Official eMule-Board: Razorback Servers Seized By Belgian Police - Official eMule-Board

Jump to content


  • (22 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • Last »

Razorback Servers Seized By Belgian Police

#341 User is offline   PacoBell 

  • Professional Lurker ¬_¬ (so kyoot!)
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 7296
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 07 August 2006 - 03:34 AM

Uh oh, so how does this bode for the rest of servers if RB2 really does implement this filter? Does it set a precedent to compel other servers to follow suit? If RB2 filters arbitrary files at the whim of a third party, they had better at least give an indication that they are filtering and why or I can't see a reason why I should trust the results from that server anymore. It would be just as bad as the fake servers we're seeing these days.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!

#342 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 07 August 2006 - 07:04 AM

Hum....

If you were a server owner, you certainly noticed that eserver have plenty ways to filter files, since the very begining of its life.

If you were a pedophil, you certainly noticed that some servers *always* filtered your stuff. Example : ChezToff (213.186.60.106) : try to search a file with 'pedo' in it filename...
This is as easy as :

filter[0]=(pedo)
(as explained in : original edonkey server doc)

If you were a normal guy, you certainly noticed that *some* pedo stuff is shared and can be found on *some* servers and you would certainly asked yourself : Why servers owners can let this stuff *enter* their server ?

As the eserver author, I have to give tools so that servers owners can still run their server, even if they SHOULD/HAVE/MUST filter some files, that might hurt them.

You can call this 'fake tools' or 'fake servers'. Then I would like you to go to your local police with some pedo files and fill an official complaint that 'some servers' wont let you share your stuff, on the Internet.

Pacobell, you tell us about trusting a server, but it doesnt make any sense. Even a real 'lugdunum' server is only a repository of what other clients publish. Dont trust clients because there are a lot of fake clients spreading fake files. Ho could you trust the servers if their clients are not trustable ?
0

#343 User is offline   leuk_he 

  • MorphXT team.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5975
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 07 August 2006 - 09:30 AM

PacoBell, on Aug 7 2006, 05:34 AM, said:

Uh oh, so how does this bode for the rest of servers if RB2 really does implement this filter? Does it set a precedent to compel other servers to follow suit? If RB2 filters arbitrary files at the whim of a third party, they had better at least give an indication that they are filtering and why or I can't see a reason why I should trust the results from that server anymore. It would be just as bad as the fake servers we're seeing these days.
View Post


The correct way would be to add something to emule that checks if the server is correcly publishing your files. Trusting the serverowners to publish what they filter is not the correct way. It would add overhead, but it would automatically filter bad servers. (this was discussed long ago in FR, but i never made code that had the quality to be published).
Download the MorphXT emule mod here: eMule Morph mod

Trouble connecting to a server? Use kad and /or refresh your server list
Strange search results? Check for fake servers! Or download morph, enable obfuscated server required, and far less fake server seen.

Looking for morphXT translators. If you want to translate the morph strings please come here (you only need to be able to write, no coding required. ) Covered now: cn,pt(br),it,es_t,fr.,pl Update needed:de,nl
-Morph FAQ [English wiki]--Het grote emule topic deel 13 [Nederlands]
if you want to send a message i will tell you to open op a topic in the forum. Other forum lurkers might be helped as well.
0

#344 User is offline   PacoBell 

  • Professional Lurker ¬_¬ (so kyoot!)
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 7296
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 07 August 2006 - 05:15 PM

lugdunummaster, on Aug 7 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

You can call this 'fake tools' or 'fake servers'. Then I would like you to go to your local police with some pedo files and fill an official complaint that 'some servers' wont let you share your stuff, on the Internet.
I don't know why you decided to use pedophilia as the topic for debate (shock value?), but I'll go along with it. Using the same filter as an example, I also wouldn't be able to publish research material regarding pedology, the scientific study of the origin, properties and uses of soil. Or how about information about pedontics, the branch of dentistry that deals with the care and treatment of children's teeth. If I wanted to share such files, I would demand to know the reason why my files were arbitrarily censored.

Quote

Pacobell, you tell us about trusting a server, but it doesnt make any sense. Even a real 'lugdunum' server is only a repository of what other clients publish. Dont trust clients because there are a lot of fake clients spreading fake files. Ho could you trust the servers if their clients are not trustable ?
View Post
Fake files I can handle, for there are out-of-band resources to verify those. What I cannot stomach is when a server takes it upon itself to omit search results based simply on a fallible filename filter. I might have even supported a hash filter like AltNet's doing (sans central repository), but there is just too much collateral damage now to accept. The trust stems from my faith that the server I publish my files to will accurately represent me. You've got a censorship policy? Fine, then inform me about it, but the silence is a slap in the face.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!

#345 User is offline   m8h 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 23-January 05

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:03 PM

PacoBell, on Aug 7 2006, 08:15 PM, said:

Fake files I can handle, for there are out-of-band resources to verify those. What I cannot stomach is when a server takes it upon itself to omit search results based simply on a fallible filename filter. I might have even supported a hash filter like AltNet's doing (sans central repository), but there is just too much collateral damage now to accept. The trust stems from my faith that the server I publish my files to will accurately represent me. You've got a censorship policy? Fine, then inform me about it, but the silence is a slap in the face.
View Post

I agree with PacoBell.
There is also the fact that not all filenames are in English. There are files on the network from allover the world and I can bet that the server operators and programmers can't even recognize most of them. So when you start filter out words that contain fragments of something that is considered *bad* or might be referring to something copyrighted in English (or in some other major language) then you will also filter out the words that have nothing to do with the meaning that it has in English.
And if you can not get any info whatsoever about the files that are considered bad by the server you are currently connected to, then you can never be sure that your totally legit content can be found via server search.
Considering the fact that filtering is already done on the most popular servers without informing the users about it, it looks like we can not trust any server search anymore.
Donkeyserver search for the word "king" is a good example. Can anyone think of a reason why it's not working? Is it really filtered out?
While "king" means "emperor" in English, it's a "shoe" in my language. Why am I denied searching shoes? Or kings? :huh:

This post has been edited by m8h: 08 August 2006 - 01:04 PM

0

#346 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:54 PM

Quote

Donkeyserver search for the word "king" is a good example. Can anyone think of a reason why it's not working? Is it really filtered out?


Let me see what could happen. Le me write this here as some of you dont have a clue.

One upon a time, DsNo1 owner received an official letter from MPAA/RIAA, asking him to shutdown its server(s), because MPAA/RIAA could find "king... you know what" on his server.
Instead of closing server, or being sued and charged/fined millions of dollars, I understand DsNo1 owner chose to add a filter, so that RIAA/MPAA could not EVER find a single sample of this film on this server. It seems you still can find a lot of other stuff, so maybe RIAA/MPAA lawers are lazy and not giving a whole list of forbidden words...

As as said, dont trust servers, dont trust clients. Be prepared to the fact that some message you send to the network may be un-answered, or even get wrong results.

Of course you are free to setup your own server. I think Kad itself is meant to carry a client AND a server in a single program.
0

#347 User is offline   LSX2007 

  • Splendid Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 04-November 02

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:59 PM

If a server has filtering enabled, and a certain file has more the one different filenames, with one (or more) of them containing the word(s) to be filtered, while the other filenames are clean, will the "clean" filesnames be shown?

If those files are not shown anymore, this would open up a way to easily make any searches completely unreliable. It would be very easy to get files banned from search results, even if they are ok from a moral and legal point of view.
0

#348 User is offline   EvolutionCrazy 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1226
  • Joined: 05-May 04

Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:09 PM

LSX2007, on Aug 8 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

If a server has filtering enabled, and a certain file has more the one different filenames, with one (or more) of them containing the word(s) to be filtered, while the other filenames are clean, will the "clean" filesnames be shown?

If those files are not shown anymore, this would open up a way to easily make any searches completely unreliable. It would be very easy to get files banned from search results, even if they are ok from a moral and legal point of view.
View Post


http://www.edonkey20...ver.html#filter

if i understand correctly filtering is active only when you send you filelist to the server (on connection or on sharedlist change), so if another user send the same file (same md4) but with a different name (this one not censored), the file will still be reachable and the sources can be asked to the server (i don't think hash filtering is possible with edonkey servers... right?) :)

btw... kad works great... since some days i'm no more connecting to the servers... just to kad... and no problem so far... still a lot of sources (the one that aren't connected to kad arrive via source exchange :-k

This post has been edited by EvolutionCrazy: 08 August 2006 - 02:12 PM

There are three kinds of people in this world: people who watch things happen ... people who complain about things that happen ... and people who make things happen...
0

#349 User is offline   m8h 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 23-January 05

Posted 08 August 2006 - 04:03 PM

lugdunummaster, on Aug 8 2006, 04:54 PM, said:

One upon a time, DsNo1 owner received an official letter from MPAA/RIAA, asking him to shutdown its server(s), because MPAA/RIAA could find "king... you know what" on his server.
Instead of closing server, or being sued and charged/fined millions of dollars, I understand DsNo1 owner chose to add a filter, so that RIAA/MPAA could not EVER find a single sample of this film on this server.
Yes, I understand it completely and that was what I suspected myself. And that is what makes me hate RIAA/MPAA a little more every day for how they are pushing limits to the freedom of speech.

Quote

It seems you still can find a lot of other stuff, so maybe RIAA/MPAA lawers are lazy and not giving a whole list of forbidden words...

Yeah, well, then they would come with the complete dictionary :-k and all words will be filtered.

Quote

As as said, dont trust servers

Well, I haven't seen such a statement from a server software developer in this forum before and thought that at least some servers can be trusted (or maybe I missed that statement?). Now it appears that all servers might give you fake results. So thanks for clearing that up. :)

Quote

dont trust clients.
in the light of the previous statement, I'd say that at least the majority of clients are still more trustworthy than any of the servers.

Quote

Be prepared to the fact that some message you send to the network may be un-answered
Got it. It's just the first time for me when a server didn't give me a single answer, so I was kind'a shocked Posted Image. Now it's starting to remind me the old Napster days when some of the content was filtered out by certain words and to find something, you had to misspell those words or use 1337.

Quote

or even get wrong results.
Depends what do you mean by "wrong". Fake files is old news and has not much to do with servers. Wrong results from fake servers is a different matter and we are not talking about it here.
We are talking about no results given by the servers that are considered reliable.

Quote

Of course you are free to setup your own server. I think Kad itself is meant to carry a client AND a server in a single program.
View Post

I've been using Kad since it was added to the official eMule client. I'm using both search types when I search something and I can't get good results with the first attempt.
I just have not seen it before that some words might be completely ignored by servers. I guess I have not been using ©words :angelnot:

Anyway, thanks for bringing some clarity in the matter.
And thank you for all the work you have done with the server software. Keep up the good work :+1: :respect:
0

#350 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 08 August 2006 - 04:32 PM

Quote

in the light of the previous statement, I'd say that at least the majority of clients are still more trustworthy than any of the servers.


I dont know... my stats show me that about 20.000 'clients' are connected to DsNo1 (and other servers as well) trying to push viruses/worms/...

Quote

Well, I haven't seen such a statement from a server software developer in this forum before and thought that at least some servers can be trusted (or maybe I missed that statement?). Now it appears that all servers might give you fake results.


Well.. it took me one month to write first eserver.

Protocol between clients and servers is not crypted/signed/authentified, and this protocol is 'public' (for anyone reading emule sources). So I suspect it would be quite easy for a programmer to write a 'clone' and let it do strange things.

Even if no programmer was able to reproduce my work (very unlikely), I suspect a secret agent could just copy my sources (I am not living in a bunker)

So it is very likely some fake servers can give you fake results, or record your requests and send/sell them to your friend/enemy

Again, dont trust servers or clients. Dont trust me neither :)
0

#351 User is offline   m8h 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 23-January 05

Posted 08 August 2006 - 05:03 PM

lugdunummaster, on Aug 8 2006, 07:32 PM, said:

I dont know... my stats show me that about 20.000 'clients' are connected to DsNo1 (and other servers as well) trying to push viruses/worms/...
That does not surprise me. I bet there are even more other viruses on the computers that are running those clients - only most viruses are not spreading via ed2k network.
That only means that you really can trust those clients - they really are distributing everything in the shared folders. They are not filtering anything. The fact that their users are stupid does not make the clients unreliable.
The only filtering should be done by the filter between the monitor and the seat on the download side.

Quote

Dont trust me neither :)
View Post

Yeah. I won't! :P

Trust no one!
©Fox Entertainment Group Inc. :ph34r:
0

#352 User is offline   MadlyMad 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3745
  • Joined: 29-October 02

Posted 08 August 2006 - 05:28 PM

yeah, just suppose MPAA sends a letter to ask to delete the movie xXx from servers index, this would limited a lot p0rn, this is nonsense ! :lol:

:P

The extreme limit of wisdom, that is what the public calls madness.
0

#353 User is offline   Kry 

  • No Support
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 2018
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 08 August 2006 - 05:48 PM

MadlyMad, on Aug 8 2006, 07:28 PM, said:

yeah, just suppose MPAA sends a letter to ask to delete the movie xXx from servers index, this would limited a lot p0rn, this is nonsense !  :lol:

:P
View Post


Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn".
Retired aMule developer.
Minister of Strange Operative Systems and Sarcasm (S.O.S & S) in President Birk's New World Order
0

#354 User is offline   PacoBell 

  • Professional Lurker ¬_¬ (so kyoot!)
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 7296
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:08 PM

Kry, on Aug 8 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn".
View Post
Ugh. That's so backwards, I don't have words to describe it. Stuff like this makes me physically ill.

P.S. Read QC much? ;)
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!

#355 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:13 PM

Quote

Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn".


I found plenty results. Must be something wrong on your side.
0

#356 User is offline   Kry 

  • No Support
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 2018
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:30 PM

lugdunummaster, on Aug 8 2006, 08:13 PM, said:

Quote

Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn".


I found plenty results. Must be something wrong on your side.
View Post


Hence "dunno about you". I can reproduce it since some weeks ago actually :)
Retired aMule developer.
Minister of Strange Operative Systems and Sarcasm (S.O.S & S) in President Birk's New World Order
0

#357 User is offline   PacoBell 

  • Professional Lurker ¬_¬ (so kyoot!)
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 7296
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:49 PM

Meh, both queries work for me. Seems like your anecdotal experience is limited to you for the time being.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!

#358 User is offline   m8h 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 23-January 05

Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:55 PM

Kry, on Aug 8 2006, 08:48 PM, said:

Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn".
View Post

I just tried both words and both are giving a lot of results. The problem must be on your side.
0

#359 User is offline   ElChele 

  • Miembro con emule 0.50a
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7295
  • Joined: 02-September 04

Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:36 PM

@ lugdunummaster
....And what's about This one..???
Is it Rb2 still seized...???
bye
Immagine Postata Make your own ipfilter file, and manage fake files. Take in count, You are the best filter for emule.
0

#360 User is offline   CiccioBastardo 

  • Doomsday Executor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Italian Moderators
  • Posts: 5541
  • Joined: 22-November 03

Posted 08 August 2006 - 09:27 PM

My opinion is that censorship is simply evil. And I wonder why ever a censhorship is needed on a meta data collecting server.
Google does not censor pedo arguments or porn images (search for any porno star's image in the image search engine and you'll see, litterally :P).
I wonder when meta data collecting server will be treated all the same way, be them connected to web, usenet, ED2K or whatever. WTH, I can look for MS cracks with Google as well, and download them with a MS browser and execute them with a MS OS.

This post has been edited by CiccioBastardo: 08 August 2006 - 09:28 PM

The problem is not the client, it's the user
0

  • Member Options

  • (22 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • Last »

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users