Important

[tyberius]

I realize this is kind of a laid back group, but this is too important to ignore. In case you haven't seen it yet, in the Filesharing forum somebody posted a huge Peer Guardian Block List:

http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?showtopic=46939

[Spindulik]

Well tell us how to get a new copy of it. The last time I used it, it slowed my PC down so much. I deleted the thing.

Any way of making it faster?

[vivitron 15]

please read my comments over there, before you proceed.

I do not wish to flame here, but I feel people should think about this program

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by vivitron 15@26 June 2003 - 21:38
please read my comments over there, before you proceed.

I do not wish to flame here, but I feel people should think about this program
Words of one syllable for a Luddite, Viv.

What problems will this prog cause. No stats or technical issues, will it slow me down or stop me accessing certain sites, or something else.

[vivitron 15]

ok, basicallt, that list blocks around 16% of all the possible adresses. This is fine, if these people are all members of RIAA or whoever. The problem is that, surely the large majority of these IPs are, in fact, normal people like you and I.

I would urge anyone else to consider if they are happy to block a large number of "good" sharers? Because this is more than likely the case, if you use this list. (in fact this program)

[J'Pol]

Bottom line. If someone's IP, or proxy, is within these ranges then they will not be able to download from someone using this. In fact the request will be treated as an attack.

[vivitron 15]

exactly, and as this list is circulated, this person will be shut out of ALL filesharing programs.

[Guillaume]

Since you're talking about Peer Guardian, I've got a question for you: what does the "aggression" thingy ( at the very bottom of the PG window ) stands for ?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by vivitron 15@26 June 2003 - 22:07
exactly, and as this list is circulated, this person will be shut out of ALL filesharing programs.
Seems a bit harsh, unless people are absolutely certain that these ranges are accurate.

Particularly when there are other ways to protect yourself, like the privacy patch, using proxy servers and that sort of thing.

Just while I think about it, should this perhaps be in Filesharing rather than the Lounge. Just a thought for the MODS to consider.

[Rat Faced]

He's trying to get more people to go to the filesharing...so if i move it there, it defeats the object of his post.

I do see your point however ;)


If you use peergardian, you dont have to input all the ranges...bit daft me putting in the Italian Defence Dept etc for example...they have no power where i live for one, and are hardly interested in people sharing mp3s and movies :rolleyes:

[Spindulik]

Wouldn't Black Ice Defender do the same? At least I know that works fine.

[Illuminati]

Okay, I usually try to respect regulars and their comments but in some cases I have to infringe that respect when it comes to straightening the facts.

================================
tyberius, I have seen that block list - And if you use that as your own block list in PG then I&#39;ll be surprised if you get a decent flow of sources for any files except the most popular <_< That is/will be an outdated list with many flaws and genuine sharers put into it. And that&#39;s without taking into account that [-crono-]&#39;s list seems to be a complete rip-off of the full unfiltered IP block lists in the Full Update section of the PG IP Database (don&#39;t fool me - I go to that same Full Update practically every day).

Use it if you want, but IMO that list deserves the term &#39;overkill&#39;.
================================
vivitron - If you don&#39;t check your facts often, then why comment on it? Yes, PG has blocked non-RIAA/similar IPs before (the most well-known one is the KL forum IP) - It&#39;s because of incidents like Tie2Me&#39;s little prank why meth has started IP protection for known reliable IPs like this forum. It&#39;s also why the options for each entry in the IP database is there - The good/bad options for each IP range do have a purpose you know :P If you know those good IPs which PG&#39;s current list blocks, then why TF are you telling us? Get down to the IP Database now and tell meth immediately&#33; Until then, I can&#39;t see another program which can as much a better job without the reliance of PG (Sygate maybe, but PG already caters its list for that).

Genuine addresses are taken off every day and RIAA-ish addresses added, so if you&#39;re talking about what I think you are then all I can say is this; "If you aren&#39;t going to update PG every time you&#39;re using P2P then you might as well uninstall it and forget about it, because the only true way to protect yourself is to keep it running and keep it updated"
===============================
JPaul - It has been known recently to block certain sites due to pranksters and the like (and those same known pranksters are being barred from submitting any more now, thank god :D), but these are being seen to - If you use PG and you see it blocks a certain site, then note the IP and give it to meth on the Feedback/Comments section of the IP Database. It should be IP-protected within 48 hours. Sorted.

Likewise, I agree that this should be in Filesharing - Can a mod do this ASAP?
===============================
Rat Faced - You can do it manually, but seeing as I regularly update it for this & that, I&#39;d rather trust the database and set the process of d/ling the Full Update to overwrite my sharing.p2p file automatically and spend about 30 seconds on it rather than 5 minutes tops :D Besides, there&#39;s no insurance that overseas companies won&#39;t try anything - The RIAA&#39;s been having influences in other countries AFAIK anyway <_<
===============================
Spindulik - BID isn&#39;t supported by meth&#39;s IP database yet, but considering its reputation of what it blocks then I&#39;d be surprised if it would. I would strongly recommend you change your firewall to something like ZoneAlarm, but that&#39;s my opinion - It&#39;s your choice :)
===============================

Hope that answers a few worries - I just don&#39;t want a scare happening based on semi-faulty information :)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2003 - 22:24
He&#39;s trying to get more people to go to the filesharing...so if i move it there, it defeats the object of his post.

I do see your point however ;)


If you use peergardian, you dont have to input all the ranges...bit daft me putting in the Italian Defence Dept etc for example...they have no power where i live for one, and are hardly interested in people sharing mp3s and movies :rolleyes:
Good point - that&#39;s moderating using the spirit of the rules, rather than the letter :D

[J'Pol]

Illuminati

What is your suggestion on what we should do. If it is use PG what block list should we use.

To use the old adage, don&#39;t just bring me problems bring me solutions.

[Illuminati]

Well, my original post was to clarify some errors of thinking rather than go into problem/solution philosophy...but what you ask you shall receive :D

PG comes with three seperate lists - Kinda like three seperate queries for an Access database. They&#39;re kinda like three seperate levels of paranoia - "Just wanted to defend yourself", "not everyone&#39;s a friend", and "don&#39;t trust anyone&#33;" (My own comical descriptions ;)). You pick the one you want; I personally believe the first is enough but some do worry about it more than others.

BTW I forgot the address for the IP Database - http://www.simply-click.org/uploadertest/pg2.asp. This will take you a link to the IP Database. There, you can check what I&#39;m talking about for yourself.

I hope this answers any other questions you have - If not, feel free to put them here (I&#39;m being sincere here - It doesn&#39;t happen that often so make it last ;))

[vivitron 15]

ok, i will continue this discussion here, as that thread has taken on a correct direction...It is now discussing the correct way in which to use PG.


vivitron - If you don&#39;t check your facts often, then why comment on it? Yes, PG has blocked non-RIAA/similar IPs before (the most well-known one is the KL forum IP) - It&#39;s because of incidents like Tie2Me&#39;s little prank why meth has started IP protection for known reliable IPs like this forum. It&#39;s also why the options for each entry in the IP database is there - The good/bad options for each IP range do have a purpose you know&nbsp; If you know those good IPs which PG&#39;s current list blocks, then why TF are you telling us? Get down to the IP Database now and tell meth immediately&#33; Until then, I can&#39;t see another program which can as much a better job without the reliance of PG (Sygate maybe, but PG already caters its list for that).

Genuine addresses are taken off every day and RIAA-ish addresses added, so if you&#39;re talking about what I think you are then all I can say is this; "If you aren&#39;t going to update PG every time you&#39;re using P2P then you might as well uninstall it and forget about it, because the only true way to protect yourself is to keep it running and keep it updated"

I feel that my point has been misinterpreted. I do not want to say that Peer Guardian is a bad program; and I have looked into this a lot, so I am pretty well aware of my facts. The point I am trying to make is exactly the point that you make; we agree entirely. I think that my comments in this thread are more representative of my views...I believe that PG is a good program if used correctly. I do not feel that posting "The ultimate block list" is a good idea. The ultimate block list is one which blocks all of the RIAA etc, and no-one else. This list clearly doesn&#39;t do this. I urge anyone who feels a need to use this program (like i said, i did too for a while) to use only the reccomended lists at the official website. It is of no benefit to post lists on forums such as this one, as once it has been posted, it is, in effect, out of date immediately, as IPs will be removed etc. Also it is of no benefit to try to block out as many IPs as possible, as the author of this list clearly has; the best way to do this is ALL: 0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255. This will ensure that no-one suspect gets their files.


I just don&#39;t want a scare happening based on semi-faulty information please don&#39;t consider the information i supplied faulty in any way, unless, as stated there was an error in my calculation (though im sure there wasn&#39;t, as i just got a 97% in my maths degree combinatorics module :) )

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by vivitron 15@27 June 2003 - 09:47
please don&#39;t consider the information i supplied faulty in any way, unless, as stated there was an error in my calculation (though im sure there wasn&#39;t, as i just got a 97% in my maths degree combinatorics module :) )
Was that a pass ?

Thanks again for the clear explanation of your position.

Seriously congrats, always good to see one of the chaps do so well. Which question did you get wrong tho&#39; :D

[Illuminati]

Sorry for the long wait - I wanted to post after reading this earlier, but the forum cut off again :angry Anyway...

vivitron - I think your point&#39;s been misinterpreted by myself as well :( The fact is that your posts seemed to slam PeerGuardian as an effective means to hold RIAA et al from getting your IP, rather than questioning the effectiveness of that list (which it seems now). The rest of my argument comes from this.

"Get facts straight" part - Meth is not one to announce these things in a proper place; most of the news goes straight into the Feedback/Comments as the changes are usually done from problems raised from there. Usually it&#39;s PG users who frequent the Feedback/Comments due to some things directly affecting them, but it doesn&#39;t mean that others can read it as well :) It&#39;s just that your case either forgot to mention the IP Protection, or you didn&#39;t know about it in the first place - That was where I was discussing the "faulty (I should have actually said &#39;erroneous&#39; - Sorry for that :( ) facts".

"Ultimate Block List" - Damn right&#33; This&#39;ll give a lot of PG newbies a false sense of security. I wonder if a mod can take the list down and just add the link, for that reason :unsure:


please don&#39;t consider the information i supplied faulty in any way, unless, as stated there was an error in my calculation (though im sure there wasn&#39;t, as i just got a 97% in my maths degree combinatorics module :))

Nice - I got an A on my GCSE Maths. Six months later I got a D for A-Level Statistics :( Congrats on that 97% (trust me - getting such high marks on any exam is challenging to say the least), but I was more talking about errors in the text rather than in the calculations - That&#39;s been done below.

I didn&#39;t want to start an argument, but at least it&#39;s confirmed that we&#39;re on the same page - PG is effective, but not with that list&#33; :angry:

============================
@Gurahl - Sorry for missing you out; didn&#39;t mean to. Anyway - The aggression works like this; PG checks a protocol (can&#39;t remember which) for the IPs. Any IPs identified as enemies are shut off. The aggression says how often PG checks the protocol for these IPs (I think the default 80 means 80 checks per second, while 100 stands for 100 checks per second, though I can&#39;t be sure)

This is from information in the Feedback/Comments at the IP Database, from a few weeks back. I&#39;ll try to have another look at it ASAP to see if it&#39;s still around.

[vivitron 15]

Cool, Im glad everyone is happy now...
and thanks for the words of encouragement...I was well chuffed with my mark; a 70% is needed (as an average of 3yrs worth of modules) for the equivalent of a first class honours degree :) :)