Is Blubster really anonymous?

**dock0184** · July 1st, 2003, 08:01 PM

By now, probably everyone of you has had their hands on the new Blubster release that claims to protect the user's identity. So far, the only people who've claimed that is the company behind it called Optisoft. Others have merely quoted from Blubster's website. So what do you think? Anonymous or Not?

**DainBramaged** · July 1st, 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by dock0184
So what do you think? Anonymous or Not?

http://www.blubster.com/protocol1.html

Doesn't look like it. By the sounds of that, they could conceivably harvest the IPs from the servers or caches.

**Rahwgwar** · July 1st, 2003, 08:17 PM

C'mon it's Pablo......Are you questioning his integrity?

In other words, of course it's anonymous! And it rules......I can't even see who I'm d/l from......From what I've seen, I don't have any reason to NOT believe it's anonymous.

Peace

**notbob** · July 1st, 2003, 08:26 PM

nothing is anonymous

NOTHING!

proxies are close, but imperfect and still traceable (on an ISP's level)

as long as you have an IP address (which if you want to do anything on the internet you do) you can be tracked

if you mess with the address, you don't get your packets--which defeats the idea of downloading files, right?

**isamoor** · July 1st, 2003, 08:37 PM

First though, I can't really say about Blubster. Truthfully, I doubt they actually changed anything about the protocal. At the same time, Blubster was rather anonymous to begin with. All the transfers were done with UDP, which is rather hard to sniff out just what goes on in a udp connection. The newest Blubster just gives you the option of not allowing others to browse your files.

I don't think this would work perfectly. If a RIAA agent were to only download one song from one source, they could track the ip the data came from and still file suit against them.

I think Freenet is rather anonymous though. You can still see ip addresses, but it would be hard to hold people accountable for what you download from them since they don't actually control what they share. That would make for an interesting legal dilema I bet. Freenet is all but unstoppable from an ISP's standpoint. It uses the same traffic as the general web I believe. The RIAA could still go out on freenet and download some content they felt was copyrighted and see where it pulled from.

I don't really think proxies are the answer in the long run. The RIAA could just go after the proxy since the proxy is actually distributing illegal content. Then the whole system would crumble again. But... with ES5's proxies set up in places "untouchable" *cough* by the RIAA, I suppose they could get away with it. ES5 still seems fishy to me. I mean, who really sets up shop in the middle of a refugee camp?

Enough rambling,

Later,

Isamoor

**isus** · July 1st, 2003, 08:41 PM

blubster isnt entriely anonymous, but it's better than straight tcp/ip connections like in gnutella, where they don't even try to hide your ip address.

**dock0184** · July 1st, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by isamoor

Freenet is all but unstoppable from an ISP's standpoint. It uses the same traffic as the general web I believe.

[/B]

Hahhaha. Yeah i agree with you, but who'd want to download from freenet anyways. Even on my cable connection it runs slower than a modem.

**Psilaxs** · July 1st, 2003, 08:48 PM

Blubster and Piolet use the UDP protocol. Which doesnt send confirmation packets back to the downloader.

Take that as you will.

**Inverted Whale** · July 1st, 2003, 09:23 PM

Every IP packet has a source and destination address. This includes the TCP and UDP protocols.

I'm not sure where this idea that UDP is more anonymous came from ... if you send someone a UDP packet, your return address is right there - unless you spoof it somehow.

So unless Blubster is spoofing the return address, this claim is false.

**FileHoover** · July 1st, 2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by isamoor
First though, I can't really say about Blubster. Truthfully, I doubt they actually changed anything about the protocal. At the same time, Blubster was rather anonymous to begin with. All the transfers were done with UDP, which is rather hard to sniff out just what goes on in a udp connection. The newest Blubster just gives you the option of not allowing others to browse your files.

I don't think this would work perfectly. If a RIAA agent were to only download one song from one source, they could track the ip the data came from and still file suit against them.

I think Freenet is rather anonymous though. You can still see ip addresses, but it would be hard to hold people accountable for what you download from them since they don't actually control what they share. That would make for an interesting legal dilema I bet. Freenet is all but unstoppable from an ISP's standpoint. It uses the same traffic as the general web I believe. The RIAA could still go out on freenet and download some content they felt was copyrighted and see where it pulled from.

I don't really think proxies are the answer in the long run. The RIAA could just go after the proxy since the proxy is actually distributing illegal content. Then the whole system would crumble again. But... with ES5's proxies set up in places "untouchable" *cough* by the RIAA, I suppose they could get away with it. ES5 still seems fishy to me. I mean, who really sets up shop in the middle of a refugee camp?

Enough rambling,

Later,

Isamoor

If you use proxies that are not in your own country, it is a real hassle for them to track you down. It might even be impossible.

1) They would have to get a lawyer in that country (who knows its legal system).
2) They would have to get that lawyer to get a judge in that country to issue a subpoena
3) The proxy admin would have to be keeping logs. AND logs do NOT contain all the traffic, just the headers. Most proxies don't keep logs anyway.
4) The subpoena would have to be issued before the log filled up and the entries rolled off for whatever reason.

Why would RIAA risk go after ONE user who shared a file through a proxy when they have 10 million low hanging fruit in the United States and Australia? And even then, there is no guarantee the attacking the proxy will yield any results.

If you are really paranoid you can chain proxies if you want.

Otherwise, keep using a wide open p2p if you want.

**FileHoover** · July 1st, 2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Inverted Whale
Every IP packet has a source and destination address. This includes the TCP and UDP protocols.

I'm not sure where this idea that UDP is more anonymous came from ... if you send someone a UDP packet, your return address is right there - unless you spoof it somehow.

So unless Blubster is spoofing the return address, this claim is false.

One way traffic is spoofable.
You can send UDP with a forged source address. This fact can be used to build up an anoymous protocol. However, it is not useable on many networks who deny such activity. It only takes one config statement on a Cisco router to block source ip addresses that do not belong to the router.

**langeo** · July 2nd, 2003, 01:35 PM

its definetly an improvement from fasttrack. also, on mp2p you can choose to ignore shared collection requests. its harder to build a case if you cant see someones entire collection. i doubt they would go after you for once song.

**eivioolla** · July 5th, 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by FileHoover
One way traffic is spoofable.
You can send UDP with a forged source address. This fact can be used to build up an anoymous protocol. However, it is not useable on many networks who deny such activity. It only takes one config statement on a Cisco router to block source ip addresses that do not belong to the router.

Wouldn't it be possible to spoof only such addresses that DO belong to that router, just not your own?

If not, then basically there's no point putting a lot of effort to develop something that is easy to make useless.

**Munchables** · July 5th, 2003, 02:52 PM

Dude Bublbster says a reason why it is so anon cuz it uses UDP. Fucking udp? Udp is 'fast' however extreemly un-reliable. I would think that if you made a p2p network based on UDP every download should be fucked. Have you ever looked at an image transferd over udp? It looks like shit from dammaged packets. In UDP there isn't a check sum like tcp, I supose it could be implemented, but then why not just use TCP? There also isn't a three way hand shake so it is easy to spoof. I would have too look into the protocall more, but i don't care.

Persionly i take the side of FreeNet where anon is there #1 consern. Even though Freenet isn' t for p2p file transfer, but they have the right idea. I still say using 6/4 for all your anon needs is the way to go.

**eivioolla** · July 5th, 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Rahwgwar
From what I've seen, I don't have any reason to NOT believe it's anonymous.

Peace

You have EVERY reason to believe that nothing is anonymous unless it is VERY thoroughly explained just how is the anonymity achieved. By default, nothing in the net is anonymous.