[lenatime]

If a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer, but defendent only used eMule, therefore only went through the eDonkey network, could he have connected to defendant's computer through Gnutella and obtained the file? Does anyone know and can help me with this scenario?

[xilolee]

I think, but I'm not totally sure of it, that the sole (and unique) common point between eMule and Gnutella is Shareaza (maybe MLdonkey and other software less known?).
Gnutella could be connected to Shareaza and Shareaza could be connected to eMule.
Direct connection between Gnutella and eMule is not possible.

This post has been edited by xilolee: 06 June 2012 - 01:15 AM

[DavidXanatos]

lenatime, on 05 June 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

If a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer, but defendent only used eMule, therefore only went through the eDonkey network, could he have connected to defendant's computer through Gnutella and obtained the file? Does anyone know and can help me with this scenario?

The scenario is bullshit.

Its like the detective calming he created a cross bread of a dog and a cat.

Its ridiculous, as they booth software is completely incompatible.


David X.

[Ejack79]

DavidXanatos, on 06 June 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

lenatime, on 05 June 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

If a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer, but defendent only used eMule, therefore only went through the eDonkey network, could he have connected to defendant's computer through Gnutella and obtained the file? Does anyone know and can help me with this scenario?

The scenario is bullshit.

Its like the detective calming he created a cross bread of a dog and a cat.

Its ridiculous, as they booth software is completely incompatible.


David X.

[lenatime]

xilolee, on 06 June 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

I think, but I'm not totally sure of it, that the sole (and unique) common point between eMule and Gnutella is Shareaza (maybe MLdonkey and other software less known?).
Gnutella could be connected to Shareaza and Shareaza could be connected to eMule.
Direct connection between Gnutella and eMule is not possible.

Thank you. This is helpful. And interesting, but discouraging. I'm helping to defend the defendant in this case. And the police say they obtained two files using Shareaza but the hard drive is no longer operable so we can't prove it and know one in court knew enough about this to refute it, but it's going into appeal. Well, I need to verify this. I mean can you point me to how you know this and if there is more available information about this? I wonder if I can get a copy of Shareaza and try to replicate the scenario.

This post has been edited by lenatime: 07 June 2012 - 01:16 PM

[lenatime]

Ejack79, on 06 June 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

DavidXanatos, on 06 June 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

lenatime, on 05 June 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

If a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer, but defendent only used eMule, therefore only went through the eDonkey network, could he have connected to defendant's computer through Gnutella and obtained the file? Does anyone know and can help me with this scenario?

The scenario is bullshit.

Its like the detective calming he created a cross bread of a dog and a cat.

Its ridiculous, as they booth software is completely incompatible.


David X.

Well can you provide more information, details as to how you think this is not possible? I really REALLY NEED to verify this information. I am hoping you are right, but I need proof. But thank you.

[xilolee]

From eMule v0.50a Statistics you can see compatible clients/programs

   eMule: 301 (89.6%)
      v0.50a: 211 (70.1%)
      v0.48a: 42 (14.0%)
      v0.49c: 21 (7.0%)
      v0.49b: 19 (6.3%)
      Minor: 8 (2.7%)
         v0.49a: 8 (2.7%)
   eD Hybrid: 0 (0.0%)
   eDonkey: 0 (0.0%)
   aMule: 22 (6.5%)
      v2.2.6: 15 (68.2%)
      v2.3.1: 7 (31.8%)
   MLdonkey: 2 (0.6%)
   Shareaza: 3 (0.9%)
   eM Compat: 8 (2.4%)
   Unknown: 0 (0.0%)

This list miss only LPhant client, I think, and unknown clients, obviously.
For more informations on shareaza client, you should ask on shareaza forum or

This post has been edited by xilolee: 07 June 2012 - 01:44 PM

[lenatime]

xilolee, on 07 June 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

From eMule v0.50a Statistics you can see compatible clients/programs

   eMule: 301 (89.6%)
      v0.50a: 211 (70.1%)
      v0.48a: 42 (14.0%)
      v0.49c: 21 (7.0%)
      v0.49b: 19 (6.3%)
      Minor: 8 (2.7%)
         v0.49a: 8 (2.7%)
   eD Hybrid: 0 (0.0%)
   eDonkey: 0 (0.0%)
   aMule: 22 (6.5%)
      v2.2.6: 15 (68.2%)
      v2.3.1: 7 (31.8%)
   MLdonkey: 2 (0.6%)
   Shareaza: 3 (0.9%)
   eM Compat: 8 (2.4%)
   Unknown: 0 (0.0%)

This list miss only LPhant client, I think, and unknown clients, obviously.
For more informations on shareaza client, you should ask on shareaza forum or

Thanks, this is really helpful.

[Zangune]

This

lenatime, on 06 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

... a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer...

is not the same of this

lenatime, on 07 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

... the police say they obtained two files using Shareaza...

Gnutella is a network, eMule is a software.
eMule can not join Gnutella network, but eMule can use eDonkey2000 network, read there
Shareaza can use, among others, eDonkey2000 network, read there
So everyone could connect to his/her eMule and download the two files.

lenatime, on 07 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

... the hard drive is no longer operable so we can't prove it and know one in court knew enough about this to refute it, but it's going into appeal...

I have to say I am not sure that I understood this sentence
Judge did not know how eMule works?
He/she did not know the difference between eMule and Shareaza?
Again

lenatime, on 06 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

... a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer...

Are his/her exact word?
Vice of form But this is not eMule, it is jurisprudence

Can this topic be useful?

This post has been edited by Zangune: 07 June 2012 - 11:58 PM

[lenatime]

Zangune, on 08 June 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

This

lenatime, on 06 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

... a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer...

is not the same of this

lenatime, on 07 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

... the police say they obtained two files using Shareaza...

Gnutella is a network, eMule is a software.
eMule can not join Gnutella network, but eMule can use eDonkey2000 network, read there
Shareaza can use, among others, eDonkey2000 network, read there
So everyone could connect to his/her eMule and download the two files.

lenatime, on 07 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

... the hard drive is no longer operable so we can't prove it and know one in court knew enough about this to refute it, but it's going into appeal...

I have to say I am not sure that I understood this sentence
Judge did not know how eMule works?
He/she did not know the difference between eMule and Shareaza?
Again

lenatime, on 06 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

... a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer...

Are his/her exact word?
Vice of form But this is not eMule, it is jurisprudence

Can this topic be useful?

I'm not sure I understand it all either. Well I know I don't, but I'm trying to understand how they say they acquired the file and to replicate the process. The way I understand it, is that they connected to this person's computer, with a 1 to 1 connection through Gnutella using Shaeraza, or connected to eDonkey through Gnutella using Shaeraza. The person's alleged illegal file was acquired from the eDonkey network using eMule. And I am trying find out if that's possible. Or maybe I misunderstood the detective's affidavit, but that's my understanding of how they acquired this file.

[lenatime]

lenatime, on 09 June 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Zangune, on 08 June 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

This

lenatime, on 06 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

... a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer...

is not the same of this

lenatime, on 07 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

... the police say they obtained two files using Shareaza...

Gnutella is a network, eMule is a software.
eMule can not join Gnutella network, but eMule can use eDonkey2000 network, read there
Shareaza can use, among others, eDonkey2000 network, read there
So everyone could connect to his/her eMule and download the two files.

lenatime, on 07 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

... the hard drive is no longer operable so we can't prove it and know one in court knew enough about this to refute it, but it's going into appeal...

I have to say I am not sure that I understood this sentence
Judge did not know how eMule works?
He/she did not know the difference between eMule and Shareaza?
Again

lenatime, on 06 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

... a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer...

Are his/her exact word?
Vice of form But this is not eMule, it is jurisprudence

Can this topic be useful?

I'm not sure I understand it all either. Well I know I don't, but I'm trying to understand how they say they acquired the file and to replicate the process. The way I understand it, is that they connected to this person's computer, with a 1 to 1 connection through Gnutella using Shareaza, or connected to eDonkey through Gnutella using Shareaza. The person's alleged illegal file was acquired from the eDonkey network using eMule. And I am trying prove, or disprove, if connecting to the defendant's computer directly using Shareaza via Gnutella through eDonkey is even possible. Or maybe I misunderstood the detective's affidavit, but that's my understanding of how he said he acquired this file. I don't know why he/they would elaborate so about going through Gnutella (in his affidavit) to get this file, if he/they could have connected directly to eDonkey with Shareaza. He didn't mention eDonkey once in this 20-page affidavit, but like I said, the defendant only used eMule to get the file, so the file was affirmed to be on the eDonkey network. Maybe he had to use Shareaza and go through Gnutella to make the 1 x 1 connection. Or something else is going on and the information is not accurate. Though I've also searched for this file and couldn't find it on the eDonkey network. Next I'll figure out how to search using hash values. I have the hash values to two of the alleged illegal files.

It would be great if someone who really knows these networks and programs could read this guy's affidavit and tell me if he's full of it or not. I'm going to install Shareaza and see what I can find out there. Thanks for the links/info. It's really helpful.

This post has been edited by lenatime: 09 June 2012 - 01:26 AM

[lenatime]

Zangune, on 08 June 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

This

lenatime, on 06 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

... a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer...

is not the same of this

lenatime, on 07 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

... the police say they obtained two files using Shareaza...

Gnutella is a network, eMule is a software.
eMule can not join Gnutella network, but eMule can use eDonkey2000 network, read there
Shareaza can use, among others, eDonkey2000 network, read there
So everyone could connect to his/her eMule and download the two files.

lenatime, on 07 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

... the hard drive is no longer operable so we can't prove it and know one in court knew enough about this to refute it, but it's going into appeal...

I have to say I am not sure that I understood this sentence
Judge did not know how eMule works?
He/she did not know the difference between eMule and Shareaza?
Again

lenatime, on 06 June 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

... a detective says he obtained a file through the Gnutella network on a 1 to 1 peer connection on a defendent's computer...

Are his/her exact word?
Vice of form But this is not eMule, it is jurisprudence

Can this topic be useful?

So you are saying that you *can* connect to the eDonkey network using Shareaza and then find a user, who is only using eMule, connect to their eMule, and then tag the file and download it directly off their computer, using a 1 to 1 connection? I thought you had to 'friend' someone in eMule to get that 1 to 1 connection. If what I think you are saying is true, then wouldn't that be a security breach within eMule?

This post has been edited by lenatime: 09 June 2012 - 01:33 AM

[xilolee]

If I'm sharing only a file, and only a client asks to mine that file, it will get full speed.
Maybe some emule mod could give full speed with "slot focus" feature(?).

[Zangune]

Please read carefully, you made a bit of confusion

lenatime, on 09 June 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

So you are saying that you *can* connect to the eDonkey network using Shareaza and then find a user

Not a user. Other peer to peer software acts the way you said, eMule it's different. In eMule you search files through servers or other clients (kad).

lenatime, on 09 June 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

connect to their eMule, and then tag the file and download it directly off their computer, using a 1 to 1 connection? I thought you had to 'friend' someone in eMule to get that 1 to 1 connection.

This is not the scenario: you can add a client, but you have to know his IP and his TCP port, then ask his shared files, moreover by default your eMule sends to no one your file list (you have to manually set this option) and, as far as I know, Shareaza can not use this feature.

lenatime, on 09 June 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

wouldn't that be a security breach within eMule?

No, this is just peer to peer = we share files each other. Read Wikipedia

If I use Shareaza I can join eDonkey2000 network, find a file, contact people who share that file using eMule and get his/her IP (in some way). Police can, probably, ask to client's provider who was the person that used that IP at the moment of connection, they probably need a judge authorization.

[DavidXanatos]

you can download using shareaze form emule over the ed2k network.

you can not download from emule enything over any other network than ed2k.

What propably happen is that the detective has no idea what is going on used shareaza and downlaoded over the ed2k network, not knowing what he is doing.
And now he things that it was the gnutela network.

I think this degree of incompetence on his side should sufice to dismiss the clame.

[lenatime]

Zangune, on 09 June 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Please read carefully, you made a bit of confusion

lenatime, on 09 June 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

So you are saying that you *can* connect to the eDonkey network using Shareaza and then find a user

Not a user. Other peer to peer software acts the way you said, eMule it's different. In eMule you search files through servers or other clients (kad).

lenatime, on 09 June 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

connect to their eMule, and then tag the file and download it directly off their computer, using a 1 to 1 connection? I thought you had to 'friend' someone in eMule to get that 1 to 1 connection.

This is not the scenario: you can add a client, but you have to know his IP and his TCP port, then ask his shared files, moreover by default your eMule sends to no one your file list (you have to manually set this option) and, as far as I know, Shareaza can not use this feature.

lenatime, on 09 June 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

wouldn't that be a security breach within eMule?

No, this is just peer to peer = we share files each other. Read Wikipedia

If I use Shareaza I can join eDonkey2000 network, find a file, contact people who share that file using eMule and get his/her IP (in some way). Police can, probably, ask to client's provider who was the person that used that IP at the moment of connection, they probably need a judge authorization.

Thanks again.

[lenatime]

DavidXanatos, on 09 June 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

you can download using shareaze form emule over the ed2k network.

you can not download from emule enything over any other network than ed2k.

What propably happen is that the detective has no idea what is going on used shareaza and downlaoded over the ed2k network, not knowing what he is doing.
And now he things that it was the gnutela network.

I think this degree of incompetence on his side should sufice to dismiss the clame.

Thank you.

[lenatime]

xilolee, on 06 June 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

I think, but I'm not totally sure of it, that the sole (and unique) common point between eMule and Gnutella is Shareaza (maybe MLdonkey and other software less known?).
Gnutella could be connected to Shareaza and Shareaza could be connected to eMule.
Direct connection between Gnutella and eMule is not possible.

Do you know of anyone who knows Shareaza really well and these networks, who could read this affidavit (20-pages) and evaluate the technical merits of what is stated about the way they obtained a file through the application and networks? There is not much in the way of legal language, so it's really just a lot of technical explanation as to how they acquired the file. I would gladly pay someone for a thorough and accurate evaluation.

[DavidXanatos]

lenatime, on 10 June 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Do you know of anyone who knows Shareaza really well and these networks, who could read this affidavit (20-pages) and evaluate the technical merits of what is stated about the way they obtained a file through the application and networks? There is not much in the way of legal language, so it's really just a lot of technical explanation as to how they acquired the file. I would gladly pay someone for a thorough and accurate evaluation.

kost it as a download for everyone with person names redacted and you might get an analysis for free.

David X.