jait Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 hopefully someone can explain this to me, because i can make no sense of it.. these are the logs:@ 03-31-08 18:51:39 announce?info_hash=%cb%89b%e5%7b%5b%8a%9c%e1%0f%a17h%e2%c4%1d%be%80%96%b3 &peer_id=-UT1720-%82%8d%08X%27%15%ae%e0J%996e &port=25502 &uploaded=20512768 &downloaded=0 &left=0 &key=D01C1036 &numwant=200 &compact=1 &no_peer_id=1 HTTP/1.1@ 03-31-08 18:51:39 announce?info_hash=%cb%89b%e5%7b%5b%8a%9c%e1%0f%a17h%e2%c4%1d%be%80%96%b3 &peer_id=-UT1720-%82%8d%08X%27%15%ae%e0J%996e &port=25502 &uploaded=17072128 &downloaded=0 &left=0 &key=D01C1036 &numwant=200 &compact=1 &no_peer_id=1 HTTP/1.1@ 03-31-08 18:51:40 announce?info_hash=%cb%89b%e5%7b%5b%8a%9c%e1%0f%a17h%e2%c4%1d%be%80%96%b3 &peer_id=-UT1720-%82%8d%08X%27%15%ae%e0J%996e &port=25502 &uploaded=15351808 &downloaded=0 &left=0 &key=D01C1036 &numwant=200 &compact=1 &no_peer_id=1 HTTP/1.1@ 03-31-08 18:51:42 announce?info_hash=%cb%89b%e5%7b%5b%8a%9c%e1%0f%a17h%e2%c4%1d%be%80%96%b3 &peer_id=-UT1720-%82%8d%08X%27%15%ae%e0J%996e &port=25502 &uploaded=13500416 &downloaded=0 &left=0 &key=D01C1036 &numwant=200 &compact=1 &no_peer_id=1 HTTP/1.1(the space in between & is intentional to make it more readable)u can clearly see the peer_id is the same, so no crash has occurred on the client... the uploaded field, according to the specs, should be either increasing, or staying the same... if u send x as uploaded on announce t-1 then at t u are meant to send x+y where y is whatever u uploaded in that session t-1 -> t ... how can the uploaded field decrease as time t increases? that makes no sense to me whatsoever.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewelisheaven Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Current version is 1.7.7How are you getting these announce requests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jait Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 what do u mean?and its not me using it.. these are logs from my tracker... i dont use utorrent as i dont even have windows .. how i m logging them u mean? thats pretty trivial btw the entire announce the client sends me is:GET /his_passkey/announce......but i thought that was irrelevant to the issue at hand which is y i didnt write it in the logs in the previous postand since there is no fix about this in the changlog, i assume that if it is indeed a bug, it would be present in the current version as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewelisheaven Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Since it's your tracker you may want to suggest using the current version I was asking for curiousity whether it's possible the encoding was mishandled? There was a reporting problem in 1.7.1 which is in the changelog. I don't believe this is the work of a real uT peer... irregardless of the numbers uT simply doesn't announce that fast. I thought there was a lower limit on announce in 1.7, but perhaps it's been too long using it and that 60 second interval is only in 1.8. And I thought numwant was 50 Indeed looking at those parts of the announce...&uploaded=20512768&uploaded=17072128 3440640&uploaded=15351808 1720320&uploaded=13500416 1851392differences as 1.5 megabytes in 1 second??? spoofed statistics. There is some sort of feature in uT to detect spoofed clients, but what that is I don't know. You know you don't need windows to run uT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jait Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 numwant is 200 in all normal utorrents this isnt the case of a spoofing client.. i am 99% sure about this since i have studied extensively every cheat client there is, and none of them react this way afaik. unless u mean that maybe utorrent is decreasing the uploaded value if some other client reported a hash failure? (i cant recall the protocol having anything like that in the specs, but it might be a possible explanation for this)i did assume at the start that maybe it was 2 different instances of the client or maybe 2 runs of the same torrent, but that doesnt make sense since the peer_id is the same... that should have been different for each instance of the client, and i think u cant run 2 times the same torrent on utorrent (maybe i m wrong on this though)if u look at the time of the announces, u will see that the uploaded figure is decreasing, not increasing... that simply does not make any sense to me...as for banning clients that are outdated, i will, only if there is compelling evidence that the need arizes.. i m pretty sure i have seen this type of thing in newer versions of utorrent as well (i might dig up the logs if someone needs to) so banning that specific version is kinda a moot point. i just assumed back then that it was 2 instances of the client.. it wasnt until today that i noticed that hte peer_id was the same that it made me think of wtf is going onthe announces that are so soon is another weird thing that i cant really explain.. i m thinking maybe some kind of firewall could be causing that, as i have seen a lot of them tampering with headers (adding spaces sometimes) but i have never seen one that tampers the actual values in the GET string.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 looks to me like someone is just cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jait Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 y would someone cheat by decreasing hte upload amount (that wont even be recorded btw as the current upload needs to be higher than the previous one for any recording to take place).. further more, someone that has been seeding 200+ torrents for over 2 months, is highly unlikely to be cheating...furthermore, there are a couple of mods for cheating via utorrent client, and afaik, i catch all of them .. i have never seen any cheat client acting that way.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewelisheaven Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Err if Firon says so say we all Unless you want to ask for more input with some more logging data relevant to that client... I still say it's spoofed stats....announces 1 second apart sure people with 1, 2, 5 Mbit upload fine, but for the same hash 1 second apart. cmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jait Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 ...righti d spoof my stats to decrease the amount of upload, so i can do what exactly? show that i have uploaded less than what i actually have? lol .. that makes perfect sense thanks lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 no utorrent version rolls back upload like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jait Posted April 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 the dude update his utorrent to 1770 and its still doing it.. If it is a firewall/router problem causing the tracker issue, then I am unlikley to be able to fix it as the apartment block I live in here in Doha runs a wireless hotspot type service that is managed by the local telco - Qyel. I have noticed recently that they appear to be shaping the traffic so perhaps this is causing the problem. Quite happy to change to a completely different client such as Azureus if you want.so i guess its probably his isp doing this... i ll ask him to use azureus for a while and it should produce the same result if indeed it is his isp (which most probably it is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Has he got some sort of firewall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jait Posted April 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 the quote in my posts was his message which clearly indicates that indeed he is behind a firewall that he has no control off... Edit: I have also asked him to disable any type of local firewall installation which he may have so we can isolate the issue and find the exact root of it..i ll post when i get results back from azureus, which should in theory cause the same exact issue.. if thats the case, i ll see if we can bypass it by encryption of some sort. if u have any other suggestions to go with post ahead and i ll give them a shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 https would fix it if it's his isp screwing with things. And for local firewalls, I'd recommend uninstalling, not disabling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jait Posted April 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 the only fw he had was the vista one which he disabled... azureus did exactly the same thing...i m going to go with the https solution (when i get some time to implement it in C++ ).. hopefully that will solve this issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.