Security

[infringer]

there has to be a way to create a true endpoint to endpoint encryption system... securing the users IP numbers by encrypting them in a secure transfer for one.
This can be achived through a method like ants P2P using an ID number which changes everytime upon connection.

Another thing needed is the file sent also needs to be not known.
A way to do this is to database all links to files in movie type should be named externally as HomeMovieXXXXXXXX the xxxxx being its true name encrypted from prying eyes and returned unencryptable by anyone but the user who requests the movie as its being relayed through the network and for Music SongIwroteXXXXXXXX xxx being the encrypted and so on through the listing of applications then that way as the information is being relayed it will simply look as if it were a home movie being requested from another peer along with some personal refernce numbers or a song and so forth. No proof is then left for anyone to be accused of downloading nothing copywrighted.

The file being searched for should not come up from a particular IP as well.
Which can be used as an encrypted IP in some way the decentralized network must only know your ID number which is given and not relay your true IP.

The file sharing network itself must remain decentralized that way no one can take the fall.

All authors of filesharing software should use one alias such as "Blank" and remain anonymous and never place there name to it.

Security of the program should be challanged on a normal basis and the integrity of the the program being downloaded should be documented in size and revision. Then that way people dont release knock offs of your program with patched backdoors for folks.

Annomity is the only way to win the true battel with the annomity of file sharers on the network it will make it tough enough for anyone to be convicted and then with the annomity of what files being sent or relayed through the server to you upon search, download or send that would put a hex on them working with ISP's to monitor filetransfers by name flowing through the pipe making it a very difficult task for anyone to track or prove that the piracy took place without the physical evidence.

Finally folks who share files should own external hard drives to share and keep there files on. And do away with there data on there main drive considered by some to be infringing in an encrypted manner of deletion.

-infringer-

[Undying Wizard NHD]

you sure like to type dont you LOL

[infringer]

I dunno what it is but in order to clarify my views I find it nessacary to be as descriptive as possible.

But yes I have been told I have some of the longest informitive posts at other board I used to visit and moderate as well.

You are not the first to notice that one ;)

Have a good one and thx for the complement if it was one !

Good luck on staying on the straight and narrow as well.

-infringer-

[Afn]

there has to be a way to create a true endpoint to endpoint encryption system... securing the users IP numbers by encrypting them in a secure transfer for one.
This can be achived through a method like ants P2P using an ID number which changes everytime upon connection.
In theory, I proposed that you could have a chart of all the possible combinations of a 1k block. You read a file, write a text file pointing to the right 1k block. Since your trading key files and not real files, in theory a copy has not been made.

The people that tell you "copy bad", are the same people that want to sell you stuff. "Our copy is good. Good for you. Buy it. Good. Yum." So anyone selling copies to create a living, (while other people are prevented from making enough money to live in wealth, another story for another time), Is going to want to stop the culture that will lead to the end of selling copies of stuff in exchange for payment.

Money and payment are also a social system, the last time I was in the wilderness, I did not see a bear ask before he drank my beer, or a wolf permission to use my computer.

In reality, it is a social system, and social systems need to get whacked, and the people selling bits for a living are going to get a big whack when information becomes valueless as automation and technology advance.

Gahndi knew the system and exploited the flaws of the system against the british to seek independent rule of india. The weakness of the copyright system is that it is based on restriction of information for profiteering.

I would like to see a content pool structure. This will pay the artists. If the government runs the system, the artists will be paid, and the people that are in the industry will have to retire, get compensated by the government or find other work.

A content pool system is not the best of all worlds, but it will work a hell of alot better than our current system. When information drops to near zero value because of glut and connected computer systems, a content pool will stablize the value of information work and allow artists compensation for creating works of art, and a system that allows the content to flow to those who need and want it AND serving the public with an always on, high bandwith internet that delivers a true multimedia experience.

[cpugeniusmv]

there has to be a way to create a true endpoint to endpoint encryption system... securing the users IP numbers by encrypting them in a secure transfer for one.
This can be achived through a method like ants P2P using an ID number which changes everytime upon connection.with the current internet, if/when you connect directly to another computer, it doesn't matter how much you've encrypted your information, the IP of the other computer can be resolved. sure, proxies can be used, or it can be routed through other computers, but realize that most residential broadband has crappy upload speeds, and this can't perform as well as its insecure competitors.

Another thing needed is the file sent also needs to be not known.
A way to do this is to database all links to files in movie type should be named externally as HomeMovieXXXXXXXX the xxxxx being its true name encrypted from prying eyes and returned unencryptable by anyone but the user who requests the movie as its being relayed through the network and for Music SongIwroteXXXXXXXX xxx being the encrypted and so on through the listing of applications then that way as the information is being relayed it will simply look as if it were a home movie being requested from another peer along with some personal refernce numbers or a song and so forth. No proof is then left for anyone to be accused of downloading nothing copywrighted.there's no reason to do this, if a [RI | MP]AA member gets on the network, he could have the same access as any other user.

The file being searched for should not come up from a particular IP as well.
Which can be used as an encrypted IP in some way the decentralized network must only know your ID number which is given and not relay your true IP.at some point in the network there has to be some translation from "ID number" to IP for a file transfer to take place. oops.

The file sharing network itself must remain decentralized that way no one can take the fall.i have nothing to say about that; that's been done.

All authors of filesharing software should use one alias such as "Blank" and remain anonymous and never place there name to it.obviously

Security of the program should be challanged on a normal basis and the integrity of the the program being downloaded should be documented in size and revision. Then that way people dont release knock offs of your program with patched backdoors for folks.that's really up to the end user.

Annomity is the only way to win the true battel with the annomity of file sharers on the network it will make it tough enough for anyone to be convicted and then with the annomity of what files being sent or relayed through the server to you upon search, download or send that would put a hex on them working with ISP's to monitor filetransfers by name flowing through the pipe making it a very difficult task for anyone to track or prove that the piracy took place without the physical evidence.it may be the only way to "win", but it's also very nearly impossible. for complete anonymity to happen, the TCP/IP protocol would need to be completely redesigned with this in mind...even then it would be relatively difficult, and i doubt it would be done for this particular reason (read: money).

Finally folks who share files should own external hard drives to share and keep there files on. And do away with there data on there main drive considered by some to be infringing in an encrypted manner of deletion.

-infringer-external drives, internal drives...what's the difference? are you going to disconnect your drives and hide them every time someone knocks on the door?

[infringer]

CPUGENIUS,

OK so what you are saying is that encryption will not decrease my chances of being caught downloading a copywrighted work off of a P2P network by a long shot. And you believe that the security and encryption that a network provides like ants is worthless and useless to put it in a blunt manner?

Last time I checked this is not true there are forums of encryption which have still not been able to be broken that were around from 1976 I believe it was when good old RSA encryption algo came along.

Ok so maybe what you are saying holds true to a certain extent folks will get caught no matter what they do but... admit it the more obsticles that you place in the way of someone persuing you the less chance you have of being caught. Thats just common sense.

To be realistic I would rather be on a somewhat secure system then on some system when my information is transfered everytime I get pinged for a file that my IP shows up.... There has got to be a way to route the information through a number of users so that the only person that can decrypt the information is the person sending or reciviing while keeping there ip anonymous as well. It would be a network relaying stuff in tunnels basically but as well as keeping folks from looking at whats being transfered in your tunnel the point from which the information originates from is kept unknown as well.

I dunno I have faith in annoymous p2p ventures though many people here dont maybe its because I was one of the few from here that was banned by there ISP.... And I used to think the same way as many ahhhh they'll never get me or ahhh security who needs it whats the point of being annoymous now I realize that my thinking was a bit shallow.

-infringer-

[method]

Anyone think it'd be possible to spoof the IP address in UDP packet headers??

I'm just thinking... if you made a p2p app function so that responses to search-query-broadcasts were verified by a third-party peer (to keep a track on whether a user has the file/file-segment available and is willing to respond/send the data requested)... the first user to respond positively to the query then sends the data via UDP protocol with a spoofed IP address in the headers.

This way the correct data still gets received without exposing the real IP address in the UDP packets and avoids the slow-down that relaying data through a third-party peer would cause. (The most common and viable anonymity technqiue so far) - The spoofed IP could also be relayed by the third-party peer back to the query-making peer - so that it knows to acknowledge UDP data sent by that fake IP address.

This idea is completely theoretical as I'm not 100% sure on whether there's anything used to verify the IP-address in UDP packet headers. There's also the fact that this would only be viable for direct connections (no passively-connecting, routered or networked users could receive files this way.) - But for all other users (the majority) it might be possible, I don't see why not... anyone know?

[crackerjacker]

Anyone think it'd be possible to spoof the IP address in UDP packet headers??

I'm just thinking... if you made a p2p app function so that responses to search-query-broadcasts were verified by a third-party peer (to keep a track on whether a user has the file/file-segment available and is willing to respond/send the data requested)... the first user to respond positively to the query then sends the data via UDP protocol with a spoofed IP address in the headers.

This way the correct data still gets received without exposing the real IP address in the UDP packets and avoids the slow-down that relaying data through a third-party peer would cause. (The most common and viable anonymity technqiue so far) - The spoofed IP could also be relayed by the third-party peer back to the query-making peer - so that it knows to acknowledge UDP data sent by that fake IP address.

This idea is completely theoretical as I'm not 100% sure on whether there's anything used to verify the IP-address in UDP packet headers. There's also the fact that this would only be viable for direct connections (no passively-connecting, routered or networked users could receive files this way.) - But for all other users (the majority) it might be possible, I don't see why not... anyone know?

hi method
this seems interesting.

[cpugeniusmv]

CPUGENIUS,

OK so what you are saying is that encryption will not decrease my chances of being caught downloading a copywrighted work off of a P2P network by a long shot. And you believe that the security and encryption that a network provides like ants is worthless and useless to put it in a blunt manner?

Last time I checked this is not true there are forums of encryption which have still not been able to be broken that were around from 1976 I believe it was when good old RSA encryption algo came along.

Ok so maybe what you are saying holds true to a certain extent folks will get caught no matter what they do but... admit it the more obsticles that you place in the way of someone persuing you the less chance you have of being caught. Thats just common sense.

To be realistic I would rather be on a somewhat secure system then on some system when my information is transfered everytime I get pinged for a file that my IP shows up.... There has got to be a way to route the information through a number of users so that the only person that can decrypt the information is the person sending or reciviing while keeping there ip anonymous as well. It would be a network relaying stuff in tunnels basically but as well as keeping folks from looking at whats being transfered in your tunnel the point from which the information originates from is kept unknown as well.

I dunno I have faith in annoymous p2p ventures though many people here dont maybe its because I was one of the few from here that was banned by there ISP.... And I used to think the same way as many ahhhh they'll never get me or ahhh security who needs it whats the point of being annoymous now I realize that my thinking was a bit shallow.

-infringer-

i'm not saying that encryption is worthless, i'm saying that the TCP/IP protocol always shows the IP address of other computers you are connected to, no matter how much your data is encrypted. i'm also saying that if a member of the MPAA (or RIAA, take your pick) had the same priveleges as you on this network, (keep in mind i'm not talking about routing transfers through other nodes at this point), they would be able to obtain your IP.

in response to routing transfers through other nodes: yeah, it would work. it would be very difficult to get an IP address of a user in this type of situation, but what i was trying to say is that it would also be very slow in comparison to direct transfers on other competing p2p networks.

Anyone think it'd be possible to spoof the IP address in UDP packet headers??

I'm just thinking... if you made a p2p app function so that responses to search-query-broadcasts were verified by a third-party peer (to keep a track on whether a user has the file/file-segment available and is willing to respond/send the data requested)... the first user to respond positively to the query then sends the data via UDP protocol with a spoofed IP address in the headers.

This way the correct data still gets received without exposing the real IP address in the UDP packets and avoids the slow-down that relaying data through a third-party peer would cause. (The most common and viable anonymity technqiue so far) - The spoofed IP could also be relayed by the third-party peer back to the query-making peer - so that it knows to acknowledge UDP data sent by that fake IP address.

This idea is completely theoretical as I'm not 100% sure on whether there's anything used to verify the IP-address in UDP packet headers. There's also the fact that this would only be viable for direct connections (no passively-connecting, routered or networked users could receive files this way.) - But for all other users (the majority) it might be possible, I don't see why not... anyone know?
the only problem i see with that is that i believe there are many routers on the internet that can detect, and drop packets that spoof IPs. that would cause a few problems. (i'm not an expert on TCP and UDP transmissions, or routing, so don't hold me to that)

[Stownplayer]

I don't pretend to be a very technical user but how do you spoof your ip address? I would love to research that.

[cpugeniusmv]

I don't pretend to be a very technical user but how do you spoof your ip address? I would love to research that.
http://www.google.com/search?q=ip%20spoofing&ie=UTF-8&hl=en

again, it is detectable.

[method]

XP supports raw-sockets... allowing you to create TCP/UDP header packets with a spoofed IP.

IP spoofing isn't exactly as "leet" as it used to be either!! :)

[Watchmen]

XP supports raw-sockets... allowing you to create TCP/UDP header packets with a spoofed IP.

IP spoofing isn't exactly as "leet" as it used to be either!! :)

Not my field of expertise...but wouldn't spoofed 'return addresses' be useless in a p2p type environment...I can't think of any practical applications for doing so in the first place legal or otherwise.

[eivioolla]

Anyone think it'd be possible to spoof the IP address in UDP packet headers??

I'm just thinking... if you made a p2p app function so that responses to search-query-broadcasts were verified by a third-party peer (to keep a track on whether a user has the file/file-segment available and is willing to respond/send the data requested)... the first user to respond positively to the query then sends the data via UDP protocol with a spoofed IP address in the headers.

This way the correct data still gets received without exposing the real IP address in the UDP packets and avoids the slow-down that relaying data through a third-party peer would cause. (The most common and viable anonymity technqiue so far) - The spoofed IP could also be relayed by the third-party peer back to the query-making peer - so that it knows to acknowledge UDP data sent by that fake IP address.

This idea is completely theoretical as I'm not 100% sure on whether there's anything used to verify the IP-address in UDP packet headers. There's also the fact that this would only be viable for direct connections (no passively-connecting, routered or networked users could receive files this way.) - But for all other users (the majority) it might be possible, I don't see why not... anyone know?

It was done, the project was called SUMI but never got further than alpha/beta. I managed to download a test file from the test server and every incoming packet had a different IP. :) On the other hand our network is configred so that packets with an address that does not belong to the subnet will be dropped -> spoofed sends not possible.

http://sumi.sourceforge.net/

[eivioolla]

the only problem i see with that is that i believe there are many routers on the internet that can detect, and drop packets that spoof IPs. that would cause a few problems. (i'm not an expert on TCP and UDP transmissions, or routing, so don't hold me to that)

It's not so much routers on the way (they can't know where the packet is originally coming from) but it's the border gateways that you're first connected to at your ISP. There it's easy to see whether a packet with a certain IP can really be coming from the subnet and drop it if not.

[infringer]

I like the program name kinda double edged sounding Sue Me or SUMI lmao has a ring to it wonder if there will be anymore devolopment involved or if they took there program and ran with it to some payware application...

[eivioolla]

The developer said that he wouldn't have time to continue it bceause he started college or something. I tried to talk him to continue the project but it seems to be forgotten, which is too bad because it was a nice try.

[method]

Hmmm.. well, if the ISP only checks that the IP address is coming from that subnet... why not just spoof the last octet of the IP.

@watchmen... I'm not talking about TCP or retaining a connection.... the UDP packets I'm talking about here would be the response-transaction to a request-transaction that had already been made. The data would only need to go one way in this instance.

I'm gonna check out that sumi though... sounds interesting.

[eivioolla]

Hmmm.. well, if the ISP only checks that the IP address is coming from that subnet... why not just spoof the last octet of the IP.
I'm gonna check out that sumi though... sounds interesting.

Because I don't want to get my neighbours into shit because of my sharing. :D Of course if the network and it's spoofing system was well known and popular, you could spoof with your neighbours' addresses (last octet) because IP would be known to be unreliable identifying method in this system. I think many ISPs allow complete spoofing though. Combination of full spoofing and "in-the-subnet" spoofing would make IP identifying pretty unreliable.

[midgetMonkey]

i am not sure if this legal defense would work, but I have a WiFi hub that i open to the public so basically anyone can hop off my internet connection....therefore, plausible deniability....again, not sure if this would work in the US legal system in regards to tort law where the burden of proof is less stringent

also, i am not sure why the ISPs keep track of dynamic IP addresses....wouldn't it be better for them and us if they did not know which user connected to which IP address (thus, they don't need to respond to subpoenas for IP/names and we don't have to think up these massively complex ways to thwart corporate dipsh!ts)...not sure if this is even possible as I am not a tech guru...comments?

[cpugeniusmv]

i am not sure if this legal defense would work, but I have a WiFi hub that i open to the public so basically anyone can hop off my internet connection....therefore, plausible deniability....again, not sure if this would work in the US legal system in regards to tort law where the burden of proof is less stringent

also, i am not sure why the ISPs keep track of dynamic IP addresses....wouldn't it be better for them and us if they did not know which user connected to which IP address (thus, they don't need to respond to subpoenas for IP/names and we don't have to think up these massively complex ways to thwart corporate dipsh!ts)...not sure if this is even possible as I am not a tech guru...comments?
my view on the wifi is such that the owner of the access point should be responsible for securing it. you're paying for the internet, and you (the sole user, according to the license agreement) are responsible for what happens on your connection.

ISPs are probably made to keep some sort of log indicating who is what IP at which time.

[midgetMonkey]

my view on the wifi is such that the owner of the access point should be responsible for securing it. you're paying for the internet, and you (the sole user, according to the license agreement) are responsible for what happens on your connection.

ISPs are probably made to keep some sort of log indicating who is what IP at which time.

hmmm...i tend to disagree with the owner of the access point being responsible (though i do see why some people could see it that way)...case in point, if you own a car and every night you park it in your driveway with the keys in the ignition and somebody decides to "steal" your car and go for a joy ride and happens to accidently run someone over, the owner of the car is not neglible....using this analogy, imagine a non tech savy person installs WiFi in their home without configuring it to block public traffic from using it as they do not know how, someone can easily use that connection without the knowledge or consent of the owner (i.e. steal said connection)....................

again, this is all moot until someone actually tries this defense in the court of law and sets a precedent...however, i foresee this defense working only because in NYC there are so many hot spots including public parks, libraries, coffee shops, airports, etc. that allow people to use wireless internet connections and i cannot foresee starbucks or any other major organization (e.g. city of NY) taking the fall simply because joe blow was sharing copyright files while drinking coffee (EDIT: found this http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/2003-August/007467.html) ...btw, even if you do win the case in the court of law your ISP may cancel your account for violating your TOS, but its better than being sued


as for ISPs, i do not believe they are under federal regulation to maintain logs of user's ip addresses/names (EDIT: i found this at the EFF http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/isp-privacy.php) ...i think there are other reasons they keep logs (e.g. billing, etc.).. if an ISP offered a "no log" guarantee for a slight increase in price i would sign up

Anyone think it'd be possible to spoof the IP address in UDP packet headers??

i think this is possible; however, many ISPs explicitly state in their TOS that attempts to spoof IP addresses will result in termination of service.....

http://www.verizon.net/policies/popups/tos_popup.asp

[eivioolla]

Could it be that the same 'service provider is responsible' as with WiFi would also apply to ISPs -> if they are not able to point who is responsible for the IP, then they are held responsible for it (which would be why they make sure they are _always_ able to point out the customer who's responsible for an IP at a given time)? I don't see why else would they keep logs if they don't have to.

IMO ISP does not have to keep IP logs for billing, they can simply record the time John Doe used the service, there no need to keep the used IP in the records.

[tsafa1]

The more secure you try to make something the more complicated is seems to become. Both in terms of teaching people how to operate and in terms of convincing people that it does what it says it does. Also additional security requires a compromise of system resources and additional bandwidth. From what i see people are going in two directions. One that wants to play it super safe and has abandoned p2p altogether and one that is will to take live on the edge without regaurd for consequences. Only a very small group in the middle that is willing to accept the compromise of speed over security. It is for this reason that i think that the best balance is just enough denyability to make a good defense in court.

From all the feed back i have gotten both here and in the irc channel i feel that further compromising performance for the sake of security would not be appreciated by the vast number of users and does not merit further expansion in that area if your target audience is the United States and Europe.

It is probably no coincidence that ants developed in Italy where p2p users face jail time, rather then just fines, those peopel have a higher stake in security. I would expect that the ultra high security that you are seaking would develope in a place like china where anonymity to the point of invisibility may be a mater of life and death. It might have a better chance there too because from what i read , their internet 6 is many times faster then what we use. Hong Kong seems like a very likly birth place. Just speculating. Imagine being completly invisible on the internet.

[method]

Well.. that's why I thought of this IP-spoofed UDP packets method... because using "bouncer" or "proxy" nodes to achieve anonymity basically halves the efficiency of a transfer... this IP-spoof would allow that to be avoided most of the time.

[midgetMonkey]

Could it be that the same 'service provider is responsible' as with WiFi would also apply to ISPs -> if they are not able to point who is responsible for the IP, then they are held responsible for it (which would be why they make sure they are _always_ able to point out the customer who's responsible for an IP at a given time)? I don't see why else would they keep logs if they don't have to.

IMO ISP does not have to keep IP logs for billing, they can simply record the time John Doe used the service, there no need to keep the used IP in the records.

i am not sure about the billing, that was a guess on my part based on some of the info I read on other sites.....however, ISP are not required to keep logs on IP addresses in order to avoid responsibility (ala Safe Harbor Law)....in fact, they are better off not keeping logs as subpoenas are not applicable if ISP does not have the information demanded of them...which is the exact reason why i believe if you have a WiFi connection in your home you have plausible deniability because you are acting like a free ISP....

anyway, while everyone is trying to come up with complex ways to hide/mask/encrypt IP addresses and identities, i still think the best way is to find a service provider that does not keep logs (in NYC there are several, but i am not sure about elsewhere)............................

comments?

[eivioolla]

Well.. that's why I thought of this IP-spoofed UDP packets method... because using "bouncer" or "proxy" nodes to achieve anonymity basically halves the efficiency of a transfer... this IP-spoof would allow that to be avoided most of the time.

Yep, the problem in spoofing is flow control and back traffic. But this can be minimized into so small amount, that proxying it via many nodes is not a problem. In SUMI, IRC network was used for ack packets, while the send was direct UDP stream with spoofed source.

[eivioolla]

i am not sure about the billing, that was a guess on my part based on some of the info I read on other sites.....however, ISP are not required to keep logs on IP addresses in order to avoid responsibility (ala Safe Harbor Law)....in fact, they are better off not keeping logs as subpoenas are not applicable if ISP does not have the information demanded of them...which is the exact reason why i believe if you have a WiFi connection in your home you have plausible deniability because you are acting like a free ISP....

Then why does ALL ISPs keep logs. The RIAA has sued approximately 8000 people, this means that the ISPs had dug their logs to get their personal information. Why? Why does the ISP do this if they don't have to? Wouldn't it be obvious marketing point for an ISP to announce not to keep logs?

anyway, while everyone is trying to come up with complex ways to hide/mask/encrypt IP addresses and identities, i still think the best way is to find a service provider that does not keep logs (in NYC there are several, but i am not sure about elsewhere)............................

comments?

How do you know they don't keep logs?? I have never heard of ISP that doesn't keep logs.

[midgetMonkey]

Then why does ALL ISPs keep logs. The RIAA has sued approximately 8000 people, this means that the ISPs had dug their logs to get their personal information. Why? Why does the ISP do this if they don't have to? Wouldn't it be obvious marketing point for an ISP to announce not to keep logs?

The claim you are making that all ISPs keep logs is true; a log is automatically generated each time you connect. However, the point is not whether all ISPs keep logs, but how long they keep logs for. Some ISPs dispose of logs within 24 hours so that no record is kept and thus no personal information can be divulged regardless of subpoenas.

Why do some ISPs keep logs longer? I am not an ISP so I do not know, as I think it would benefit them and their customers if they did not keep logs for an extended period of time. However, from some of the information I have gathered it could be because of billing and/or security reasons. Again, this is an educated guess on my part.

Yes, I do think it would be a great marketing strategy for ISPs to announce that they do not keep logs for an extended period of time--as I already stated in my first post I would pay a slight premium for that service. Not only that but this would save ISPs money in legal costs and data storage (http://vigilant.tv/article/2765/isps-express-concern-over-dmca-subpoena-risk). Why don't they do that? The better question is why do we pay school teachers measy wages while we pay millions of dollars to record executives (read sarcasm). Who knows??

How do you know they don't keep logs?? I have never heard of ISP that doesn't keep logs.

The only ones I know are small ISPs in NYC (5000 customers or less) and they claim that they do not keep logs for longer than X period of time--EDIT: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/40921. Do I personally go over to each ISP that makes this claim and make sure they purge these files? No. Could they be lying? Sure. But again its in all parties best interests for them not to keep logs. Hopefully, at some point this movement of purging log files will spread to major ISPs so that we all can benefit.

And just because you never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist......

Any more constructive comments?

[Vhex]

There is really no need for mass bloating of any software with security features. If you base a network on simple principles you will eliminate the possibility of being traced by an agency or organization.

[eivioolla]

Do I personally go over to each ISP that makes this claim and make sure they purge these files? No. Could they be lying? Sure.

Exactly. Somehow I have a feeling that when they're hit with a subpoena, your name and address will magically appear from somewhere.

And just because you never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist......

Oh really, no shit. I was just wondering your claim that you KNOW some ISPs don't keep logs, which in my opinion would be pretty hard to know unless you work there or have filed a subpoena against their subscriber.

Any more constructive comments?

I don't see anything unconstructive in wondering why all/most ISPs keep logs when it would seem only to cause additional costs, work and lost customers for them. Someone might know and answer, you see.

[infringer]

There is really no need for mass bloating of any software with security features. If you base a network on simple principles you will eliminate the possibility of being traced by an agency or organization.

Define bloated in your best means I dont believe that any p2p app currrently running is "bloated" or uses "mass bloating" as far as security... Spyware and adware maybe but security uh uhhh. Every single network will work just as well as the other, the real advantage bit torrent had was that as you downloaded you had to upload as well so in effect even the leechers were sharing files. You want a network to gain speed share, share, share it is the key to any p2p's speed. If you wanna get technical there may be like minute connection delays due to encryption of stuff.

To put things into perspective if you rip a DVD with an old 6X DVD-ROM you will be decrypting and obtaining the information slower then a 16x DVD-ROM on that same computer simply because the source provides more or less speed (bandwidth). It is basically the same principal behind the secure programs like ants P2P the reason it is slower for the most part is not the security it is a lack of sources.

tsafa1,

I visited the IRC channel for ants I tested ants it provides security and I didnt see any real differnces in speed to tell the truth I just started to download a portion of a file and it started downloading at 30k and continued at that rate for about 15min's from there the user logged offline so logically speaking that is an avg upload rate for many broadband ISP's but in all reality I think the ants P2P has great potential just needs a bigger userbase and more sources for files on the network not to mention its annoymous webpages with links to files just downright kicks arse. So I dont see the big lack in preformance that everyone talks of just a plain lack of sources due to a lack of users.

-infringer-

[method]

Using proxy/bouncer nodes ONLY... will bloat the bandwidth consumption required for the job.

So what are you talking about nextp2p ???

[infringer]

Nothing, nothing at all just rambling...
Dont mind me I just happen to be supportive to the work of the uber opposed application called antsp2p...
Most down it I support it, its just a matter of opinon I suppose hell I dont download files anyways but I do test the applications regualarly as I can achive better quality doing my own rips/captures and in less time and less hassel if I wanted to trade though it'd be on ants p2p network so far from what I've seen of the new applications its overview by me seems to be one of the best in concept sure bit torrent is excellent as well as other applications but they lack the security features that I am looking for for the most part. I dunno about you but I'd rather keep my connection and my money and at the rate things are going keep myself out of jail as well... Call me a scared or what ever but I think when you do not cover your own arse and you do end up getting the infamous lawsuit or ISP ban well duh aint no wonder why that one happend...

What appears to some as crap at first sight many times ends up being a diamond in the rough to others. If you and every other guy at the forum is degrading or downing antsp2p it dont change my view on it. I am a firm believer that either the application itself or the concept of the application has great potential and with a large user base like that of other P2P programs it would be a hell of a way to share files securely.

;)

-infringer-