BitTorrent update - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on BitTorrent update - Ubuntu ; The Wizard of Oz wrote: > According to the CBC (network TV), if you are in Canada the > Bell/Sympatico system of ISPs are applying some heavy duty traffic > shaping to unencrypted packet transfers. Particularly video and > bittorrent. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: BitTorrent update

  1. Re: BitTorrent update

    The Wizard of Oz wrote:

    > According to the CBC (network TV), if you are in Canada the
    > Bell/Sympatico system of ISPs are applying some heavy duty traffic
    > shaping to unencrypted packet transfers. Particularly video and
    > bittorrent. Shaw limits bandwidth based on the client name (multiple
    > private individuals have talked with their techsupport and some will
    > confirm this). According to certain "news" web sites the same thing is
    > happening with individual ISPs in the States as well.


    They're *all* doing it, you'd have to have lived in a cave to not have
    heard about this already.

    My broadband provider does not shape their traffic, it's in their TOS
    and it's clear from my speeds.

    >This *may* explain your transfer rate.


    Not likely, as a newer version of the same client works much better.

  2. Re: BitTorrent update

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Dirk T. Verbeek" wrote in message
    > news:47ebb6a6$0$14352$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
    >> Cork Soaker schreef:
    >>> Meat Plow wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:05:07 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >>>>

    >>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How do you torrent enthusiasts really know for sure that the segmented
    >>>>> parts of downloaded programs are not infected with some undesirable
    >>>>> virus,
    >>>>> Trojan, etc.?

    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> When you use public torrents you take your chances. Have good defenses
    >>>> if
    >>>> you use Windoze or just use linux.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Against what?

    >>
    >> Against malware being downloaded.
    >>
    >> Others have already explained why it _should_ be impossible to tamper
    >> with (parts of) a file being available.
    >>
    >> But it as absolutely not unheard of that infected files are made
    >> available!
    >> And once something is on a tracker it's difficult or even impossible to
    >> remove it.
    >>
    >> So after downloading it it's wise to first do a virus scan before running
    >> it on a less robust OS.

    >
    > Less robust than typing in the user(root) password when prompted type of
    > OS? You can't stop stupid users by adding a prompt to continue, they just
    > will.
    >
    >>
    >> Basically I don't expose my Windows computer to the net, it is for
    >> business only.

    >
    > You can.. its safe unless you are an idiot.


    Bull**** and YOUR the idiot around here.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    Q: What OS is built for lusers?
    A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

    Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
    Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6



  3. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >> You must have missed the point.
    >>
    >> The point was, this was a valid question on security.

    >
    > I see, fair enough.
    >
    >> You correctly assume I don't know how torrents work, but you perhaps
    >> didn't consider I was looking for knowledge -- an answer.
    >>
    >> Let's try again....
    >>
    >> So who creates and distributes CRCs? Can this CRC also be hacked by a
    >> person looking to cause trouble?

    >
    > CRC, Hash tables, or whatever you call them, are created from the file
    > content itself. All files have CRCs, this is how the OS knows the
    > file is not corrupt, or not just plain nonsense.
    >
    >> Or is the file's CRC maintained on some "respectable" site, and then
    >> the torrent software simply fetches the various parts from wherever,
    >> comparing parts with CRCs of each part, and when there is a mismatch,
    >> going after the same part elsewhere?

    >
    > The original "tracker" tells the torrent client everything it needs to
    > know about the particular torrent. Every node in the network then
    > maintains integrity.
    > Those parts of the torrent that fail the test, are dropped.
    > Similarly, those nodes on the network that fail are blocked and
    > dropped. Only good copies of files are ever transferred, making for
    > multiple perfect copies of the original source file.
    >
    >> What about security considerations when allowing unknown people to
    >> access your PC for torrent file parts.

    >
    > So long as the client software is not written by a blind man, people
    > can only access the files relevant to the torrent. Some clients take
    > this further and won't even let you access files if you're client is
    > not set to "seed", or share what it already has, and most clients
    > report you for not doing so (to other clients that are listening).
    >
    > Any badly written software running on a network can be exploited to
    > allow full access to files, but I've never heard this happening on a
    > torrent network.
    > P2P clients like Kazaa, however, are much more vulnerable because
    > people who don't know what they're doing have a tendency of sharing
    > their whole hard drive, or important documents.
    >
    > Torrent transfers can also be encrypted, to stop snooping.
    >
    >> Finally, do you believe a torrent download is faster than a FTP
    >> and/or HTTP download?

    >
    > That all depends on the bandwidth available via the particular HTTP,
    > FTP or Torrent server(s). Downloading from high-bandwidth sites such
    > as Microsoft, for example, will always max out my connection, but
    > downloading patches for games from all those horrible ad-supported
    > "please pay to download" sites will not, and a torrent would be more
    > successful in fully utilising available bandwidth.
    > So it's all relative to the particular download.
    >
    > But torrents are distributed - they take the strain off of one server
    > and makes everyone a server. If one server goes down, it's no big
    > loss, there's always another. This makes files always available.
    >
    > For example, if the Ubuntu site went down, there'll always be
    > somewhere you can get a .torrent file from, and therefore still get a
    > distro anyway (ignoring all the mirror servers).
    >
    > When in doubt, ask Wikipedia:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.torrent



    I do want to thank you, and Meat Plow, for your helpful information. Not
    only does it appear to be correct, but it proved to me that you knew
    something about the topic, and weren't like some of the other posters in
    this group who make flaming comments, but can't produce any education on
    the topic.

    For my own research I had found
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%28protocol%29 very useful for a
    primer on the P2P torrent topic, and I thank you for your additions and
    real-world experience.

    One last comment on my previous final question on comparing speed
    between torrents and FTP: Can you give your opinion based upon all equal
    bandwidth and download speed? I seem to believe the extra overhead of
    torrent control would extend the download time beyond what a simple FTP
    (or HTTP) download would take. I suspect a real-world test would
    probably be unavailable since files are either in a torrent, or on a FTP
    server, but not both.

    I had to use a torrent recently for some distro download. I forget which
    distro now, but there was no FTP nor HTTP download listed. It seemed to
    take a long time, compared to only a few minutes for a complete CD image
    using FTP. Maybe the tracker/torrent sites were just slow, or perhaps
    too many leeching and not serving?


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  4. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Moog wrote:
    >> Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>> I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    >>> told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    >>> removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >>>
    >>> Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    >>> around 1kB/s normally!).
    >>>
    >>> Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed "properly"?
    >>> Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will be the same
    >>> situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.

    >>
    >> I quite like ktorrent. It's a KDE app, so will need some other
    >> dependencies to be installed with it, but I have superb speed with it
    >> here.
    >>
    >> Could be worth you looking at it.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Hi Moog,
    >
    > I'd JUST installed Transmission 1.06 (5136) before your post arrived,and
    > it's using 100% of my down speed (and up speed) :-)
    >
    > I have installed ktorrent too but I think I'll stick with Transmission
    > for now. If it ain't broke... :-D


    Enjoy. I've not yet used Transmission. I'll give it a go seeing as the
    Ubuntu team will be making it the standard client in Hardy.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  5. Re: BitTorrent update

    John F. Morse schreef:

    >
    >
    > I do want to thank you, and Meat Plow, for your helpful information. Not
    > only does it appear to be correct, but it proved to me that you knew
    > something about the topic, and weren't like some of the other posters in
    > this group who make flaming comments, but can't produce any education on
    > the topic.


    An unmoderated group like this one has it's trolls, that's what kill
    files are for...
    >
    > For my own research I had found
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%28protocol%29 very useful for a
    > primer on the P2P torrent topic, and I thank you for your additions and
    > real-world experience.
    >
    > One last comment on my previous final question on comparing speed
    > between torrents and FTP: Can you give your opinion based upon all equal
    > bandwidth and download speed? I seem to believe the extra overhead of
    > torrent control would extend the download time beyond what a simple FTP
    > (or HTTP) download would take. I suspect a real-world test would
    > probably be unavailable since files are either in a torrent, or on a FTP
    > server, but not both.
    >
    > I had to use a torrent recently for some distro download. I forget which
    > distro now, but there was no FTP nor HTTP download listed. It seemed to
    > take a long time, compared to only a few minutes for a complete CD image
    > using FTP. Maybe the tracker/torrent sites were just slow, or perhaps
    > too many leeching and not serving?
    >

    Your last question hits the nail square on the head.
    Not enough serving is the issue, that together with the A in front of DSL.
    Many of us on a ADSL broadband line would love to seed at the same speed
    that we're leaching but alas, that's not in it.

    More generally, providing there are enough seeders a torrent should only
    be limited by your own downstream bandwith.
    The overhead is nothing as serious as on Usenet (~1/8th) but obviously a
    little more than a straight FTP or HTML session.
    >


  6. Re: BitTorrent update



    "NoStop" wrote in message
    news:fsgvaa01bsk@news1.newsguy.com...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "Dirk T. Verbeek" wrote in message
    >> news:47ebb6a6$0$14352$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
    >>> Cork Soaker schreef:
    >>>> Meat Plow wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:05:07 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How do you torrent enthusiasts really know for sure that the
    >>>>>> segmented
    >>>>>> parts of downloaded programs are not infected with some undesirable
    >>>>>> virus,
    >>>>>> Trojan, etc.?
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When you use public torrents you take your chances. Have good defenses
    >>>>> if
    >>>>> you use Windoze or just use linux.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Against what?
    >>>
    >>> Against malware being downloaded.
    >>>
    >>> Others have already explained why it _should_ be impossible to tamper
    >>> with (parts of) a file being available.
    >>>
    >>> But it as absolutely not unheard of that infected files are made
    >>> available!
    >>> And once something is on a tracker it's difficult or even impossible to
    >>> remove it.
    >>>
    >>> So after downloading it it's wise to first do a virus scan before
    >>> running
    >>> it on a less robust OS.

    >>
    >> Less robust than typing in the user(root) password when prompted type of
    >> OS? You can't stop stupid users by adding a prompt to continue, they just
    >> will.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Basically I don't expose my Windows computer to the net, it is for
    >>> business only.

    >>
    >> You can.. its safe unless you are an idiot.

    >
    > Bull**** and YOUR the idiot around here.


    Hi, you are still being a moron I see.


  7. Re: BitTorrent update

    Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

    > Your last question hits the nail square on the head.
    > Not enough serving is the issue, that together with the A in front of
    > DSL.
    > Many of us on a ADSL broadband line would love to seed at the same
    > speed that we're leaching but alas, that's not in it.
    >
    > More generally, providing there are enough seeders a torrent should
    > only be limited by your own downstream bandwith.
    > The overhead is nothing as serious as on Usenet (~1/8th) but obviously
    > a little more than a straight FTP or HTML session.


    Good points!

    I have an asymmetrical upload cap of 800 kb/s on my cable ISP (compared
    to 8 Mb/s down). The upload cap would restrict my "serving" to a fairly
    low speed, compared to a site that had a big pipe.

    I do run a NNTP news servers and an FTP server, but that FTP upload
    speed is nothing like the speed I can download at from a "commercial"
    FTP site.

    So, "home" P2P servers are hindered form the git-go. I will need to
    study more on torrents to see if they can provide multiple feeds to
    overcome this. IOW, if I could download 1/10 of a file from ten
    different servers, then the speed would be nearly as fast as an FTP
    server on a major backbone.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  8. Re: BitTorrent update

    dennis@home wrote:

    >> Basically I don't expose my Windows computer to the net, it is for
    >> business only.

    >
    > You can.. its safe unless you are an idiot.


    I'm afraid I have to agree. Windows is safe unless you're a moron.
    From experience, however, most Windows users are morons, that's why we
    have viruses chewing up the Internet.

    Once upon a time, of course, a virus was clever. Now, they rely on
    complete morons clicking on a "Do not click on this link" link and
    installing the "You don't know this person, it will rape your computer
    and you along with it" application, and then being amazed by the fact
    that their computers have been raped and then them along with it.

    Maybe they should all be FORCED to use a different operating system,
    like DOS.

    Mind you, the schools aren't helping. Information Technology is
    pointless, it really is, I was appalled by the lack of education those
    classes give, and not one word about security.
    In fact, infecting the PCs at school with a very simple virus that
    bamboozled the retards that "taught" was just something to do...

    Oh, and they ran Windows 98!!! Not even an NT-based OS!

  9. Re: BitTorrent update



    "Cork Soaker" wrote in message
    news:fsibjh$gf2$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>> Basically I don't expose my Windows computer to the net, it is for
    >>> business only.

    >>
    >> You can.. its safe unless you are an idiot.

    >
    > I'm afraid I have to agree. Windows is safe unless you're a moron.
    > From experience, however, most Windows users are morons, that's why we
    > have viruses chewing up the Internet.


    Most computers are compromised by hacking the user, the same as phishing is
    done.
    The trouble is that if you let the same group loose on linux they will
    compromise linux the same way.
    Nothing in linux actually makes it any more secure against an idiot user.





  10. Re: BitTorrent update

    dennis@home wrote:

    > Most computers are compromised by hacking the user, the same as phishing
    > is done.
    > The trouble is that if you let the same group loose on linux they will
    > compromise linux the same way.
    > Nothing in linux actually makes it any more secure against an idiot user.


    Linux is inherently secure against malware because of the owner-group-other
    separation and because the user has no system privileges unless
    specifically acquired with password for every single specific task and also
    because of runlevels. No system can be secure against idiot users. Linux
    can be even very insecure, e.g. if the root account has a weak password, if
    sshd service (or even worst, telnet) is activated on a public ip and so on.
    But that is not Linux's fault, it is idiot user's fault. No anti-malware can
    protect the system against idiot users. A good administrator can.

  11. Re: BitTorrent update

    BlueChip wrote:
    >(or even worst, telnet) is activated on a public ip and so on.



    I've noticed a lot net routers run telnet (run a port-scan). Surely
    they're vulnerable to a brute force attack? Do these system have the
    ability to just block an IP address that tries "too hard"?

    Just wondering... don't want my routers being messed with. :-D

  12. Re: BitTorrent update



    "BlueChip" wrote in message
    news:fsijo2$hfp$1@aioe.org...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> Most computers are compromised by hacking the user, the same as phishing
    >> is done.
    >> The trouble is that if you let the same group loose on linux they will
    >> compromise linux the same way.
    >> Nothing in linux actually makes it any more secure against an idiot user.

    >
    > Linux is inherently secure against malware because of the
    > owner-group-other
    > separation and because the user has no system privileges unless
    > specifically acquired with password for every single specific task and
    > also
    > because of runlevels.


    But as I stated, idiot users will just type the password when asked. They do
    it on windows, they will do it on Ubuntu or anything else. Unix is only
    secure if you don't give the user admin rights and don't tell them the root
    password.. pretty much the same as NT.


    > No system can be secure against idiot users. Linux
    > can be even very insecure, e.g. if the root account has a weak password,
    > if
    > sshd service (or even worst, telnet) is activated on a public ip and so
    > on.
    > But that is not Linux's fault, it is idiot user's fault. No anti-malware
    > can
    > protect the system against idiot users. A good administrator can.


    There are no admins on home PCs, just users, some good, most idiots. Linux
    has been lucky so far in that the idiots have bough PCs with OSes already
    installed, however that may change and then there will be a lot of idiots
    armed with linux.

    You can already see the idiots now.. the ones that claim linux is secure and
    that you don't have to do anything to stay secure.


  13. Re: BitTorrent update



    "Cork Soaker" wrote in message
    news:fsikcq$p71$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > BlueChip wrote:
    >>(or even worst, telnet) is activated on a public ip and so on.

    >
    >
    > I've noticed a lot net routers run telnet (run a port-scan). Surely
    > they're vulnerable to a brute force attack? Do these system have the
    > ability to just block an IP address that tries "too hard"?
    >
    > Just wondering... don't want my routers being messed with. :-D


    Check your DNS settings.. its an easy way to start a hack.. just change them
    in the router and you can forward the user to anywhere you like without them
    knowing. I prefer static DNS on the PC myself.


  14. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker schreef:
    > BlueChip wrote:
    >> (or even worst, telnet) is activated on a public ip and so on.

    >
    >
    > I've noticed a lot net routers run telnet (run a port-scan). Surely
    > they're vulnerable to a brute force attack? Do these system have the
    > ability to just block an IP address that tries "too hard"?
    >
    > Just wondering... don't want my routers being messed with. :-D


    Assuming I understand what you mean, the telnet access to a router for
    maintenance purposes is generally only possible from the inside of the
    netwerk, not from the side exposed to the internet.
    This limits the chance of compromise to those you allow on your network.

  15. Re: BitTorrent update

    BlueChip wrote:
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Most computers are compromised by hacking the user, the same as phishing
    >> is done.
    >> The trouble is that if you let the same group loose on linux they will
    >> compromise linux the same way.
    >> Nothing in linux actually makes it any more secure against an idiot user.
    >>

    >
    > Linux is inherently secure against malware because of the owner-group-other
    > separation and because the user has no system privileges unless
    > specifically acquired with password for every single specific task and also
    > because of runlevels. No system can be secure against idiot users. Linux
    > can be even very insecure, e.g. if the root account has a weak password, if
    > sshd service (or even worst, telnet) is activated on a public ip and so on.
    > But that is not Linux's fault, it is idiot user's fault. No anti-malware can
    > protect the system against idiot users. A good administrator can.
    >


    There are a lot of "idiot" users out there.

    Think back how many have you ran across who don't even use a password on
    their Windows PC.

    When you challenge them for their reason, it's usually something like
    they are in control of their PC, it is theirs, and they don't need to be
    bothered by having to enter a password whenever they want to use their PC.

    Of course they just don't get it that they are plugged into the world,
    and the world doesn't need a password to use their PC either.

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  16. Re: BitTorrent update

    dennis@home wrote:

    > There are no admins on home PCs, just users, some good, most idiots.



    Who administers your home PC(s)?

    Do you believe there are good users, and idiot users, but not
    administrative users?


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  17. Re: BitTorrent update



    "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    newsu9Hj.49648$D_3.30617@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> There are no admins on home PCs, just users, some good, most idiots.

    >
    >
    > Who administers your home PC(s)?
    >
    > Do you believe there are good users, and idiot users, but not
    > administrative users?


    Who administrates your machine? I bet its you.. i.e.. no admin, just a user.
    I bet you don't get any changes you make cleared with anyone else to be sure
    they are safe do you?
    That is what admin is about, or at least what it should be about.




  18. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > The Wizard of Oz wrote:
    >
    >> According to the CBC (network TV), if you are in Canada the
    >> Bell/Sympatico system of ISPs are applying some heavy duty traffic
    >> shaping to unencrypted packet transfers. Particularly video and
    >> bittorrent. Shaw limits bandwidth based on the client name (multiple
    >> private individuals have talked with their techsupport and some will
    >> confirm this). According to certain "news" web sites the same thing is
    >> happening with individual ISPs in the States as well.

    >
    > They're *all* doing it, you'd have to have lived in a cave to not have
    > heard about this already.


    Does a basement count. ;-)

    > My broadband provider does not shape their traffic, it's in their TOS
    > and it's clear from my speeds.


    Mine says nothing about shaping traffic. They still do.

    >> This *may* explain your transfer rate.

    >
    > Not likely, as a newer version of the same client works much better.


    My ISP does its shaping based on the individual client. It could be
    they look for specific versions or it could be the new version IS indeed
    better. In our case there are clients which are not in the list. These
    clients are MUCH faster than those in the list. Of course this opens a
    whole new kettle of worms.

    Later
    Mike

  19. Re: BitTorrent update

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    > newsu9Hj.49648$D_3.30617@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>> There are no admins on home PCs, just users, some good, most idiots.

    >>
    >>
    >> Who administers your home PC(s)?
    >>
    >> Do you believe there are good users, and idiot users, but not
    >> administrative users?

    >
    > Who administrates your machine? I bet its you.. i.e.. no admin, just a
    > user.
    > I bet you don't get any changes you make cleared with anyone else to
    > be sure they are safe do you?
    > That is what admin is about, or at least what it should be about.



    I administer 54 computers in my home. These are all considered "home"
    computers, since there is no longer any business (that earns any income).

    I am a user when I'm using. I am an administrator when I'm administrating.

    That was the point of my question.

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  20. Re: BitTorrent update

    The Wizard of Thick wrote:


    >
    > My ISP does its shaping based on the individual client. It could be
    > they look for specific versions or it could be the new version IS indeed
    > better. In our case there are clients which are not in the list. These
    > clients are MUCH faster than those in the list.




    *LMFARO* "...they look for specific versions..."


    You don't have the slightest clue Mike. If you don't know, don't post.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast