uTorrent build 489 ban

[Sentient]

Are there any sites besides bitmetv where it is banned? Just curious.

[Moonspell13]

I saw a while back at A-L that all future utorrent releases are banned but I don't know the current status of this release...

[LaserLock]

i think NO if the new version is fixed and clear that bug wich hackers can make evil !! the client no be banned

According to IT security experts, the latest version of the µTorrent (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6184/uTorrent+-+A+Beginner%27s+guide+to+BitTorrent+downloading) BitTorrent client server is vulnerable to remote exploits.


Today brings news that the popular BitTorrent client server uTorrent (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6184/uTorrent+-+A+Beginner%27s+guide+to+BitTorrent+downloading) is vulnerable to hackers that can infiltrate your PC and execute arbitary code if a user opens a manipulated torrent tracker file.

The apparent "glitch" in the software is that torrent tracker fields may contain an "announce" field. Well, if this "announce" field is longer than 4800 bytes, an internal µTorrent (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6184/uTorrent+-+A+Beginner%27s+guide+to+BitTorrent+downloading) buffer overflows, thereby allowing hackers to run their exploits.

For now it's only µTorrent 1.6 build 474 that is affected but, older versions may also contain the bug, and a new version to fix the problem is not yet available.

[0Ri0N]

BitMeTV and A-L ban uTorrent 1.6.1. That sucks!!
oh well, i wont use BitMeTV till they update this issue....

[Sentient]

BitMeTV and A-L ban uTorrent 1.6.1. That sucks!!
oh well, i wont use BitMeTV till they update this issue....

Yea, I also haven't been using it lately because of this. What a paranoid bunch they are on client security. Reason I ask is because I've been following the discussion on their site, and they claim other sites are taking this step too, but of the trackers I've browsed, most don't even bother to ban bitcomet.

[andrzejek1999]

probably super secret site also banned utorrent.

[deuce6000]

Anyone use nod32 for an antivirus and if so have you got the new Utorrent working with that running?I tried but it just keeps crashing and saying to stop my antivirus.

[Skiz]

i think NO if the new version is fixed and clear that bug wich hackers can make evil !! the client no be banned

According to IT security experts, the latest version of the µTorrent (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6184/uTorrent+-+A+Beginner%27s+guide+to+BitTorrent+downloading) BitTorrent client server is vulnerable to remote exploits.


Today brings news that the popular BitTorrent client server uTorrent (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6184/uTorrent+-+A+Beginner%27s+guide+to+BitTorrent+downloading) is vulnerable to hackers that can infiltrate your PC and execute arbitary code if a user opens a manipulated torrent tracker file.

The apparent "glitch" in the software is that torrent tracker fields may contain an "announce" field. Well, if this "announce" field is longer than 4800 bytes, an internal µTorrent (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6184/uTorrent+-+A+Beginner%27s+guide+to+BitTorrent+downloading) buffer overflows, thereby allowing hackers to run their exploits.

For now it's only µTorrent 1.6 build 474 that is affected but, older versions may also contain the bug, and a new version to fix the problem is not yet available.

This has been fixed already in 1.6.1 beta.

I have not found any of my trackers yet that are banning 1.6.1.

Nice copy/paste BTW.

[0Ri0N]

I use nod32 and uTorrent 1.6.1 works fine here.

[deuce6000]

I'll try again and see what happens thanks for the reply.

Used the installation instead of standalone and everything seems to be working great now :).

[andrzejek1999]

I'll try again and see what happens thanks for the reply.

Used the installation instead of standalone and everything seems to be working great now :).

dude, u missing the pont, why r u need to instal a prog wich is 160kB big,
lol, it's like installing a shortcut, OMFG LOL !

[Skiz]

I'll try again and see what happens thanks for the reply.

Used the installation instead of standalone and everything seems to be working great now :).

dude, u missing the pont, why r u need to instal a prog wich is 160kB big,
lol, it's like installing a shortcut, OMFG LOL !

What are you talking about?

[andrzejek1999]

all i was saying is what'e the point of installing utorrent, when u can use it witouout the instalation process.

[deuce6000]

I'll try again and see what happens thanks for the reply.

Used the installation instead of standalone and everything seems to be working great now :).

dude, u missing the pont, why r u need to instal a prog wich is 160kB big,
lol, it's like installing a shortcut, OMFG LOL !

You trying to call me an idiot and in doing so your making yourself look like one.
The point is the standalone one is crashing and telling me to stop my antivirus which i don't want to do and the installation one for whatever reason doesn't do that.Read more.

[andrzejek1999]

well, don't u think that maybe your av is misconfigured ?

think before u post, and don't call anyone an idiot with out any proofs !

[SHUVT]

It seems that the majority of sites are banning AZ and not Utorrent. I have actually switched over to Utorrent because of this. I had problems with AZ working correctly on a few sites. Downloads were great, but it just did not seem to connect to leechers and update ratios like it should. I still have problem with not being connectable with Utorrent though. Good speeds, but I know they can be faster.

[Sentient]

It seems that the majority of sites are banning AZ and not Utorrent. I have actually switched over to Utorrent because of this. I had problems with AZ working correctly on a few sites. Downloads were great, but it just did not seem to connect to leechers and update ratios like it should. I still have problem with not being connectable with Utorrent though. Good speeds, but I know they can be faster.

Haven't seen anyone ban Azureus yet, who's doing that?

[LiMuBai]

i switched over to uttorent from azureus too. its much lighter on memory. even though norton kept going on utorrent last night. heh

[deuce6000]

well, don't u think that maybe your av is misconfigured ?

think before u post, and don't call anyone an idiot with out any proofs !


You write OMFG LOL! your installing a shortcut what more proof do i need.

[SHUVT]

I know that WB does not allow it and a few others as well. Some of the problem with AZ on trackers is the reporting the ratios correctly and being able to see everyone in the swarm. I actually like AZ, but I am forcing myself to convert to the Utorrent movement.

[RainRoofer]

Hm, what trackers are banning 1.6.1, i updated automaticly today.

[gbilly72]

Yet another build was released, 490.

[reachnet]

Methinks the Trackers banning the latest uTorrent are being "MAJORLY" short-sighted.
This situation could become crazy - clients expected to have 26 (or whatever) different clients - having to use a different one to connect to each tracker - what crap !
They're banning it due to its BitTorrent ownership.
Can't they see what BitTorrent are trying to do ?
They're trying to ******* SAVE uTorrent ( by bringing it under an umbrella of legitemacy ) - NOT align it with the MPAA. How else will it survive ?
For Christ sake Tracker Admins - take your head out yer arses and think "longer-term" will ya' ???
Put your money where your mouth is - If you've got proof uTorrent is doing something "dodgy" then disclose it otherwise do some testing, tell Joe Public, you're doing some testing whilst it's temporarily banned ( they/we can deal with that ) or just plain shut the **** up !

[cowswithoutass]

Anyone use nod32 for an antivirus and if so have you got the new Utorrent working with that running?I tried but it just keeps crashing and saying to stop my antivirus.
i use it they both seem to be working fine for me

[LinkS v2.0]

nod32 is going crazy 1.6 beta works fine no need to switch

[cowswithoutass]

actually im getting a couple of problems like updating

[lysine]

Methinks the Trackers banning the latest uTorrent are being "MAJORLY" short-sighted.

short sighted? rushing to upgrade to a client without it being released or tested for 24 hours is short sighted. it's pretty obvious that bittorrent, inc. is already off to a bad start. build 488, 489, and 490 were all released within 24 hours, because they don't understand what they're doing with the code.





This situation could become crazy - clients expected to have 26 (or whatever) different clients - having to use a different one to connect to each tracker - what crap !


it's pretty simple, if you don't like a tracker's policies or rules, don't use it. that's your loss, not theirs.




Can't they see what BitTorrent are trying to do ?
They're trying to ******* SAVE uTorrent


are you serious? you realize that bittorrent, inc. is a company and they're being pressured to return profits on all those millions of dollars that were invested into their company. they realized the mainline client that they worked on all those years was basically a piece of crap. they saw the opportunity to purchase utorrent and took it. it solves a number of their problems, they have a good codebase to work off of, and they already have millions of people using the client.




For Christ sake Tracker Admins - take your head out yer arses and think "longer-term" will ya' ???


I think you're the one that's not thinking long term.

[erax]

http://download.utorrent.com/1.6.1/utorrent.exe

[Fulanito]

why ban utorrent...

[LinkS v2.0]

why ban utorrent...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utorrent#Controversy

[Buggyme]

Bleh, I'm sticking with 474 for now.

[0Ri0N]

Hm, what trackers are banning 1.6.1, i updated automaticly today.

BitMeTV.

[mike7778]

i have 1.6.1 490.

[donnied]

I had no idea there was such intrigue in the client world

[reachnet]

short sighted? rushing to upgrade to a client without it being released or tested for 24 hours is short sighted. it's pretty obvious that bittorrent, inc. is already off to a bad start. build 488, 489, and 490 were all released within 24 hours, because they don't understand what they're doing with the code.

Fair enough - no quibbles from me there.

[quote]
it's pretty simple, if you don't like a tracker's policies or rules, don't use it. that's your loss, not theirs.



Well actually it is potentially their loss.
*1 client user = no big deal.
*500 client users = quite a big deal.
Mass exodus of users = ta-ta Tracker.



are you serious? you realize that bittorrent, inc. is a company and they're being pressured to return profits on all those millions of dollars that were invested into their company. they realized the mainline client that they worked on all those years was basically a piece of crap. they saw the opportunity to purchase utorrent and took it. it solves a number of their problems, they have a good codebase to work off of, and they already have millions of people using the client.


Agreed Mainline isn't exactly going to help em' in the longer term, although at the time very few people were thinking of it as "crap". They were more "inspired" by the BitTorrent idea and what it could do for em'.
You don't think banning potentially "millions" of users is being "short-sighted" ?
The main problem I have is "why" they're banning it.
It was fairly obvious this was gonna' happen when BT acquired uT. It's a "knee-jerk" reaction and nothing-else.
I didn't see the majority of Trackers running to ban the latest Az release.
How do they know that was "properly tested" ? Answer - they don't. They'rs assuming an implicit "trust-relationship". Why don't they do that with uT ? Answer cos' they're shittin' themselves that ownership changed and BT now own uT.
They have absolutely NO PROOF that uT is "unfit for purpose". Nor do they have any proof that it is engaging in any form of "subvertive activity".
Banning a client before providing evidence that there is a problem (of whatever form) just doesn't make any sense. If there's a problem with a BT Client release - it's the domain of the owning parties/company to resolve it not the domain of Tracker Admins who have no grounds to base the ban on - other than feeling/supposition.

If we follow their logic - they're gonna' ban every single new version of *any* client released by BitTorrent with no official public reason as to why.

I'd just love a Tracker Admin to just explain to me WHY, without tripping over their shoelaces.



I think you're the one that's not thinking long term.


You really think so ?
uT is the future client of BitTorrent's activities. They're pretty much free to do with it as they will. If they want to mod it and start sticking it in routers they'll do so.
At this point in time, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that uT should be banned.
BT are responsible for future uT development - not for sticking "phone-home" type code into their clients for the benefit of third parties. Sony tried that with DRM based rootkits and look what happened to them.

[awdrifter]

The trackers ban on uTorrent is definitely a good move. It's better be safe than sorry. What if the new uT really is collecting their info or do malicious activity of some kind, it would already be too late once they find out. IMO, it's time for uT to die, there are tons of BT clients out there, just use another one. I think most of our computers are powerful enough to handle most BT client. I ran Azureus and eMule before with no problem.

[reachnet]

The trackers ban on uTorrent is definitely a good move. It's better be safe than sorry. What if the new uT really is collecting their info or do malicious activity of some kind, it would already be too late once they find out. IMO, it's time for uT to die, there are tons of BT clients out there, just use another one. I think most of our computers are powerful enough to handle most BT client. I ran Azureus and eMule before with no problem.

Nah - I COMPLETELY disagree.
If you think of BitTorrent as being the Tracker's "supplier" which is EXACTLY what they are in a software sense - you can't even begin to build a succesful "business-model" without that element of "trust".
I don't go into a Telco Supplier wanting to buy a phone and worrying about whether or not there is any "bugging" equipment in it. If there was and it became public knowledge there would be pretty severe legal consequences for that business.
BitTorrent (the Company) are in this for the long-haul and to make money of course. It doesn't serve your interests or more importantly theirs at the minute for them to do that.
Go take a look at the uTorrent forums where they discuss offering $10,000 if anyone can PROVE their software is currently doing anything untowards.
BTW - if you understand BitTorrent's ideas for future uT implementations you will also understand that uT will NEVER die - even though privately they've done their own C++ implementation. That doesn't mean to say they won't "morph" it to suit their needs/business-agenda just to say as things stand at the minute there's no need for bans.
The question I keep asking myself is why are some Tracker Admins SO resistant ?
BitTorrent have their own agenda which as far as the MPAA goes just means not doing anything that would jeopardise their longer-term business plans.
BitTorrent don't actually give a stuff about the content only about being the delivery-mechanism/deals with content publishers/providers.
They will never stop illegal downloading and they know it - so they don't even bother trying.
Always remember what happened to Sony with Rootkits and extrapoliate from that. BitTorrent clients will NEVER be allowed to send info to the MPAA (or other parties) either directly or through third-parties. Nothing would kill their business quicker.
That's why the Govt funded MPAA/RIAA exist - that's THEIR mandate. THEY need to fight that fight NOT BitTorrent.