting to the primaries. Also, it filters the searches from fake files.
The patch also has other features like km has mentioned.

The exact working of the patch is not revealed for obvious reasons, as flooders may then be able to bypass it. If revealed, then you would get many people who will claim that 'they' made the patch. When it is Km's hard work that has made winmx alive.
The patch is in the winmx directory as windows tries to first see if the dll needed is in the directory and if not there, it uses the one from system 32.
The patch does not mess with system files. So that's a big plus too.
Especially if somebody does something wrong, then it can mess up this a lot.

Quote from: freddysdead on August 04, 2006, 12:04:40 am

The more one researches this subject, the more one becomes suspicious of hidden agendas in all directions. Fingers are being pointed regarding various entities attempting to hijack the whole network.

Who is doing what can be seen in the posts of the forums. Other people's opinions count as well. But it also depends if they answer your questions. If they do and give a good reason, then some credibility can be given I believe.

You can read more of the patch in these thread:

https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?topic=2932.0.html

Information of the other patches will be in that section only. I'm too lazy to search for them Sorry lol

Cheers

KM · « **Reply #9 on:** August 04, 2006, 10:22:30 am »

Quote from: Bearded Blunder on August 04, 2006, 05:01:59 am

just to confuse ppl regarding nylly's post it's only accurate if you ran windows xp or 2000, for windows 95, 98, & ME it used to be olepro32.dll
for those very few running NT4 they had to choose the 98/ME install despite the choice stating "NT based systems"

3.x versions of the patch use oledlg.dll regardless of operating system

that's why i just said it uses a dll file, because that is true of all versions and much simpler - for example you also forgot to mention the IE7 situation with those ones as well

nylly444 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2006, 05:24:02 am »

Hehe, I was only posting this because people get confused by the mentioning of ws2_32.dll
From what I've seen the Pie "Helpers" are still telling people to delete that one from their winmx folders, seems they still haven't realised it has changed

freddysdead · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2006, 10:03:15 am »

Wow, this is fuckin beautiful. For the first time, I am beginning to understand how all this works! I have got MX all working on the flash drive, plugged into a machine that never had anything to do with MX before, and it connects and downloads ok, apparently. But this is a cloned copy of what was runnning on the other box and has been patched I don't know how many times. The directory has both the oledlg.dll and the ws2_32.dll. I don't know if they both should be there or not.

The hosts file was being rewritten at every program initiation and restored at exit, until I grabbed the 3.1 patch and copied it to the flash drive. Now it leaves the hosts file alone. This is just too beautiful for words. Methinks I can dump the ws2_32.

I am going to try this on the corporate network tomorrow. I will let you know what happens. Many thanks to Valor for starting this thread. And thanks to KM for explaining it so even I can understand it.

-freddy

KM · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2006, 11:22:55 am »

the file ws2_32.dll is used by older patch versions so if it's that then it's safe to delete, however it is also used by the 3.53/3.54 bendmx versions and also RCMS so if you are using either of those then the file will be one of those (then you'd have to check ws2_32o.dll and ws2_32r.dll to make sure they are original winsock versions and not the patch)

freddysdead · « **Reply #13 on:** August 09, 2006, 11:14:58 pm »

Well, sad to say, MX wouldn't connect when the flash drive was plugged into the corporate network. Looks like they've got it locked down pretty well. I hope they don't do a lot of monitoring as well; I'd hate to endanger my friend's job. I thought there might be a chance of it working since all of the POS terminals are running XP, and internet access doesn't seem to be restricted. Unfortunately, I can't poke around much without attracting attention.

However, I can walk up to just about any ordinary box, plug in my flash drive, and be going in seconds, so the idea is still useful. All I have to do is reset the share folder to whatever letter the flash drive has been assigned. It will be interesting to see what longevity implications there might be for the drive; they're rated for between 100k and 1 million write/erase cycles.

Anyhow, thanks heaps guys, for the patch info; now I can almost create the impression that I know what I'm doing.

KM · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2006, 04:16:13 pm »

if their network doesn't allow outbound connections (and requires browsers etc to use a proxy) then unless you can find the details for the SOCKS proxy it won't be able to connect... of course different networks have different setups depending on the competence of the "network admin" and the type of network environment (for example a school will typically block everything and use filters on proxies etc as they trust nobody on the network, whereas some companies will allow full unrestricted internet access as they trust their employees)

Kardio003 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 17, 2006, 02:07:38 am »

Well thank you all very much. I am having connection issues with all p2p software and this thread might just have all the answers. KM's last post talked about companies using proxy servers to channel internet traffic and I'm beginning to believe that this is what my isp is doing to block all p2p. However they are doing it, it sucks to be me. I live in a very rural area and the only highspeed internet available to me is wireless. My isp is a very small one, probably about the size of a mid-sized company's network. Makes sense to me that they would use this technique to block. Also is bringing me closer to the conclusion that no matter what I do, my p2p days are over until another wireless network is available to me as cable and dsl aren't coming here anytime soon and 2 way satelite is just too damn expensive.

Thanks gang.

Bearded Blunder · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2006, 02:26:34 am »

It's just as likely that your wireless modem/router/access device requires you to forward ports, this would upset most p2p software, not only winmx, a visit to www.portforward.com to see if it is listed might yeild some results, or you could drop into the winmxworld help chatroom, you don't have to be connected to use chat, just paste
WinMXWorld.com Help_9F40E3D40D3D
into the filter bar & hit join

Kardio003 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2006, 07:53:21 pm »

Hey Beard,

Thanx for the advice. However, I really am being blocked from all p2p networks. ISP admitted as much and even changed Terms of Use Agreement to reflect said change. They have even gone so far as to block 2sen. Any ideas of a way around this, other than changing isp (no, I'm not going back to 56k!), I'm all ears.

Bearded Blunder · « **Reply #18 on:** August 17, 2006, 10:13:24 pm »

Your chances of getting round the block, & methods for doing so will depend somewhat on their method of blocking you, anything from the simplistic change ports because they have the defaults blocked, to a paid for proxy that encrypts all traffic between you & them, relaying it onward decrypted, rendering your isp unable to know what you're doing, the last wouldn't be particularly cheap nor would you see much performance gain over going back to 56k, at least not without significant costs.
Then there's always having 2 connections, & using 56K for p2p traffic...