PG2 Blocklists - Why You Shouldnt Rely On Them For Protection

[GhostShip]

It seems folks it's not just ourselves who have spotted how poor the blutak blocklists where for blocking the flooding companies.

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38295

Slyck began the investigation when BlueTack's 'Paranoid' IP filter blocked one of TVUnderground's new eDonkey2000 servers. A request for comment or information on the matter to BlueTack's team went unanswered. To this day, why BlueTack has blocked only one of TVUnderground's servers is unknown. In the meantime, Slyck is currently in the possession of a copy of BlueTack's IP filter lists, and further investigation into related matters appeared warranted.

While BlueTack may still perpetuate the idea that their filters are 99% effective, these latest findings will only fuel criticisms towards BlueTack's actual effectiveness. A complete test might not be possible short of creating a simple program to test every single number or spending weeks hand-testing every single Media Defender IP address. In the mean time, it seems very apparent that BlueTack's filters have a few holes

Please note that I have selected some portions out of the main article as it want possible to cut the other bits out without creating confusion, I would prefer you all read it in its full glory as it explains what we told winmx users some time ago about blutak/pg2 not doing the job it claimed to do.

I hope those fostering the Peer Guardian 2 program on folks without a decent blocklist are now clear they should swallow their pride and use the winmx community blocklist list that is guaranteed to be of more use that any other similar protection currently available.

[bughunter]

LMAO...... tell us something we dont already know, its been well known for a long time that bluetac,s lists are pathetically inaccurate and always have been...........and as slyics have found out should you have the audacity to question their competance , your either meet with total silence, or if you should post on there forum , your post is removed and your ip banned as winmxworld found out when our cache servers suddenly appeared on there block list as being anti p2p........
but its good to see that finally a independant source has verified what winmxworld has known for a couple of years..........
sadly thou for winmx and its users those that have been responsible for the promoting of bluetacs block lists are also those that have assisted the cartel to cause havic on this network, so its hard to see them backing down and recommending winmxworlds block list......
but hey tomorrow is another day, and all we can do is hope common sense prevails.............

[Lagerlout666]

http://www.slyck.com/story1593_MediaDefender_Leak_Offers_BlueTack_Users_a_Reality_Check

The total number of IPs used by Media Defender starting with 116 was 1,474. Obviously, BlueTack did block all IPs that started with 116, but how many Media Defender IPs were successfully blocked? When Slyck investigated, there was a common theme that blocklists seemingly jumped over several ranges used by Media Defender. After some extensive study using the Level1 list for anti-p2p companies and the 'Paranoid' list, BlueTack would have successfully blocked 16 IPs. Thus, this sample test offered 1.09% protection against Media Defender in that range.

The IPs that were successfully blocked were: 116.255.1.109, 116.255.1.154, 116.255.1.244, 116.255.1.27, 116.255.1.52, 116.255.1.85, 116.215.157.243, 116.212.14.223, 116.199.202.170, 116.199.202.240, 116.199.207.83, 116.199.207.84, 116.199.226.78 , 116.199.227.11, 116.199.227.27, 116.199.227.67. The remaining 1,458 IPs would still be allowed through even with these two filters being used today.

While BlueTack may still perpetuate the idea that their filters are 99% effective, these latest findings will only fuel criticisms towards BlueTack's actual effectiveness. A complete test might not be possible short of creating a simple program to test every single number or spending weeks hand-testing every single Media Defender IP address. In the mean ime, it seems very apparent that BlueTack's filters have a few holes.

Just a addition on this, it appears bluetack are next for taking a damn good hammering, about bloody time, and i allow this to be quoted on their forum when they next start bashing trusted P2P sites.

   "Your lists are shite, You listen to morons that just add people that piss them off. Your lists are just over 1% effective, as proved by slyck, you bashed the only stable Winmx peer caches when winmxgroup started. I wont advise or ever use your lists. Anyone who advises their use has delusions. Your time has come, i look forward to watching your replacement grow. Have a nice life an be happy blocking your Mum, sister, aunty, uncle 90% of friends, but not one of your media buddies. If i didnt know any better id say you had sold your soul to them so you can just play wid mediadefender and macrovision and get a cut for all the ip's you have stitched up"

All i can say is im glad Winmx doesnt have any of these problems and has the most effective list of all the p2p clients

[Me Here]

I would just like to take this chance to say

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLOOOOLLOLOL

[Scyre]

I have suspected bluetack was on the side of the cartel every since they blocked peercaches for winmx.
They could never produce one good reason for doing that...


Be Good