KM Actions And How They Affect You

[Scyre]

LMFAO @ win95 being a sound program!

Although you are making a valid point concerning the obsoletion of something that the public doesn't care for.

I just couldn't help but laugh at the win95 example

Be Good!
Scyre

[Zénar]

I don't think it's damaging the network because all UDP packet are sent to non-existant IPs (1.x.x.x) and not to the network direcly. It's just may only take a few more bandwith.

[Baby Techie Lovely Lisa]

THe point also tongue in cheek along with the obselete factor, was  windows 95 is sounder than WCS at the minute lol.

[GhostShip]

Zenar if that was the case can you explain how the 1.x.x.x IP's are available from the peer caches ?

In theory it should not occur but in fact as any of the peer cache operators will confirm WCS is placing bad network addresses that are entering the peer cache system, this is real damage.

Set up a peer cache yourself and look, then post back here after checking facts, opinions are plentiful but not really as helpful as real tech data gathered by your own hands.

[Zénar]

Well, you may be right. I really don't know myself since I don't have any peer caches. Just to know, did you tryed to filter the incomming datas to not add these IPs?

[GhostShip]

Yes Zenar we have asked all the cache operators to add some blocking of the range 1.0.0.0 - 1.255.255.255, as this is the affected range.

They are seeing a heck of a lot of traffic from WCS even blocking it ties up resources so it really is time KM acted sensibly and did the right thing.

You can get a copy of his peer cache btw from the archive if you wish to do your own testing.

[Zénar]

I've blocked these IPs with my firewall since 6 hours and you know, I've bloqued these IPs 292000 times. 283000 requests in 5 hours, that's very much for only one WCS.

[Zénar]

A correction, it's 283000 requests in total. I've made a little mistake in typing lol.

[Mechanic]

from what I read in this thread,  The wcs Bug seems to be with the 1.8 versions.  does the 1.74 version also have the extra bandwith requirements involved?  If not that seems to be a good alternative until a room operator can choose and set up their new server.

I have seen several say they are going to Ouka  and some to FX server,  other than WCS whick seems to be best server,  most stable and easiest to work with like WCS?  how does the programing for those servers compare with WCS?

These questions when answered can help some of us make the choice as to which route to go.  If they require many changes it makes it hard to have to reprogram time and again, as well as learning several new servers b4 making a good choice.

I have been hosting for a few years now and i have only expeirience with mx server and WCS, as i have a busy schedule learning several servers will be a big burden.  if anyone would help   thanks!

[]2aven (R.I.P.)]

  Yes I did a similar test last week but I d/led peer guardian (just the software, no lists) and made my own blocklist, put that range in, and named it test. Then I connected my server (FXS) and got a similar outragous number of hits. That kind of activity on my conn was too much but also i was worried my isp would be alerted of my filesharing. I think its a vulnurability in the servers (WCS, FXS) that someone has used against us. The latest update of ouka took care of that thats why im using it. I'm no longer getting 1,000,000 packet requests a day like i was. Just test it for yourself. So where do we stand if this "bug" is not fixed can it blocked with the new patch? Any word on how much longer it will be for the release of a new patch?

[Zénar]

Right now, all these IPs are blocked but I don't want to stay with this version for a long time... After 7 hours, WCS sent 380000 requests. In a day, it should hit easily 1302000 requests...

Maybe that's why some people are disconnecting like me before. My router was not able to handle all these "false" connections.

[*^*Åü§§ïëgïrl*^*]

from what I read in this thread,  The wcs Bug seems to be with the 1.8 versions.  does the 1.74 version also have the extra bandwith requirements involved?  If not that seems to be a good alternative until a room operator can choose and set up their new server.

I have seen several say they are going to Ouka  and some to FX server,  other than WCS whick seems to be best server,  most stable and easiest to work with like WCS?  how does the programing for those servers compare with WCS?

These questions when answered can help some of us make the choice as to which route to go.  If they require many changes it makes it hard to have to reprogram time and again, as well as learning several new servers b4 making a good choice.

I would like to see an answer to these questions as well.  As a dial-up host I have, in the past, been unable to host using Ouka.  The bandwidth required was too much.  FXS 1.3.7 and 1.3.9 won't connect for me since the last patch update.  Neither will WCS 1.7.4.  WCS 1.8rc series seems to be the only server I'm currently able to use.

Just the facts please.. I'm not interested in who's to blame or who did, or didn't do what.

[Max™]

to be honest Aussiegirl,
i dont think its a bug, i think its implanted with no intention of removing,
i did a quick test and the wcs 1.8cr did connect as the patch is built in, when i closed the program, it was still connected & running
in the end i used my firewall to kill the wcs to remove it,

[]2aven (R.I.P.)]

Well if no one is gonna reply here I guess I'll give it a go. Your options Aussiegirl, in my opinion that is, are these ...

   1) do nothing and use a server that is sending false data into the network

   2) switch to fxs which is connectable if you put the 3rd party patch in your fx folder but be sure to add this block to your filewall or router .. 0.0.0.1-2.255.255.255  (this didnt work for me, the massive amt. of packet requests knocked my router out every 1 - 2 hours )

   3) switch to ouka and connect only 1 or 2 of the primaries if your on dialup and be free of the attack

   4) roll back to wcs 1.74 and use the mxpie.info patch to connect

I hope this helps you.

[Scyre]

Cheers Raven

That is a very clearly written list of options and will help many others in addition to Aussiegirl.

Be Good!
Scyre

[MinersLantern]

I use 1.74 still, got it to connect via the hosts file after you know who disconnnected it. A few names here a few ips there, it now connects. Anywayz...
1.74 when you look at it thru your firewall logs STILL does the 1.xxx.xxx.xxx thing.
Version 1.74 has never done this before, i've used it for years, and it is not the once in awhile attempts at 1.xxx.xxx.xxx like real winmx, robo, and stuff does, 1.74 hammers constantly trying those fake ips. I have it set to dialup, and firewalled, would much rather run ouka, but on my one (old) pc that does the hosting, ouka instantly crashes if I try to connect on the old pc, for whatever reason after rebuilding it even.
Bottom line though, anything km has had a hand in seems to be non-trustable.

1) WCS 1.74 has worked for years just fine.
2) KM got a bug up his ass, and now it does the 1.xxx.xxx.xxx thing.
3) and no, I changed nothing on the pc before it started doing that.

I wonder why? Could it be he has a secret 'loop' in WCS in general?? hmmm?

[Lagerlout666]

The reason why is winmx passes ips around its primarys, if you are using pie caches to connect your winmx i sure can bet they dont have that range blocked like winmxworld does and they are giving you false nodes. IE the 1.xxx range, i would recommend replacing the pie caches with winmxworld cache ip's, thier are a few that are static, mine static, maybe someone could knock you up a host file for your server or you can use the ws32.dll. just place in the samedirectory.

[*^*Åü§§ïëgïrl*^*]

The reason why is winmx passes ips around its primarys, if you are using pie caches to connect your winmx i sure can bet they dont have that range blocked like winmxworld does and they are giving you false nodes. IE the 1.xxx range, i would recommend replacing the pie caches with winmxworld cache ip's, thier are a few that are static, mine static, maybe someone could knock you up a host file for your server or you can use the ws32.dll. just place in the samedirectory.

... would the use of PG2 with the IP range added in the block list be the same as a specifically modified host file for the server ? If not.. has anyone tried making the modified host file ? PG2 appears to be a heavy session hog for some users and I'm wondering if someone would offer to a hosts file for us to try ?

I'm seeing a lot of alternative options floated about, and I thank those who responded.. but still Ouka (unless it's been updated and has a option to reduce primaries for dial-up hosts like myself) is not a suitable option for me. btw, what is the latest version of that server ?

In my temporary switch to PIE 3.5 to bypass the September 8 connection problem, I tried FXS.. with connection success (1.3.9).. now that I'm back on mod2a 3.0 patch, FXS won't connect.

[GhostShip]

It often suprises me that despite giving out the best advice here folks seem slow or loath to want to bite the bullet and do the right thing.

Ditching WCS is the only valid option to stem the flow of this problem as it is the cause of it, when all rooms take this action the problem will cease immediately.
Using a host file solution is ok if your just running a chat server but anyone doing this with winmx running is just helping add flooders to the network.

I admit my advice it not something easy for some long time WCS hosts but it is the right option and I ask you all once again to ask anyone running WCS to discontinue doing so.

[*^*Åü§§ïëgïrl*^*]

That's why I'm posting Ghost.. no-one seems to understand that in order for me to ditch WCS I need To be able to find a server that works for me.. something that will allow FXS to connect, or something with dial-up options to host. If the servers aren't available then in order to host I have to use PIE 3.5 to connect FXS. Look at the questions being asked... and see what issues are arising out of this latest problem.