Author Topic: Peerguardian: The Facts (Read 107507 times)

Lagerlout666 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 17, 2007, 01:44:06 am »

Do i sense a gap in the market, i new list group needing to be set up. One that hasnt been took over by the cartel and is blocking legitimet share's

I sense a revolution. i cnat imagine it would be that hard to make a new blocklist for PG2 that would be pretty much standard for accrross the board of p2p!!!

KM · « **Reply #41 on:** February 17, 2007, 08:17:36 am »

publishing the lists of all of the IP Addresses in use by the groups flooding every p2p network with fakes would probably endanger our future blocking ability for winmx

i gave bluetack a sample with a single list of the then current macrovision ones for example (across all p2p networks) to prove a point that bluetack had hardly any blocked, in fact the only ones blocked were ones copy/pasted from our list, and ones that happened to fall under ISPs where the entire ISP was blocked

the response from macrovision was quite a panic and the most IP changes they've done in such a short period that i've seen, they really didn't like it at all - and if i had continued to publish such lists then it would only have been a matter of time before they figured out all of the detection methods used for that sort of scanning and hid from it. that would then leave us with only 2 detection methods to locate them (the winmx specific ones) which would make maintaining lists for winmx harder - and would of course mean that the list for other networks couldn't be maintained anyway

they don't care about bluetacks lists because they are useless and don't actually block them, if anything that list helps macrovision, as it doesn't block any of their attacks however it does disrupt legitimate connections - and they don't care about our lists as long as it is winmx specific, they have had a few small attempts at getting past us but so far they have failed however if a list with all of their IP Addresses on it was public and kept updated then they would put a lot more effort in to disrupting the detection methods

the same goes for the other companies, i only name macrovision specifically as they are the one i picked for publishing that list, so i know how they responded to such a list being published

btw for anyone wondering how bluetack responded when they were handed a complete and accurate list of all macrovision flooders... i think it was something like 12 hours before one of them replied with "so what?" then after a couple of days "yeh but now macrovision have responded faster than us and changed most of those IP Addresses proving we are blocking really well"... i think after about 3 or 4 days a couple of them got added to one of their block lists that nobody uses, of course by the time they were added all of them were invalid and had been assigned to normal end users

Interested · « **Reply #42 on:** March 26, 2007, 07:20:36 am »

I have just started to investigate WinMX because of problems I was having with my VPN. Thanks for the information on the UDP attacks. I shut down PG and have not lost my connection since. I will definitely give WinMX a try and use the patch after I get some more information on how to do it correctly. I only want to try Usenet as a last resort.
Thank You

SamSeeSam · « **Reply #43 on:** March 26, 2007, 09:44:43 am »

https://www.winmxupdate.com/Install-3.0-MultiVer.exe
That is the link for working patch

Cheers

G Visbach · « **Reply #44 on:** April 07, 2007, 09:17:05 pm »

Hi,
this is a request to develop an extra facility to the ignore-function of the programm. When having been set to be ignored by someone, it would be helpful, if when this person tries to message me, this automatically would lift the ignore function and reset it to 'off'.
Apparently, by contacting me, the other person wishes to lift the ignore, but seems not to be aware [is 'ignorant' =;-))], that this function is switched 'on'.
As I have found this place the only available one for putting this suggestion to the programmers, please forward it to the proper address.
Thank you,
G Visbach, Utrecht, Netherlands.

shakes · « **Reply #45 on:** April 16, 2007, 04:21:35 pm »

hi folks.I have just had a read at these posts about PG, if i stop using it what other program can i use. I am also getting this orion.untracedserver.com-DDos/ap2p.

SamSeeSam · « **Reply #46 on:** April 16, 2007, 04:44:54 pm »

Other program for?
If you mean to prevent fake files on winmx, use the winmx patch from www.winmxgroup.com
For other P2P, no reliable blocklist has thus far been found...

Cheers

Me Here · « **Reply #47 on:** April 16, 2007, 06:45:48 pm »

As you may have seen from previous posts here shakes,

Quote

I am also getting this orion.untracedserver.com-DDos/ap2p.

That is just peerguardian reporting to you that it is actively blocking your WinMX from contacting the peer caches. Basicaly those things we all need to use to connect... lol.

Frack-me · « **Reply #48 on:** April 23, 2007, 01:54:01 pm »

is this gonna be the same for all peer sharing sites i use Ares and DC++ and well im rather miffed as my net connections have been playing up for some time :shock:

Me Here · « **Reply #49 on:** April 23, 2007, 02:52:55 pm »

Hi Frack-me

Its my belief that yes, Peerguardian with the default (Bluetack) lists, is more of a menace to any file sharing network then a help. Im not an official expert but I'm as close to an expert as anyone at Bluetack can claim to be and I believe that it would be more of a problem then a safety to use with any p2p networks.

KM · « **Reply #50 on:** April 23, 2007, 07:47:23 pm »

bluetack are the ones who stated it isn't worth blocking macrovision (who are one of the major companies actively attacking most p2p networks), but actively seek out any servers related to running p2p networks to make sure they get blocked...

using their lists with any p2p network is the same, they don't block the people they claim (ie. anti-p2p groups) but in fact when they do happen to have an anti-p2p group blocked, it is mostly down to the fact that bluetack have an entire ISP of legitimate users blocked, and there happens to be a single anti-p2p company on that ISP that got blocked by accident

SamSeeSam · « **Reply #51 on:** April 24, 2007, 04:34:50 am »

At this rate, the will have an effective blocklist soon.
They will have every Ip from 0.0.0.0-256.256.256.256
So then, they will block all "known" and Ip's that will be used by flooders.

A minor drawback though will be that you won't be able to connect to anything else either.

No users, no websites, no email, etc. You won't even be able to connect to yourself (using lopback) as your the, 0.0.0.127 will be in their antip2p blocklist

Mabye then, most folks will be enlightened to it's uselessness.

Cheers

Bearded Blunder · « **Reply #52 on:** April 24, 2007, 04:31:30 pm »

That would be 0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255 they don't go up to 256 as there's only 256 values in total for each octet & 0 counts as one of them...

This in no way affects the point you're making, I'm just being pedantic

Sophosaurus · « **Reply #53 on:** April 24, 2007, 05:16:47 pm »

PeerGuardian Pro: for ($ip=0; $ip<256; $ip++) {block $ip.$ip.$ip.$ip}

jeni · « **Reply #54 on:** April 24, 2007, 09:10:37 pm »

not sure how to do any of this I would like to try win mx but am gettling so much conflicting info i am scared to know what to do as i am a newbie.... ok so do i need the program a patch and this peer guar=dioan as well...... plz help :shock:

KM · « **Reply #55 on:** April 24, 2007, 09:15:48 pm »

you go to www.winmxgroup.com, install it, start using it - that is a patched working winmx

this entire thread is about the fact that running peer guardian is bad

warezcrc · « **Reply #56 on:** June 23, 2007, 10:57:03 am »

I really don't know why people are so obsessed with security nowdays. I installed Peerguardian once, I removed it equally quickly. I have friends that have firewalls and sorts of shit "protecting" them. I have a wee bit of Antivirus soft and a Adwatch, nothing more.

The rest I don't care for. There's no need, at least, I believe.

Quote:
Beware of stupid people in large crowds. You never know what might happen.

Rambler · « **Reply #57 on:** July 04, 2007, 05:19:48 pm »

so when we could not connect one of the fixes was a new host file and to install peerguardian do we still need these?

Me Here · « **Reply #58 on:** July 04, 2007, 10:51:50 pm »

Rambler,

No. You dont need PG if your running the patch located here:

https://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/connection.html

This has the up to date blocklist and filters search resluts as well..

Rambler · « **Reply #59 on:** July 04, 2007, 11:58:15 pm »

Thank You Me Here.... I hate extra programs, and like to make sure it will actually help. I was pretty sure that once you figured out the how to patch the patch (More or less

) I would not need peerguardian. I love the way you have blocked all the bad guys without an extra program I have to worry about.

Keep up the excellent work
Rambler

Author Topic: Peerguardian: The Facts (Read 107507 times)

KM

Interested

G Visbach

Frack-me

KM

jeni

KM

warezcrc