tracing an ip address

[killjoy]

please answer a question for a self-proclaimed computer novice. when sharing files is it possible for another (disgruntled) WinMx user to identify/trace your IP address? I share my files with everyone except obvious leeches but not everyone is happy with this policy. Occasionally I will receive a message with a threat to turn my IP address over to the RIAA. Can another user obtain this info and if so , how is this done??

[Bearded Blunder]

Any time 2 computers connect together online it's possible to trace your IP address, their computer needs to know where yours is in order to know where to send communications, there are various tools people could use to determine your IP, but it's actually harder with winmx than most file sharing programs, personally, I'd forget about it, it's sweepstakes odds any such message is from some bored teenager who's messing around & hasn't anything better to do.. just right click their name in hotlist & choose "ignore"

[SamSeeSam]

I presume you can say the same to them

[Neutron]

I've got a lot of those threats...

"fuk u im gonna hakcc ur pc i have ur ip adres i no loadsa hackers dat will hack u 4 me"

it's just a lot of bullshit, leechers who are mad because you cancel their download.

Even if they do hand your IP to the RIAA, the RIAA can't do anything. They have no proof that you are sharing files, it could just as well have been a fake report.

Nothing to be worried about. Just ignore them and laugh at them. 

[KM]

ignore them? you're missing out on hours of fun...

[SamSeeSam]

I must admit... It did seem scary to me the first time too, but then, when I kept on getting such messages, I got used to it

Even if they handed over you IP to the RIAA, they can't do anything if you are in you are not in America.
It is only your country that can prosecute you.

The funniest part is, the RIAA can prosecute the informant himself, as he himself was using winmx

[killjoy]

I spent considerable time searching this issue on other P2P forums and I was disturbed by what I found. There is indeed a freeware application available called TCPview that allows you to get info on whomever you UL to or DL from. I installed this application to test it and it worked with WinMx, Soulseek also, and I was able to easily view the IP address. This program also has a "who is" feature that enables you to get more specifics like ISP provider address, geographical location etc. This info is meaningless to me but what if I was an agent for the RIAA? I've stopped using my P2P programs and yesterday I subscribed to an online music DL service. I think this forum could use a privacy/ security section as this is a hot topic in other P2P forums but it's all but ignored here..

[Bearded Blunder]

There are ways to obscure your IP, but generally they involve subscription to a service which relays your traffic through a proxy server, if used your proxy would show rather than your IP.. though personally I wouldn't recommend it, performance of winmx when pushed through a proxy tends not to be good.

Questions regarding privacy & security aren't ignored, it's just that they don't arise that often.

[KM]

80.235.131.185 my main IP Address here
80.235.141.92  my second IP Address here

tell me something about myself that isn't already obvious...

well you can tell i use blueyonder, and...? well that's about it, an IP Address has nothing AT ALL to do with you, it is allocated to your ISP and they pick them completely at random to allocate to users - sometimes they use different pools of IP Addresses for different areas, sometimes not

so what can you tell from those IP Addresses? well you can tell i am somewhere in devon/cornwall - it does get my city correct, however that is purely a guess based on most users in this area being in plymouth as it's a large city, that pool of IP Addresses is actually newton abbot and not plymouth, however is used to serve the entire area... any attempts to guess a location always come up as plymouth even though they might not be, so you can get my region... that's about it, with many ISPs that isn't even right

and of course the IP Address you are using atm from your ISP is sent for everything you do online - otherwise no data would ever get to you... have a look at my signature...

[killjoy]

Sorry, poor choice of words. What I meant by" ignore" was a general lack of interest here among your posters regarding internet security issues. What I've learned is that any individual who was caught and fined was detected by a traced IP address. The laws vary depending on where you live and in some countries it's legal to upload but not to download. I live in America and here it's illegal to do both. As I understand it the individuals who upload copyrighted music and movies are the primary targets for prosecution. The way you get caught is some nefarious character uploads a file from you then detects  and records your IP address. The next step they take is getting your ISP to assist them in tracing and identifying you via saved internet logs. The bottom line is you can be traced by way of your IP address so it makes sense to invest in an anonymous proxy when using WinMx
 

[Bearded Blunder]

As far as I'm aware, what they do is threaten people with court action if they refuse to hand over loads of money, Ghost Ship follows such things, but as far as I know for sure, they've never yet actually let a case go to court, too afraid they might lose & set an unfortunate precident for themselves, but I'm sure he knows figures regarding prosecution.

[KM]

they are not afraid they might lose, they know they will lose - they have lawyers that have advised them of such things... like for example of the fact that if they downloaded a file from you, the file transfer was authorised by them, making it fully legal as it was authorised by the copyright holder

they have sent hundreds of thousands of letters to people all over the world, the only people who hear anything more about it are the ones who send a letter back saying "please no, I'll do anything, I'll pay you anything you want"

[Zepposircarressith]

lol @ km true i think its more like this      (acts all dramaic)


No please dont urn my isp in please i will give you anything i will tell u any room i get movies from anything i will give u my computer u can take it all i dont care just let me go and i wont go on pc no more please please i beg you i dont have much money i just sit here and download movies and music i have no life or anything



looks at myself wow i dont have a life





( this dramatisation has been brought to you by kms eclars if he dont get them he will turn you in)    agent km  aka km lmao




(agent zeppo mpaa associte) lmao

[GhostShip]

Hi to those reading this thread after reading a post by "Grinch" on vladds forum heres what Grinch forgot to tell you folks.

https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?topic=2425.0.html


I hope you can all see the date of the posts 31st of May, thats many weeks before Rocks cache failed, makes the story Grinch is telling a bit weak I think you,ll agree.

Grinch old friend do the homework and ask questions before making allegations of a malicous nature as you have done.

Here is some reading material posted on a respectable public forum regarding the rescue operation, which whether you like it or not is allowing many thousands of users to connect with the otherwise useless host file that did not contain any address except a dsl cable connection that was failing and Sabre in vladds room passed word was offline.

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23149

Please read the posts by Dazzle and tell me who is hiding anything ?

We have acted in the best interests of the users if not the pie team in providing a connection solution as soon as the problem was identified, this was not helped by having no direct contact at the pie team, we here are not even sure there is a "pie team" anymore.

I hope to hear your tone modified now you are aware of this extra information, showing clearly the many weeks that nothing was done to update a patch that requires constant updating, lets see an apology from pie instead of banning anyone who asks why they did nothing.

Lets also ask the real question, why do pie claim to have viable servers when they clearly do not ?

[GnarlySnarly]

Hi to those reading this thread after reading a post by "Grinch" on vladds forum heres what Grinch forgot to tell you folks.

https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?topic=2425.0.html

I hope you can all see the date of the posts 31st of May, thats many weeks before Rocks cache failed, makes the story Grinch is telling a bit weak I think you,ll agree.

nah.. you see, the day after KM posted the second IP change, 'grinch' passed the information along:

http://www.vladd44.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=7822&highlight=

It didn't take long for 'love' to take the helpful information posted and move it to the 'cesspool'.  and a short time later the topic was locked.  Lots of thin-skinned admins over there.

Grinch old friend do the homework and ask questions before making allegations of a malicous nature as you have done.

Here is some reading material posted on a respectable public forum regarding the rescue operation, which whether you like it or not is allowing many thousands of users to connect with the otherwise useless host file that did not contain any address except a dsl cable connection that was failing and Sabre in vladds room passed word was offline.

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23149

Please read the posts by Dazzle and tell me who is hiding anything ?

I know and you know and mxPIE peeps know their hosts list was obsolete.  But there are better ways of handling it than hijacking the users and spinning half-truths.  on par with vladd's groupies.  AFAIC, neither team is giving full objective information.

If the hijacking was REALLY just to help the people get reconnected, then they could have been informed of other methods than just the proprietary DLL.  A simple message like:

"Your hosts list is out of date as it includes an IP that is no longer serving to connect to WPN, which is why you have been redirected here.  There are x active peer cache servers and there IPs are:  aaaaa bbbbb ccccc ddddd eeeee ... you can edit your hosts list to include these x IP s and remove kkkkk and mmmmm since they are no longer active.  If you prefer to continue using a hosts list to connect to WPN, AND you connect as a primary hub, please run a blocker like peerguardian with our fake file flooder blocklist which can be found here ***** 

Or, you may wish to use our new v3 DLL patch to get reconnected to WPN.  This patch has several advantages such as:
1] It automatically updates the peer cache server IPs - no more editing or updating the hosts file.
2] It has a built-in blocklist manager that keeps most of the known fake file flooders from connecting to WPN through you if you connect as a primary hub
3] If you search for the type of files being chaffed with fakes, most of the resulting fake results will be filtered.

For more details, see this webpage zzzzzz, which explains objectively the pros and cons of each connection method, so that you can make a more informed choice of what is best for you and the other users who make up the wonderful and independent winmx peer network."


I think that BOTH camps should reduce the rhetoric and present a more helpful front such as this.  educate the users, stay honest, and let them choose.  They will anyway.. that's the nature of winmx net - no central net nannys or controllers.  As much as some may want to be 'the decider', who gets to dictate the future of WPN.. I don't think so.  They may want to privatize control, but the genie is out of the bottle.  WPN is free. 

We have acted in the best interests of the users if not the pie team in providing a connection solution as soon as the problem was identified, this was not helped by having no direct contact at the pie team, we here are not even sure there is a "pie team" anymore.

I hope to hear your tone modified now you are aware of this extra information, showing clearly the many weeks that nothing was done to update a patch that requires constant updating, lets see an apology from pie instead of banning anyone who asks why they did nothing.

Their doesn't have to be a PIE team..  though the original concept is good - users working cooperatively together, giving mutual aid.  It could still work if the control freaks can be controlled or defanged:)

I obviously was fully aware of the first link you showed, which was KM's announcement of IP changes.  As to the second post, I failed to see much of anything that would change my conclusions.  dazzle suggested some DoS attack prompted the IP changes, but not so convincingly.  Every DoS attack of which I have been on the receiving end, I didn't have to read the logs.. my machine was so overloaded I couldn't get any control responce.  The extra packets KM told me about would hardly be classed as a DoS attack.  But that just makes one of my points.  I believe we need lots more peer cache servers, from multiple domains, not so much for load handling.. since KM says just 1 peer cache server can handle the entire WPN connection traffic without breaking a sweat - but for redundancy, net security and perhaps even getting back to providing regional pools to make searches more effective.  I have talked to KM about this already.. so we'll see where that goes.

Lets also ask the real question, why do pie claim to have viable servers when they clearly do not ?

I can't speak for PIE, but as I said, we need many more independent peer cache servers.  Winmx as is was designed for 6 regional pools and it assigned 20 peer cache server IPs for each.  I believe building the infrastructure to resume regional primary user pools will make WPN much more viable and attractive.

[GhostShip]

I notice your generalising in a major way here.

I,m sure your long post impressed many but lets stick to the facts, do you think it is fair to ask users to use an out of date solution that allows macrovision to disrupt the WPN and its users, where is the choice on vladds site for those wanting a clean winmx ?

Do you think its also fair to make attacks on members of this site on another forum rather than ask the questions here first, your posts seem to imply some sort of moral authority, when in fact this sort of activity merely shows there is none.

I really dont care whether you personally believe anyone, thats your choice, we do not support underhand tactics as you claim and nor will we prop up a corrupt and undemocratic group operating the pie host file solution that is lead by those who censor, abuse and sell pay for winmx on their sites.

I have spoken to you many times in private messages to clear up your points and fully answered your questions when you have made them, what you decide to do with the information provided is your decision,a decision none on vladds site are likely to read if its not pro pie/vladd.

I would like to see you publicly state you have had anything like this kind of supporting information available on vladds site or even found anyone who actually knows what they are talking about.
I also hope you make a positive answer to some of the aspects above, we look to dealing with matters today and in the future and the host file does not figure in those plans as it stands.


For those who feel they are not happy with either camp I urge patience and perhaps contacting Nobby to see if there is some help you can give him in raising a third way solution.

The seeds are spread and ideas are welcome, doing nothing will not help.

[KM]

as i had already told you before you made that post, and as you are more than aware multiple caches are not needed for regions, my caches are already handling that functionality and can do so with even a single cache

frontcode had 9 HOSTNAMES per region, directing to a couple of servers with a lot of overlap between regions and repeat allocations, their system for regions was inefficient wasteful and unreliable

as for the message given to users...
1. how wide do you think the average users search results are? baring in mind there is no way to get them in a fixed order as they could have the columns sorted in any way, so the message would have to fit on a single line
2. why would i tell users to get something that has failed, and will fail again and again? how helpful is that? if you think that telling users to get something you know is going to repeatedly break is helping then i suggest you seek help from a psychiatrist

as for your allegations of "hijacking users and spinning half truths" - please justify such claims with an example of whatever "hijacking" you are talking about, or which "half truths" you mean, or are you unable to? we have seen many claims from the pie lot that they refuse to justify even giving excuses of "i promised I'd never justify the claims i make"... lol

[GnarlySnarly]

as i had already told you before you made that post, and as you are more than aware multiple caches are not needed for regions, my caches are already handling that functionality and can do so with even a single cache

Yes, you did tell me, and have told me again.. and i disagree with the methods YOU have decided to use.  You decide to override the users chosen region and send them where YOU want or think they 'belong', right?  My point is that that is a USER choice, not yours to make.  Why do you think winmx has 6 regions available for the users to choose from?  By your method, that could have been eliminated and just have the peer cache servers decided where to send people based on their IP - which as i understand it is what you are doing.

It is exactly that, based on my understanding, that I object to.  The region should be a user choice, not to be controlled, overridden  or dictated by the peer cache server.

And for the USER's choice to be effective, then the multiple hostnames for each region have to be supported.  Each region has to have its own cache of IPs for that region.

frontcode had 9 HOSTNAMES per region, directing to a couple of servers with a lot of overlap between regions and repeat allocations, their system for regions was inefficient wasteful and unreliable

2 times that right?  9 or 10? for each version, right?  Maybe winmx.com didn't support all 108 or 120 hostnames?  If they failed to support the regional pools as well as they could have, then maybe the users can do it better.

It is sort of like IRC.  I am in the USA and there were several IRC nets which were USA-centric, dominated by USA servers and admins.  But fortunately there was a more global net, which allowed users to explore and discover other people places and such.  When my daughter was preparing for a trip to Hungary, I found several channels on the IRC network I was using that were filled with people from Hungary.  Nothing like that was available on the huge USA dominated nets.  How would it have been if I had been forced to connect to a USA-based chatnet based on my USA IP?  screw that.  Due to lag and net conditions, it was recommended users join the same IRC server a chat partner was on or one nearby.  So if i was chatting with someone from Australia, we would have less lag if they connected to a USA server near me or I connected to an AU server near them.  But that was a USER choice, as long as the server admins allowed 'foreign' connections.

So for the reasons stated, I still think the USER settings on the region buttons on winmx should be supported and respected.  And AFAIK, that has to be done by IP redirect, with each region having its own back of peer cache server IPs.  Maybe 1 peer cache server can send users to where you think they belong, but I don't think that should be your choice.  The buttons are on the user's winmx clients and they should be able to make that meaningful choice and you should do everything in your power to make their choice meaningful.

as for the message given to users...
1. how wide do you think the average users search results are? baring in mind there is no way to get them in a fixed order as they could have the columns sorted in any way, so the message would have to fit on a single line
2. why would i tell users to get something that has failed, and will fail again and again? how helpful is that? if you think that telling users to get something you know is going to repeatedly break is helping then i suggest you seek help from a psychiatrist

More to the point, is why did the common public host list fail?

1] You decide to make changes for the IPs assigned to your peer cache servers.
Q: Did you give any significant, direct email notice to the maintainers of the host list, well in advance of the change over time?
Q: was it really necessary to change the IPs?
Q: what consideration did you give to the disruption this would cause for users who elect to use a hosts list connection method?

2] The users who have announced they would maintain an up to date host list - shirked their responsibility to their commitment and knowingly and willingly failed to promptly update and publicize a corrected hosts file.  I tried.  I publicized the changes so that those who dared could edit their own list.

as for your allegations of "hijacking users and spinning half truths" - please justify such claims with an example of whatever "hijacking" you are talking about, or which "half truths" you mean, or are you unable to? we have seen many claims from the pie lot that they refuse to justify even giving excuses of "i promised I'd never justify the claims i make"... lol

Over the last several weeks, I have gone on record more than enough to show that neither camp is giving full, unbiased, objective informations.  I'm might not have the ability and background to speak with technical precision, but think I have a general 'user level' understanding of what is important to consider.

As to the term 'hijacking' as it was used on a thread someone else started, I think it was fully and fairly described relating to the special redirect that was happening with users who still had an IP of a peer cache server you changed 3 weeks ago on their host list.  Then you took unfair advantage of the situation YOU HAD CREATED, by separating perhaps the oldest? and longest used peer cache server from WPN, knowing that it would still be used for connection attempts.  And then when thousands of unsuspecting users tried to connect to WPN as usual with this well known peer cache server IP, they were redirected, 'hijacked' to, captured in your private 'net' [pun noticed] Here they were 'helped' to get reconnected to the real WPN with, yes you guessed it, the amazing new and improved v3 DLL patch.  I saw no attempt to inform users of how they got caught in this private 'net' or to inform them why it happened, nor of all ways to fix this manufactured 'problem'.  Simply editing their hosts list would have sufficed, but that truth they were never told.  They were told of only half of the means to reconnect, your preferred way, hence a half truth.

[Bearded Blunder]

Should we be repeatedly advising people to edit system files?  I think not, it's unwise even for experts to routinely mess with them, mistakes get made.

[KM]

I do not control pie operations

They were informed repeatedly that my caches do not have static IP Addresses and they continued to ignore me and lie to users claiming my caches had static IP Addresses and I didn't have a clue what I was talking about, they are only my caches of course what would I know about it?

I then informed them of something that I had no obligation to inform them of - the changing IP Address of a cache (the cache never moved from its stated addresses) - they ignored me, my fault of course... I then informed them of yet another change and the fact that their failure to reference my caches correctly would cause them problems... ignored again of course, what would I know about my caches?

And I suppose it's my fault they ignore me regarding the issue of frontcode filling up primaries and causing delays connecting?

Let me guess, it's also my fault that they refuse to filter the fake results that they insist on causing?

Think about what you are typing before hitting post, you might stop sounding like such an idiot

oh, hang on, where's the bit where you claim credit for everything I have come up with to improve WinMX? your posts normally have some "yes KM just did what I told him before he even knew i existed" story in most posts you make... I think you forgot it from that post, if you would like to PM an admin instructing them how to edit your post to include such claims and make it more believable please feel free, we like our little discussions where we laugh at you lot

btw, you appear to have not read the relevant parts of that PM - you know the bit about region selecting for caches not working in the original winmx any more than it does now... you should re-read it, the bit about primaries finding their own primaries and not constantly querying the caches therefore making the caches completely irrelevant at the primary level - it only helps for secondary users (and even then only for the initial connection)... and in that case it will help by getting the closest primary to you thereby reducing delays as well as improving network efficiency - indeed my caches only do the regionalisation for secondary users as it is completely useless trying to do so for primary users as there are no benefits at all with it being ignored and everything...

and what the hell does 2 users selecting a US chat room from a global channel list have to do with the caches? did i miss something in your post? you completely lost me with that one, made no sense at all...

anyway please quote and reply to the following:

users not using WinMXGroup's caches are having problems connecting
users using WinMXGroup's are having no problems and connecting just fine
the solution is for everyone to stop using WinMXGroup caches

please explain this theory - doesn't make sense to me, although i generally go for logic and common sense so perhaps your way of thinking is different and you can shed some light on how this works?