Socks5 Won't Hide You Completely

Although using a SOCKS5 proxy server can ensure anonymity in most cases, it's a fallacy to believe that you're completely secure from any kind of detection. The US court cases which have have been in the news lately were initiated by IRAA after they were able to obtain the IP addresses of Kazaa users using online detection methods. If this were my only concern, I'd feel quite comfortable running Kazaa behind a SOCKS5 server.

However, in some other countries (example, Singapore) the ISP's themselves are actively monitoring the online activities of their internet users and issuing warning letters to copyright violators. Given such a scenario, even if you hid yourself behind a hundred SOCKS servers they can still see right thru your ass!!

The reason is simple, SOCKS5 traffic maybe authenticated but it's NOT encrypted. Just use any packet sniffer to test what I'm saying.

I think some of the posters here who don't understand the complete picture are doing a disservice to the rest of the community by spreading misinformation about the supposed fool-proof security of SOCKS5. It's very kind of you to point out the advantages of using SOCKS proxies, but it's much more important to emphasize the weaknesses behind it because some clueless soul, who otherwise might have ceased to share files online, could still be running P2P software on their PC under the false assumption that he/she would never get caught.

True, but almost nobody uses socks5 proxies anyway. They are hard to find and usually very slow.

The standard privacy features of Kazaa Lite are enough to prevent yourself from being sued.

Quote:

---

The standard privacy features of Kazaa Lite are enough to prevent yourself from being sued.

---

i thinl you mean "The standard privacy features of Kazaa Lite should provide adequate security in order to reduce the likelihood of being sued to a small level" or stg like that...they dont guarentee anything, and i think its dangerous to promote that it does.

Paul i use a socks5 proxy on kazaa and my speeds dont decrease, but yeah they ont give you privacy.

The RIAA has sued 261 people. All of those were sharing 1000 mp3 files or more.

With the privacy feature in Kazaa Lite K++ that hides your list of shared files, it is impossible for them to see how many files you share. Because of that you won't be a target for them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hugh_m@15 September 2003 - 15:22
Although using a SOCKS5 proxy server can ensure anonymity in most cases, it's a fallacy to believe that you're completely secure from any kind of detection. The US court cases which have have been in the news lately were initiated by IRAA after they were able to obtain the IP addresses of Kazaa users using online detection methods. If this were my only concern, I'd feel quite comfortable running Kazaa behind a SOCKS5 server.

---

Complete and total bullshit. ISP's may and can look at anything they want, although they are not doing so in the US where these cases exsist, not to metion the privacy rights that we still have. The RIAA is NOT obtaining IP addresses from ISP's, they opbtain them by downloading through the network and using somthing similar to netstat to obtain your IP, then attempt to obtain your information through a supenoa to your ISP, and then possibly sue you. Thus a SOCKS5 PROXY IS affective considering.

Quote:

---

However, in some other countries (example, Singapore) the ISP's themselves are actively monitoring the online activities of their internet users and issuing warning letters to copyright violators. Given such a scenario, even if you hid yourself behind a hundred SOCKS servers they can still see right thru your ass!!

---

TROLL, in Sigapore (which is a police state) this may be true, although as you stated yourself that they are "issuing warning letters to copyright violators" however "they are NOT sueing them" although in Sigapore they would probably just lock you up without any warning or notice if they wanted. I am actually quite amazed that you have managed to find such a poor example to compare the situation at hand to those in Singapore. These are most likely just take down letters anyway, and again, US ISP's, where this is the issue, not Sigapore, this does NOT happen and THERE HAS NOT ONE BEEN EVEN ONE CASE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IN THE US, TROLL.

Quote:

---

The reason is simple, SOCKS5 traffic maybe authenticated but it's NOT encrypted. Just use any packet sniffer to test what I'm saying.

---

The SOCKS5 PROXY WILL hide your real IP which is what is the issue at hand.
Encryption is not the issue so your point is useless.

Quote:

---

I think some of the posters here who don't understand the complete picture are doing a disservice to the rest of the community by spreading misinformation about the supposed fool-proof security of SOCKS5. It's very kind of you to point out the advantages of using SOCKS proxies, but it's much more important to emphasize the weaknesses behind it because some clueless soul, who otherwise might have ceased to share files online, could still be running P2P software on their PC under the false assumption that he/she would never get caught.

---

It is VERY clear to me that with a whopping 2 posts and the statements that you have made that you are a TROLL for the RIAA, I had expected someone to show up on this board sooner or later with the statements that you have made. If you are not a TROLL then are clearly misinformed or truly paranoid without a cause.

TROLLS for the RIAA should be BANNED.

Quote:

---

Complete and total bullshit. ISP's may and can look at anything they want, although they are not doing so in the US where these cases exsist, not to metion the privacy rights that we still have. The RIAA is NOT obtaining IP addresses from ISP's, they opbtain them by downloading through the network and using somthing similar to netstat to obtain your IP, then attempt to obtain your information through a supenoa to your ISP, and then possibly sue you. Thus a SOCKS5 PROXY IS affective considering.

---

What's your point here? You're just rephrasing the premise of my argument that the online detection methods available to the RIAA makes SOCKS5 a relatively secure precaution for users in the US.

Quote:

---

TROLL, in Sigapore this may be true, although as you stated yourself that they are "issuing warning letters to copyright violators" however "they are NOT sueing them". These are most likely just take down letters, and again, US ISP's, where this is the issue, not Sigapore, this does NOT happen and there HAS NOT ONE BEEN EVEN ONE CASE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IN THE US, TROLL.

---

It may be true in the US but users in other countries should also be aware of how different anti-detection methods can affect them differently depending on where they live. In some countries, a mere warning letter is enough to turn most internet users off from continuing to use the P2P software. They just don't want to mess with the authorities.

Quote:

---

If you are not a TROLL then are clearly misinformed or truly paranoid without a cause.

---

No I am not a troll, but at the risk of being accused so, I'm just trying to make a rational argument based on facts that SOCKS5 by itself is inadequate to cover one's tracks online. I believe that for many P2P users who look to these forums for guidance on where they stand security-wise, knowing the drawbacks of various much-touted anti-detection methods can help to alert them from being lulled into a false sense of security.

Hugh instead of trying to point out the fact that Socks5 wont 100% cover someones online activities, why dont you think of something constructive on how people can try and improve thier online privacy and security.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by &#036;nax+15 September 2003 - 23:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (&#036;nax @ 15 September 2003 - 23:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Hugh instead of trying to point out the fact that Socks5 wont 100% cover someones online activities, why dont you think of something constructive on how people can try and improve thier online privacy and security. [/b]

---

i think that he raises a good point...it is easy for people (n00bs esp) to become obsessed and to think that this is complete protection - true it is good, and i wont dispute that, but is it not possible for your ISP to look at your files and send the info to the RIAA?

and
<!--QuoteBegin-paul
With the privacy feature in Kazaa Lite K++ that hides your list of shared files, it is impossible for them to see how many files you share. Because of that you won&#39;t be a target for them.[/quote] this is true, but you could still be found and sued...if they have 1000 pcs attempting to find this stuff, and i turn up on every one of them with a different file at the same time, then im pretty sure theyll look into me...improbable, maybe, but it is still not impossible

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vivitron 15+16 September 2003 - 01:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vivitron 15 @ 16 September 2003 - 01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-&#036;nax@15 September 2003 - 23:47
Hugh instead of trying to point out the fact that Socks5 wont 100% cover someones online activities, why dont you think of something constructive on how people can try and improve thier online privacy and security.

---

i think that he raises a good point...it is easy for people (n00bs esp) to become obsessed and to think that this is complete protection - true it is good, and i wont dispute that, but is it not possible for your ISP to look at your files and send the info to the RIAA? [/b][/quote]
THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED. ISP&#39;s want no part of doing this, nor could they afford to. It borders on being illegal for them to do so. Not to mention we pay them, and the puplicity of such an action could destroy an ISP carrier.