funchords Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 In the peer list, the uTorrent versions are displayed inconsistently, and when the column is sorted, they sort incorrectly due to the anomoly.Examples (decending sorted clients):uTorrent/1.6.0.0uTorrent/1.6.0.0uTorrent 1.7uTorrent 1.7uTorrent 1.6.1uTorrent 1.6.1uTorrent 1.6.1uTorrent 1.6.1Unknown XL/0.0.1.1Shareaza/2.2.1.0Mainline 4.4.1...(etc.)Note: I notice that, for a second (during the handshake?), I see clients shown as uTorrent/1.6.1.0, but they quickly change to uTorrent 1.6.1. That change is simply not happening for 1.6 as it does for 1.6.1.Suggested Importance: not important - fix only if low risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Norton Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 The ones with a slash either don't have an extension header or they have an extension header and the version isn't correct so we ignore it (which includes all builds before 478).It may display as a slash at first before it decodes the extension header also.So... not a bug; in fact there are several workarounds just right there for older versions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funchords Posted June 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 Sounds good. Like I said, no biggie.in fact there are several workarounds just right there for older versionsI don't understand what you mean by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallusnation Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 so this isnt evidence of someone trying to use a cheat mod to clone the version number? its merely an issue with one build release?gallus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funchords Posted July 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 For builds before 478, it is not evidence of anything unusual.For builds after 478 (uTorrent 1.6.1 and later, I presume), a missing or incorrect extension header would result in the incorrect display and it would be suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Norton Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Actually, that is a good point.... if it is a fake client we shouldn't decode the extension header Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.