Ultima Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 @avatarl: That's not the point. The point is that µTorrent won't help you discriminate against users. Take a look at the long, locked, Manual IP Banning thread, and you'll see any arguments about it (yes, manual IP banning runs along the same line as client ID banning). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatarl Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I didn't say anything about manual banning or client ID banning, just automatic banning clients with ID spoofing, which is not the same. The logic presented about "non-discrimination", an irrelevant argument in this particular case. The arguments on that particular thread were about MANUAL IP banning, not automatic ID spoofing client banning. Of course, if you think who someone who uses client ID spoofing is not suspicious of anything and clients shouldn't be acting against him, well, you are free to believe that Plus, THAT particular criteria is fairly reasonable. I'm just saying that ìTorrent should automatic ban THIS particular OBVIOUSLY SUSPICIOUS behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 And so we ARE back to automatic ID spoofing client banning then.When I say µTorrent won't discriminate, it includes ANY kind of discrimation besides against clients that continuously send hash-fails, or those that you specify in ipfilter.dat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatarl Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Eh, that sounds like having a security guard that validates each individual's credentials, someone comes with obviously forged credentials (reason unknown!) and yet he allows him to pass with the idiotic argument that "well, he's human, too". I somehow fail to see the logic behind this attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Where's you proof that they're suspicious? Have they done anything wrong to you? They're obviously not getting banned from your client automatically, so that means they're not sending you bad files. It's the same thing as saying "Oh this guy looks like he's Middle Eastern... that must be suspicious, let's arrest him, even though he hasn't done anything wrong!"If you're going to take the stance that they're probably cheaters, then BitComet should be banned first before any of these, but BitComet's not getting banned from µTorrent, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatarl Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 No, it's like having someone say "Yes, I am a terrorist" and the response being "you just say that, you have no proof".I can't really say about BitComet, I'm not monitoring my torrents and checking every IP and what it does.Plus, that Middle Eastern argument is totally off. The correct example would be, there's clearly a Middle Eastern person, he gets his ID checked, and the ID has a western name with a western (white) picture on it! Now, if that's not suspicious, what is? Or you'd rather have him bring the whole place down BEFORE you admit that his ID was pretty suspicious to begin with Or maybe let him be, he doesn't blow up the airplane, he gets on and off the plane just fine and you say to yourself, see, he didn't do anything after all. Let's disregard the fake ID thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 How is changing your client ID a declaration of being a terrorist? And the point of the "Middle Eastern" example wasn't to be an exact correlation to this situation. It was to show that you can't judge something superficially. Sure, it may be suspicious, but until that person actually does something wrong, do you have the right to arrest him?You seem to be a "guilty until proven innocent" kind of person, based on your responses thus far (or maybe just a "guilty if suspicious" kinda person ;P). Well, I'm more of a "innocent until proven guilty" kind of person, so that probably explains our disagreement on the matter =T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatarl Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Eh, you know, the aforementioned Middle Eastern with the fake ID IS guilty of AT LEAST having a fake ID. And that goes for the clients as well. So you can safely arrest that Middle Eastern fellow NOT because he's a terrorist, but because he does have a fake ID. And I'm sure you know that having forged credentials IS a crime in most countries. Why should that not apply to client ID spoofind as well? That's why I fail to see the logic. Or is having forged credentials not a crime in your country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 'cause it's up to the tracker to take care of them (the "proper authorities"), not you, the average joe. you can, however, report to them to the tracker so they can take care of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 lol we're having an intersting discussion ;PI don't know much about legal matters, even simple things like that, and for all I know, you might be right (I'm in the US, so you're probably right, the more I think about it). But this isn't a government of any sort and client spoofing isn't against any rules. Aside from that, people who spoof don't necessarily cheat.In the end, this is still some kind of discrimination, and ludde won't do it (or at least that was his stance a while ago). That attitude explains why a lot of the banning requests have been rejected, and I'm pretty sure this would too.Edit: And what Firon said. Was going to mention it, but felt like... "bleh, there's going to be more counterarguments against that too" xP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hofshi Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 avatarl: try to be a little more open minded and read Ultima's posts again. He's been patient with you, and raised good arguments.to sum up, there is no justification to ban a client just because it is spoofing. If the spoofing client still plays by the rules (BT protocol), then you only benefit from this client's existence. What would you do about all the clients which have unrecognized IDs ? ban them as well? that makes no sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Also, the only real bad things these spoofers can do to you is either not send you anything (after which they will get disconnected anyway), or send you bad data (which they get tempbanned for after 5 hashfails). So the bases are basically covered, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Actually, they can continue to make torrent piece requests to you and µTorrent will at least give them optimistic unchoke occassionally. If they also utilize the reconnect trick, they may even gather a significant portion of your upload bandwidth such as this example:http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=5181(1st post) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikademus Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I'm from the same country as Ludde, and I understand his stance against discrimination. I share it, as does a majority where we're from. We also have generally a "rehabilitation over punishment" attitude to crime, and the vast majority here are very much of the "innocent until proven guilty" mindset. Thus, I can't help but laugh at some of the quite hilarious Americacentrism in this thread.. You better watch it, you've given Homeland Security all the reason it needs to equate torrents with terrorism! Lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I'm American, and I have that very mindset, as I said above O.olol sorry about that Middle Eastern example, that was the most exteme I could think of at the time...@Switeck: That's true, but BitComet already does that, with or without spoofing, so if anything, they should be banned before spoofing clients =T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castle Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 about faking... I had a Fake uTorrent/142B on a torrent today. thought that was weird. if you're going to fake why not fake the stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 The main reason most people spoof IDs is to get around arbitrary tracker rules (ie. no betas, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 @Switeck: That's true, but BitComet already does that, with or without spoofing,Not every BitComet seems to do it to the same degree, as the post link I mentioned pointed out. Only 1 BitComet out of the 9 was being particularly bad. In that instance, banning BitComet would've only hurt the poster worse.There is some level of insanely bad behavior which simply cannot be treated the same as a regular, fair client. The problem is, some of the behavior is very bad precisely because it exploits weaknesses in the protocol as currently implimented. (I've elaborated on that too much in another thread.)Even banning a client because of hashfails may be excessive if it's 10 fails out of 1000's. Right now, Azereus' latest official build does that for encrypted transfers. On the other hand if it's 5 fails out of 5 total...that's definitely ban-worthy!Fake client ids allows a hostile client to hide as something harmless -- µTorrent was even banned from a private tracker for awhile because of fakes (BitComet cores btw). Client id's aren't required by the BitTorrent protocol, so banning based on 'bad' client id is likewise excessive. Fake client id coupled with even minor hostile behavior may be ban-worthy, even though separately those 2 things might not be.Minor client favoritism even isn't ban-worthy. For that, you can add ips for that to your ipfilter.dat if you want. However a client that devotes 90+% of its upload bandwidth to its own kind (if available)...IS ban-worthy in my opinion.Banning based on hostile behavior on the other hand should not be viewed with much disdain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saribro Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 I'm just saying that ìTorrent should automatic ban THIS particular OBVIOUSLY SUSPICIOUS behaviour.It is indeed suspicious, however, it isn't actually hurting -in itself-, which is I why I, personally, think it -shouldn't- be banned.I am of this opinion because: 1)my general principles, 2)my experience with these ID-spoofers is good, besides the spoofing, no bad behaviour noticed. While reason 2, off course, can have counterexamples, it's mostly reason 1 of different people causing this argument, and I don't think anything will resolve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Well, for one, the spec doesn't even require to send a client ID. Older clients didn't send it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saribro Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Indeed, one more reason why the protocol could use an update to better reflect the way it's used instead of strictly how it was envisioned . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Why? It's as useful as an HTTP user-agent string (read: not).Plus, I'd rather not have any more revisions benefitting private trackers (and you know that's what people are clamoring for) Instead, I'd rather the protocol get fixed up so that any client can't join and rape everyone through bad behavior. That is what the protocol REALLY needs, resilience towards leechers and bad clients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockhaven Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Wut? I'm getting good speeds for a bunch of [FAKE] labelled uTorrents that I'm connected to for a legal torrent. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajones81 Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 There may be various reasons why someone might choose to use a fake client ID (some are to be found in this thread itself). As long as you're not getting any hashfails or other junk data from them, just ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.