New Pie Patch is Dangerous

[Lagerlout666]

As for asking to use winmx world block list, although this would be good for the network what about how they are treating winmx world member's. I think them using the list is a  good idea to at least alow the fools that are using this out dated patch to be protecting the network but i think their atitude towards us needs to change drasticly. I for one feel the brunt of their constant slander and attacks frequently, as you can see from nobbys post bk to me on here. And i know the sky being blue is kms fault. I for one am willing to forget all the things that have been said and done and on frequent attemps I have tried to make contact with diffrent members of the pie team to rectify problems but mostly vladds half of the pie team instantly attack not allowing for disscussion. I dont know how the rest feel on this but maybe this could be the start of a better relationship between winmxworld and pie 1 and pie2. I just hope that maybe they might feel the same.

[KM]

knobby, you allege that my patch is able to modify the hosts file to allow me to hijack banks websites to steal users bank info

please tell everyone just how - what would i need to do to have a user that is trying to access their bank instead access my web server? please do tell and I will do whatever you claim i need to do to enable this in order to demonstrate that it in fact can not be done

vladd indeed has that ability to hijack any website he wants - he is the only person giving out a program to users to allow website hijacking

and i'm still waiting for knobby to explain his sudden change of opinion on how erasing custom entries from a hosts file without asking the user is just fine, or perhaps about how adding entries to it to redirect a banks website is fine... of course i asked for the second one and he hasn't provided an explanation merely more lies about others being able to do it too as some form of excuse... i didn't think i needed to ask for the first though, i thought i would give him a chance to explain it himself but he doesn't seem willing to, so...

1. what is the excuse for adding the backdoor to allow the hijacking of banks websites to obtain their banking info? this had better be damn good
2. what is your excuse for breaking any ad blocking software a user may have running by removing any custom entries from the hosts file? include a long statement about how fucking with system files and removing users choice is good etc
3. what is your excuse for telling users to remove effective blocking (by removing the patch) when it is working, or indeed to remove partial blocking (PG2) if they happen to have that instead... and replace it with a program that will do nothing to flooders and will merely sit there preventing any blocking from happening? include a long statement regarding how it is fine to override what the user wants and force your will on them without giving them a choice etc
4. when do you plan to refund those "donations" taken from users by deceptive means? you claims they were paying towards getting a blocking program made, in fact no such program was made, and failure to deliver would require at the very least a refund to every user who donated, and personally I would give them the interest on the money as well if i were in your position, but being money hungry selfish bastards i doubt you'll even give a refund let alone the interest
5. aren't you banned still pending the outcome of the independent investigation in to your banning?

[bughunter]

the outcome of the independant revue of nobbys banning is that he remains banned....................
since he contributes nothing of importance to the winmx community, but the contining lieing deciet and denials that are pie.............
we all know he will will fail misserably @ answering any of kms questions , as for like all liars he has no proof of anything..............
nobby continually opens his mouth and only shit and lies dribble out......................
the only ppl spreading doom and gloom are in fact vladds pie maggots..............................
and despite there claim that ppl are migrating to the other [pie team this is of course more lies and pie bullshit..................
no dll user would delete the ONLY working connection/blocking solution for a crappy patch and a failed blocking solution that produces nothing buts fakes in there searchs and continuall disconnects due to being flooded off line by riaa................so come on nobby winmx users are not that thick that one they believe anything you have to say or that they are or would delete the dll in protest.................
ONCE AGAIN NOBBY YOUR FULL OF SHIT............................

[..Ñøßߥ..]

KM, the fact my account has been unbanned and the site owner telling me so, would support the fact i am not currently banned, if you wish to "further" investigate this, i suggest you discuss it with Ghost, my posts were factual right up to the point you messed with my account profile and then banned me. If Ghost wishes to ban me i will accept it, as i have in the past (even though i felt it unjust) you however are just upset i do not simply bend over and subscribe to the "i love km" fan club.

And as for hosts files, on installation of at least one version of your patches (im sure you can tell folks what versions), the hosts file was over written, at that point any entry could be added allowing you to add bank entries, or whatever u fancied, I am not aware of what your latest patch does to the hosts file upon installation.

I would also point out, i have not asked any users to remove working protected patches, if others have done, go take it up with them, that said if folks ask for my opinion, i will not recommend your patch.

I await KM's post proving his claims i have condemed PGlite as he claimed, i know ofc he cant, as i havent, unless km is just confused, PG2 is not PGlite, they even made the names different to help you out there.

Bug, please stop posting to me, i dont read anything u say, you are an idiot and you are adding pointless wear to your kb.

[KM]

knobby, which patch version allows me to add any entries to the hosts file i want? tell me the patch version - or is your justification for hijacking users banking info the fact that an old version of my patch does not let me do that?

now answer my questions posted above

you are authorised to access the server hosting this forum on the condition that you reply to all of the questions posted above, if you do not do so then you may not access this forum further - be aware that unauthorized access to a computer system is a criminal offence under the computer misuse act

[..Ñøßߥ..]

1. what is the excuse for adding the backdoor to allow the hijacking of banks websites to obtain their banking info? this had better be damn good
2. what is your excuse for breaking any ad blocking software a user may have running by removing any custom entries from the hosts file? include a long statement about how fucking with system files and removing users choice is good etc
3. what is your excuse for telling users to remove effective blocking (by removing the patch) when it is working, or indeed to remove partial blocking (PG2) if they happen to have that instead... and replace it with a program that will do nothing to flooders and will merely sit there preventing any blocking from happening? include a long statement regarding how it is fine to override what the user wants and force your will on them without giving them a choice etc
4. when do you plan to refund those "donations" taken from users by deceptive means? you claims they were paying towards getting a blocking program made, in fact no such program was made, and failure to deliver would require at the very least a refund to every user who donated, and personally I would give them the interest on the money as well if i were in your position, but being money hungry selfish bastards i doubt you'll even give a refund let alone the interest
5. aren't you banned still pending the outcome of the independent investigation in to your banning?

1. There is no "backdoor" in fact, casual inspection is encouraged, hence why the entries to the start > program menu was added, also the menu option to enable and disable the functions of the patch, its user choice.

(Definition: A backdoor in a computer system (or cryptosystem or algorithm) is a method of bypassing normal authentication or securing remote access to a computer, while attempting to remain hidden from casual inspection)

2. If users do not wish to have their hosts file modified they can simply switch off that feature, and make their own modifications if they so choose.

3. I have done no such thing.

4. I have taken no such donations, and i made no such claims a blocking program was being made, as it wasnt, an updating program was made and paid for. I have not "forced my will" on any user, in fact the users of the pie auto updater have WAY MORE choice than users of your patch.

5. No, my account has clearly been unbanned or i wouldnt be able to use it now would i?

There you have KM your Q's answered, now get off my back and quit putting words in my mouth, your turing into Bug.

The patch of yours i tested over wrote the Pie entries in my hosts file.

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

4. I have taken no such donations, and i made no such claims a blocking program was being made, as it wasnt, an updating program was made and paid for. I have not "forced my will" on any user, in fact the users of the pie auto updater have WAY MORE choice than users of your patch.

You fucking lieing little sack of ball sweat. There is quote after quote on this site and Vladd's of you saying there will be a blocking patch. Take that OBVIOUS lie and shove it up your bullshitting, two faced ass.

[KM]

but if you go and get a quote of that, you might accidentally come across a quote of something knobby would never have said - like him saying categorically that this thing they were going to release and call a patch would not be a hosts file and peer guardian... so you can't go looking, otherwise you might find something like that, then quote it - which might make knobby look bad

of course knobby is you don't think there is a problem with the auto updater on vladds site then feel free to add the following entry to your hosts file then flush your DNS cache and select the update option:

80.235.141.92 blocktards.com www.blocktards.com

that will then give me the same level of access to your internet connection that you seem to think is perfectly fine for vladd to have

of course i currently have that set to hijack www.google.com to a blank page, and to block access to other google addresses (like www.google.co.uk) using the block list... i could just as easily have set it to hijack www.yourbank.com and also block access to any servers used for security programs such as phishing filters

i will run any version of my patch you like and redirect any related hostname it uses to any server of your choice if you want, then you can do the same thing to demonstrate your claims that a version of my patch has the same level of control - btw my bank is nationwide so make sure you hijack their site while you have that access you claim is in my patch

[KM]

as knobby replied to other threads and skipped over replying to this one i decided to point out his mistake on MSN...

(13:44:55) KingMacro: you seem to have missed one of my posts?
(13:45:45) Knobby: no idea, so many anti nobby posts from the WMW crew, i didnt read most of them, i replied to you and answered your 5 Q's
(13:45:52) KingMacro: https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?topic=3397.msg21404#msg21404
(13:46:21) KingMacro: going to give me that level of control over your connection? like you seem to think everyone should give vladd that level of control
(13:47:55) Knobby: at least one of your patched overwrote the pie entries in my hosts file - fact
(13:48:17) KingMacro: and how is that the same as hijacking someones entire internet connection to redirect/block any website you want?
(13:49:06) Knobby: if you overwrote it, you could have added anything u wanted
(13:49:10) KingMacro: how?
(13:49:23) Knobby: you changed the hosts file
(13:49:35) Knobby: during install of you patch
(13:49:48) Knobby: u could have changed it in anyway you wished
(13:50:03) KingMacro: and how would i hijack a website with any patch version?
(13:50:55) Knobby: you are accusing Pie of being able to hijack connections and redirect folks to fake bank sites
(13:51:05) KingMacro: as you can do with that program
(13:51:12) Knobby: you had the same ability
(13:51:15) Knobby: that is all
(13:51:27) KingMacro: no i do not
(13:51:47) Knobby: your patch modified the hosts file on install
(13:52:18) KingMacro: and?
(13:52:22) Knobby: one moment the pie entries where there, next moment they were not and your .dll was, thats part of the installation process
(13:53:00) KingMacro: and where in removing entires from a hosts file does this justify your ADDING any entry you want to it to HIJACK any website you want to?
(13:53:27) Knobby: you could have inserted other entried into the hosts, just the same as the PIe team could as could the ,info mob, my simple point is, ALL 3 solutions have access to the hosts and "could" amend it in anyway they chose
(13:53:34) Knobby: entries*
(13:54:18) KingMacro: do ANY of my patch versions have the ability to add an entry to the hosts file to hijack a website? or do any of my patch versions have the ability to block access to websites?
(13:54:51) Knobby: you telling me upon installation of your patch the hosts file entries are not touched in anyway?
(13:55:16) KingMacro: they are, what has that got to do with the ability to hijack banking webistes?
(13:55:47) Knobby: so your patch can change entries in the hostsfile
(13:56:01) KingMacro: do any of my patches have the ability to add non-winmx related entries to the hosts file?
(13:56:44) Knobby: it would seem so, what else over writes the users hosts files upon installation of your patch?
(13:57:23) KingMacro: so you are stating that my patch contains code to add banking related entries to a hosts file?
(13:57:32) Knobby: no i did not say that
(13:57:35) Knobby: i said
(13:57:57) Knobby: your patch amends the hosts file upon installation and as such could add entries
(13:58:08) KingMacro: you said that none of my patch versions contain any ability to add non-winmx entires to the hosts file?
(13:58:18) Knobby: i didnt, u said that
(13:58:36) Knobby: i said upon installation of your patch, a users host file is modified
(13:58:41) KingMacro: and?
(13:59:33) Knobby: and  nothing, it has the same ability as the Pie patch, only diffeence is, the user can install the Auto Pie patch and switch the hosts file mod off, they cannot on yours or the .info patch
(13:59:49) KingMacro: does it contain the ability to add non-winmx related entries to the hosts file?
(14:00:54) Knobby: the ability to amend a users host file is present in all 3 patches, as to how its used, well thats up to those that admin those patches
(14:01:27) KingMacro: does any version of my patch at all contain the ability to add any non-wimx related entries to the hosts file?
(14:01:43) KingMacro: answer my question, it's a damn simple question - yes or no
(14:01:50) KingMacro: the ability is either there or isn't
(14:01:54) Knobby: it clearly has the ability to amend a hosts file
(14:02:19) KingMacro: and i don't give a shit, does it have the ability to add non-winmx related entries to that file? YES OR NO
(14:02:22) Knobby: thats not for debate as you already confirmed that
(14:02:59) KingMacro: does it have the ability to add non-winmx related entries to the hosts file? yes or no
(14:03:08) Knobby: does what?
(14:03:19) Knobby: all 3 patches have the ability to modify the hosts file
(14:03:26) KingMacro: i did not ask if it modifies the hosts file, i asked if any version of my patch has the ability to add non-winmx related entires to the hosts file
(14:05:00) KingMacro: it's like asking if winmx can be used to read or write to any file on a users system without their permission and you giving an answer of it has the ability to upload and download... that's not the fucking question
(14:05:48) Knobby: if you have the ability to modify a hosts file upon install, then you have the ability to add or remove entries
(14:05:49) KingMacro: does any version of my patch have the ability to add non-winmx related entries to the hosts file? <-- that is the question i am asking you, i am not asking about something modifying the hosts file, i am asking about adding non-winmx related entries to it
(14:06:12) Knobby: Nobby says:

if you have the ability to modify a hosts file upon install, then you have the ability to add or remove entries
(14:06:29) Knobby: thats the whole point of modifing it
(14:06:44) KingMacro: yes and it does add and remove entries, winmx related entries... and i asked about non-winmx related entries
(14:07:13) Knobby: if it "can" add and remove winmx related it can add and remove anything
(14:07:34) KingMacro: does any version of my patch contain anywhere in it the ability to write any non-winmx entry at all to that hosts file? or to block any network traffic not directly related to winmx?
(14:07:56) KingMacro: so you are stating that my patch does contain the ability to add non-winmx related entries to a hosts file?
(14:08:38) KingMacro: code to do that is contained within the file or downloaded from an external source? that code exists and the patch can do it as it is without requiring the user to go and manually download a program to do it?
(14:08:52) Knobby: it must do, the hosts file does not have a secure area for the changing of Winmx specific entrys, if you have the ability to mod a winmx related entry, you have the ability to mod any of the entries
(14:10:02) Knobby: code containing in your patch is unknown to those outside of your circle, it is therefore not possible to say what code it contains, all i can say is it has the ability to modify the hosts file
(14:11:01) KingMacro: it can quite clearly be seen
(14:11:03) Knobby: as for can it block anything outside of Winmx? well i cant answer that, only you and no doubt a limited few know the full extent of its capabilitys, but i would suspect its limited to Winmx, but i have no way to know for sure
(14:11:13) KingMacro: either it has the ability to add non-winmx related entries or it does not
(14:11:25) Knobby: i have answered that
(14:11:28) Knobby: several times
(14:11:38) KingMacro: it either contains non-winmx entries within the file where they would be easily spotted, or it downloads them, where again it would be easily spotted
(14:12:16) Knobby: what has that got to do with it? If vladd did the same it would be easily spotted
(14:12:26) Knobby: doesnt detract from the ability to do so
(14:12:29) KingMacro: it is easily spotted, and the evidence is on the forum
(14:12:41) Knobby: the evidence for what?
(14:12:45) KingMacro: it connects to a download site where it can download non-winmx related entries
(14:12:54) Knobby: and so can yours
(14:12:58) KingMacro: where from?
(14:13:00) Knobby: as you have just confirmed
(14:13:03) KingMacro: which site does it connect to?
(14:13:14) Knobby: you tell me how it modifys the hosts then?
(14:13:32) Knobby: your the one that wrote it to do so
(14:13:44) KingMacro: the code for removing entries is completely within the patch and it performs a fixed task of scanning the file and removing any lines containing "winmx"
(14:14:00) KingMacro: that can not be changed by me, that is fixed inside the patch and not loaded from anywhere else
(14:14:03) Knobby: why are you asking me about the workings of you patch? i know already it modifys the hosts file, cause it did it when i installed it
(14:14:38) KingMacro: that winmx related change is winmx related and can not possibly do anything non-winmx related
(14:15:10) Knobby: "that cannot be changed by me"? your telling me you cannot change your own patch? you could quite easily change it for a while, allow a few folks to DL it and then switch back, leaving those folks with a rouge version
(14:15:18) Knobby: that is my whole damn point
(14:15:41) Knobby: ANY of the 3 patches COULD be used to modify a users hosts file, for non winmx reasons
(14:15:47) Knobby: they all have that flaw
(14:15:54) Knobby: the difference being
(14:16:01) KingMacro: no
(14:16:04) KingMacro: my patch does not
(14:16:05) Knobby: the Pie auto updater, can be switched off
(14:16:39) Knobby: you have just said your patch searches for an removes Winmx entries, you could set it up to search for and amend any entries u wished
(14:16:39) KingMacro: and the pie installer does not, it also has fixed changes it makes which can not be changed by anyone without releasing another version (which of course would then not be the same thing)
(14:16:59) Knobby: ofc
(14:17:03) KingMacro: stating that it would be possible to make a different program to do something does not mean that every existing program can do it does it?
(14:17:29) Knobby: your telling me, you cant mod your patch to search and mofify other entries outside of Winmx? lmao
(14:17:48) KingMacro: my patch can not be made to effect any non-winmx related entries, that would be the patch available on my website - as in the patch being talkes about
(14:18:13) KingMacro: i am not talking about some modified patch, i am talking about the patch, as released, the one people are downloading ans using
(14:18:19) KingMacro: does it contain that ability?
(14:18:24) KingMacro: no it does not is the answer
(14:18:39) Knobby: your patch and that of .info will AUTOMATICALLY modify a users host file, the auto patch will only do so after the users has had plenty of time to choose to switch that aspect off, thats a fact
(14:18:40) KingMacro: what about the program vladd is giving out? yes it does contain that backdoor
(14:18:57) Knobby: it contains no backdoor, please read what backdoor means
(14:19:08) Knobby: King Macro says:

does it contain that ability?

King Macro says:

no it does not is the answer
(14:19:12) Knobby: thats a lie
(14:19:14) KingMacro: that program will automatically modify a hosts file, it will automatically block any IP Address you want from every program on the system
(14:19:19) Knobby: you just contradicted yourself
(14:19:35) KingMacro: my patch does not contain the ability to modify any non-winmx related entries
(14:19:59) Knobby: KM, users that do not wish to block or do not wish to have their hosts modified can simlpy switch the feature off,  no other patch does that
(14:20:24) KingMacro: if you wish to provide evidence of my patch (that would be the file on the website, not some other program someone else made that is completely unrelated) having that ability then do so, otherwise go and post that it does not contain the backdoors that are in the program vladd has released
(14:20:28) Knobby: KM, you could EASILY mod your patch to amend ANY entry u chose to amend
(14:20:43) KingMacro: READ FFS
(14:21:07) KingMacro: i did not ask if i have the ability to make a program to do it, i asked if i HAD
(14:21:36) KingMacro: have i EVER released ANY patch that HAS THE ABILITY to add NON-WINMX related entries to the hosts file?
(14:21:43) Knobby: i just did, i read that bit where you confirmed your patch searches for Winmx entries then mods them, unless your telling me, your not smart enough to be able to make a small amendment to that?
(14:21:47) KingMacro: simple fucking question, have I or have I not?
(14:22:28) Knobby: i dont know, for all i know, you could have 20,000 patches out there right now, that searches and amends bank entires
(14:22:55) Knobby: like many things about your patch, only you will really know
(14:23:05) Knobby: for now at least
(14:23:10) KingMacro: does any version of the winmxgroup patch have that ability?
(14:23:23) Knobby: how could i possible know what you have released?
(14:23:42) Knobby: i know it would be VERY easy for you to do so, weather u have or not, only u know
(14:24:08) Knobby: i would doubt you would, i would also doubt vladd would, i would also doubt Gem would, but the ability remains
(14:25:10) KingMacro: the next thing you type will either be YES or NO, it will not be some completely unrelated comment that has fuck all to do with the question, the question and your answer will be posted on the forum

does any version of the winxgroup patch contain the ability to add non-winmx related entries to the hosts file to hijack websites such as bank websites? or does any version of the winmxgroup patch contain the ability to block traffic to/from programs other than winmx?
(14:25:25) Knobby: but i dont know you so well, i also note, your recent change in personality and approach, you seem way more aggitated than usual, and this was before i posted the last couple of days, so its not me, i could almost class your behavoir as irratic
(14:26:05) Knobby: the only person who can ever answer your Q that i know of is you
(14:26:13) KingMacro: 40 minutes ago i asked you a question and you have still not answered it, and you wonder why i seem a little agitated?
(14:26:24) KingMacro: 40 minutes to type either YES or NO - type one now
(14:26:39) Knobby: i cannot answer questions whereby the answer is only available to you
(14:27:02) Knobby: only you can know what versions, what options and what abilitys you have written into various versions of your patch
(14:27:04) KingMacro: does any version of the winmxgroup patch (as released on www.winmxgroup.com) contain that ability?
also, does the program vladd has released on his site contain that ability?
(14:27:35) Knobby: how can i answer that? i have no DLed and installed every version of your patch
(14:27:57) Knobby: you could have released all sorts, i would have no way to know
(14:28:44) KingMacro: the answers are quite simple:
NO, no version of the winmxgroup patch has the ability to add anything to the hosts file apart from a single entry for www.winmx.com (hard-coded in to some patch versions)
YES, the program vladd is telling users to use does allow him to redirect any hostname he likes, and also allows him to block all network traffic to/from any IP Address he likes
(14:29:30) Knobby: i only have your word for what you patches limitations are
(14:29:36) Knobby: there is no way for me to know
(14:29:44) Knobby: as i have said several times now
(14:29:44) KingMacro: do you have any evidence at all to suggest that it does anything else?
(14:30:29) Knobby: i dont need to have any evidence, as i have made no accusation "anything else" has been done,
(14:30:33) KingMacro: if you are going to make allegations about it containing such a major backdoor you should provide evidence... evidence of the backdoor release by vladd has been provided, you must do the same, or admit there is no back door as far as you know
(14:31:00) Knobby: i have made no such alleragation against you
(14:31:16) KingMacro: i'm off to get food... you clearly are not going to answer simple questions because you don't like the fact that the answer is "KM good, vladd bad"
(14:31:26) Knobby: lmao
(14:31:57) Knobby: well, i guess it matters not, seeing as vladd is DDOSed outta sight anyway
(14:32:53) KingMacro: which is lucky for the users really isn't it? the main backdoor distribution site being offline... although it would have been nice if they had knocked out the place that it downloads its instructions from as well
(14:33:25) Knobby: my aim was to offer folks a blocking alternative to a standard hosts, i didnt expect you to like it, i didnt expect suport from WmW, but i at least thought u would favor it to the .info plan of install and flood
(14:33:48) Knobby: i guess i was wrong
(14:34:10) KingMacro: no, your aim was to get control over a users internet connection to be able to hijack websites - otherwise it would not contain that ability but would have been restricted to winmx related stuff only
(14:34:37) Knobby: lmao, you really have lost it
(14:36:30) Knobby: well i made my intentions perfectly clear to ghost, weeks back, get the new patch finished, and take a back seat, which is what i intend to do, i have WAY more important things to deal with that you ranting like Bughunter, if you have any real concerns go speak to vladd about it, along with your offer of "help" im sure he will be delighted to speak with you
(14:37:09) Knobby: good day.....
(14:37:18) KingMacro: have you already informed him that i have the ability to soak up large DoS attacks and do so routinely and suggested asking me? as mentioned in my post
(14:38:39) KingMacro: oh well, good bye then
(14:38:50) KingMacro: and i hope you have a bad day

[GhostShip]

I,m sure those who claim to have any idea of how the winmxgroup patch works will confirm by looking with a hex editor that it does indeed have the host file search string for winmx in there.

What I find funny is that the pie install file has been removing a superior protection system and was made to do so on purpose leaving users non protected and flooding hundreds of thousands of other users.

one more point of concern is that the address used to upload any updates to the blocklist has not been made public and therefore could be uploading anything, as KM makes plain it is simply possible to add an entry to the pie host file that redirects winmxworld or group to vladds site, as we have seen he is not above abusing this option as has been shown by rewriting users posts and making false claims on his site that cannot be challenged as he has banned anyone who does so and deletes the posts, is this man to be trusted with your machine?

I used to post on vladds myself as Coaldust, most people know I would routinely hack up KM,s programs as well as anyone elses to look for anything unusual, I can confirm here that nothing of the sort was ever detected since that time, and no one has provided anything to show otherwise.

Unlike Nobby I have listened to KM and have a reasonable idea of what is doing what and why, with the pie installer this is not so and for that reason I asked for the raw install script, it has never been seen, nor has anything else been seen that the pie team claimed was to be open source.

Is there something we need to know Nobby ?

[KM]

You don't even need to investigate what that thing does properly to see several major problems

it downloads a hosts file from http://www.blocktards.com/updates/hosts which it then completely replaces your entire hosts file with (if it can find it - it only works on NT systems it appears...) - removing any custom entries, and adding whatever vladd wants to it (this has been tested and confirmed by intercepting the request on the network and returning a replacement file, it can contain anything)

it also downloads http://www.blocktards.com/updates/guarding.p2p and places it in the peer guardian directory, then restarts peer guardian - the peer guardian config it comes with is set to block absolutely all traffic to/from those IP Addresses, again that file can contain any entries vladd likes (as has again been tested and confirmed, it can also contain 0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255 if it wants)... also if you were to disable it, or even to just disable HTTP, then the next update (which knobby says would be in 2 hours - although I've not run it that long, merely selected the option to force an update) it will re-enable and block everything again, there is no option to disable it without completely stopping everything... you have no choice but to either completely close it all, or leave vladd blocking whatever he wants from your entire computer (not just winmx)

those are the 2 main things it does that it is designed to do and they are bad enough that i didn't even bother looking for other additional hidden backdoors, those 2 are bad enough

[bughunter]

and of course in addition to what km has pointed out...............like the other pie patch run by jim sabre and gem, they dont work...........
if your a pie patched user thinking your safe from riaa, then think again.................
pie is a complete and utter failure, it blocks nothing to do with riaa.....................
searches still contain fakes and plenty of em......................
pie does nothing about the udp dos attacks which knock pie users off line......................
and finally pie does nothing about denial of service...........................
so bearing all this in mind, it is not to difficult even for those folks that arent techy to realize either pie patch doesnt protect you..........
its a con and a blantant lie for pie to even susgest that there patch protects users..................
both pie patches still allow riaa to connect to harvest your ip,pie still permitts riaa to use your bandwidth for flooding of dos attacks, and pie stil allows riaa to launch denial of service attacks.....................
so when you combine these facts and the statements by km as to the back doors and decidely dodgy nature of the new pie patch,it is abundantly clear that pie is a complete failure......................
so users do have a selection of patches but only the dll works, pie patch run by sabre and jim and gem would be the next workable solution, thou it doesnt work as claimed at least users can add winmxworlds block list which when run as a primary gives that user minimum protection, but at least it does some blocking...........pie patch as run by vladd nobby etc does absolutely nothing to protect any user, its block list is not only out of date but is sadly lacking in any riaa flooder ips.............
so in summing up....................if you want protection then use the dll.....................if for some reason you the user would prefer not to then use pie patch as run by gem jim and sabre.......................as for vladd and nobbys pie patch dont even waste your time downloading it.................it does nothing at all as far as blocking is concerned, and as km pointed out is most likely going to shut you down as far as the net is concerned.............in fact you would probably get better blocking by simply picking some random ips and using that.............................
as for there claims that there patch is open source ROFL, it doesnt even begin to comply with the GNU for open source.................
just another mis truth by self confessed liars and scammers.......................

[Max™]

how i see it, last time i looked at a pie patch, it had ONE cache and Four slave cachaes relying on the ONE,
last time i looked at our dll it has aproximately NINETEEN caches,
correct me if im wrong, but if we loose one or two caches, we are still up and running, if you use pie and loose the ONE cache you are Offline,
just suppose people are on Vladd's pie patch and it has modified your hosts file and you have no control over your connection anymore, just think if the cach should accidently go off by the flick of a switch and the only way to get it turned on is by paying the one that has his finger on that swith or you dont get connected, just a thought.

[bughunter]

indeed max.............. we have seen what happins to pie users when sabre decides to turn off his cache..................
there is no pie....................
thou to be fair, pie have failed so often now that most folks have simply moved to the dll..................
pie represent less then 3% of all users now at a best guess in fact its probably even lower......................
users have simply migrated to the most reliable connection method, and not to mention the only blocking solution that works..........
pie as a connection / blocking solution is a complete failure, and thats the bottom line.................and there is nothing that can be done to fix it....................
and so why should the vast majority of winmx users have to continue to put up with pie udermining and permitting riaa to access this network for no other reason then they refuse to use the dll.....................
as pie have stated many times they dont care about winmx or its users...........................
so why should we as the winmx community care about them, its in every users and this network continued survival that pie are removed by any all means necessary..............................

[Debaser]

I have the old Pie patch and everthing is fine, cant see what the fuss is about.

[Max™]

the old pie will work, untill they decide its no longer needed and it will expire, and they will say "you shuold have updated to the new pie" and that time will come, when we dont know.

[Me Here]

Basically the 'fuss'.. lol is about fixed IP addresses and what happens when that limitation is at its worst.  The fact is that if you have a fixed IP hosts file and depending on it for your connection all is well and good as long as

1. Those IPs are still running cache software, we have seen many benefits of the dynamic ability of the dll to find working IPs. 

2. Along the same lines,  there is not a 'single' Server running on multiple IPs, server fails for any reason and most users on that fix will see the fuss. 

3. The single server senario that cache software is returning correct results to allow connections.

If your a hard core MXer and these things are not running well you notice the fuss... lol

[GhostShip]

That sounded confusing a little Me_Here 

The old host file fix relies on pointing your winmx to a new peer cache IP and in theory this is well and good.

In reality the servers have changed adresses  and some go offline without warning, the host file is relying on a single fixed location for all its users and as we have seen this was down causing the no connection problem, something that should have been avoided by sending them to the other peer caches that are working fine.

The simple solution would have been to have backup servers to hand or more servers even but Sabre the 205 peer cache operator has taken it upon himself to liberate the software that was made by Ranma for the mxpie folks and is refusing to share it so others can set up servers.

It seems politics and power is more important to him and others than helping users connect and be protected.

[Debaser]

Thanks

Where has vladds site gone?
I cant hide the fact im a long term member there; iv had no problems using there patch and feel obliged to carry on with them.
Call it honour.

[SamSeeSam]

Where has vladds site gone?
I cant hide the fact im a long term member there; iv had no problems using there patch and feel obliged to carry on with them.
Call it honour.

Where is vladd's site gone... better ask him lol
If you are in secondary, then you might not notice it.
If you are in primary, then you allow Riaa flooders to connect to you. that means flooding is still there. Which is not good for winmx. Hence I feel that the pie patch should not be used.

If you suddenly want to show off the power of you new 10000 watt speakers at three in the morning, then the police will come to tell you how much they liked it.
Why, because you cause discomfert to others.

Same reason, you allow flooding, also the secondary users connected to will have very bad results. Your slection of patch must not affect the connections of others. The pie patch affects the connection to a great extent.

Cheers