On an additional note,

>mask any p2p traffic

This phrase doesn’t mean anything whatsoever. All traffic on the internet is “p2p traffic” with enough wrappers and misdirection you COULD mask any traffic. Pragmatically, though, bittorrent is not gnutella is not napster is not fastrack is not tor is not freenet is DCC.

All of these protocols work in very, very different ways. Bittorrent can be trained to be fairly indiscernable (although, as you pointed out, a little slower than it would otherwise be) whereas masking gnutella would prove more difficult without serious modification to the software involved.

>Blocking UDP? Hardly invincible.

The torrent protocol does not use UDP for data transfer.

>No it does not.

Yes, it does. To someone snooping my traffic all they can see is that I am sending packets of “data”. They cannot reasonably (i’m sure TEH NSA has super secret quantum computers on the moon that could decrypt them in some billion years) decrypt the type of packet or what the packet contains. Now, somebody could just connect to the swarm and request the data from my client, but that is not the level at which the encryption of the protocol operates at.

>Whilst sure, theoretically, what you’re saying is correct the downside of BT being undetected is that it is so slow as to be unuseable.

It would only be slow to “get started”. Once you have connected to your peers and begin transferring data the number of connections you make and attempt are meaningless. Once my torrent client has scraped the data it needs from the tracker and finds a good set of seed/peers and connects to them successfully, everything will progress as it always does.

Blocking UDP? Hardly invincible.

“It masks what the packet is”

It masks the header. So yes in a manner of speaking that is correct.

“and the data inside the packet.”

No it does not.

“So your only solution is vague traffic analysis (that I can still get around with conservative enough settings)”

Seeing as no other common applications behave like a p2p application it doesn’t really matter just how vague traffic analysis is.

You seem to be saying that given the right settings a p2p application, ie. BT, is undetectable. Whilst sure, theoretically, what you’re saying is correct the downside of BT being undetected is that it is so slow as to be unuseable. So what would be the point?

You seem to be proposing that using settings you can mask any p2p traffic so it’s no longer detectable as such. Funny then, is it not, that these conservative settings are not used to avoid throttling then isn’t it. Actually no it isn’t – the settings would make the client unworkably slow.

>LRN2BITTORRENTS LOL

LOL. DHT + PEX + TOR…

>“We quickly built a list of all of the top torrent trackers around and got the nod from Jorke [Odolphi, Web Platform Architect Evangelist for Microsoft Australia] to add them all to the local DNS resolver and point them at a local web server containing some RickRoll scripts.”

… just got around that. DHT+PEX make actually being able to get to the tracker irrelevant. And tor lets you get new swarm information from indexers.

As for…

>Microsoft also created a script which categorized WiFi users with a ‘naughty factor’, meaning those with the greatest number of active port mappings to distinct remote hosts were identified as BitTorrent users.

… I can adjust what range of ports my client uses. I can also control how many connections it will attempt in what timespan and how many it will maintain. I can just keep rotating my MAC address until I find their limit.

>It does not provide any masking of data

Actually, yes it does. Thats the entire point. It masks what the packet is and the data inside the packet. Sure, you can still see that I’m sending “data” over whatever range of ports to peers that don’t seem “appropriate” but all you can really do is “assume” that my traffic “looks like bittorrent”.

So your only solution is vague traffic analysis (that I can still get around with conservative enough settings) and cutting me off completely if my traffic patterns are “suspect”.

On that note, however, creators of bittorrent clients should really give them more conservative default settings. And users should be more responsible with their use of the protocol. But, my point is, they didn’t actually block bittorrent. They just made it more difficult to use/forced users to be more responsible or get off.

DHT + PEX leads to connections no different to any other peer to peer connection over BT. Actually in some cases it can lead to more ports being used as each torrent instance needs to have a corresponding hash found over the network.

Encryption as used in BT = masking header data which is next to useless as far as masking BT traffic. It does not provide any masking of data or it’s origin/destination. It does not hide any ports that are being used.

In short none of the above are going to make any difference. And in this situation described in the article they were’nt worried about transfers as much as port usage.

LRN2BITTORRENTS LOL

This kind of technique won’t be screwing with your home use of bittorrent, or even you abroad use of bittorrent if you already had your client configured as such.

All true but you’re forgetting that the majority of users here dont know anything and react to any hint of “not being allowed to download warez” with “lolwut”, “fascist”, “net neutrality”, “corporate fatcats”, “culture is being enlaved” and “free speech!” without actually knowing what the terms mean or the situation itself.

This threads comments is a great example of this as you noticed.

Right, sounds like MAC Filtering. And we all know how easy that is to bypass.

i guessing every connection opens an temp port when under NAT and they was using an cheap router for the event that could not handle it

Okay, this is most certainly legal. Calling what they did here illegal (like some comments here have done) is like saying that blocking porn sites on a middle schools network illegal….

This was an event hosted by a company. This was not an ISP doing anything, it was the event holder placing restrictions on usage of their property……does that make any sense…

when did this conversation devolve into pirating? They neither claimed or pointed to pirating to be the problem with it. They stated that their network was unable to handle that many different port usages from that many different clients. If you have every personally run a large network, you would know that there is quite a bit more to it than bandwidth. Even hosting 30-50 clients can be fairly difficult without enough gear/knowledge on how to use it.

So basically, it is funny as hell that they rickroll’d people…

There ARE a limited number of ports, so whoever told that guy to google it, you should do the same. 65535 is the max.

Yes, you can block VPN and it be legal. Why wouldn’t it be? They were paying for the connection. They can do whatever they want.

This is not MS adding in a block to their operating system. This is not Australian ISPs blocking consumers from using BitTorrent. This is Microsoft and the contractors they hired limiting what can be done on a private connection that they paid for.

PS if you pirate everyting you own, you’ll be uploading them. Enjoy your freedom, while it lasts.

Presumably by own, you mean you’ve bought something, then

Also, realize that it does take a lot of bandwidth to run bittorrent, regardless of what you may think. Yes, you are spreading the load around as far as where you pull it from, but it is all going to one place, just as a lot of people are pulling from you.

Regardless, the issue is that they are running a free event and offering the free bandwidth, then having that thrown back in their face when a small number of people are abusing it.

The analogy would be offering free food, then having a couple of people who eat it all because of their own greed.

yeah! this story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…

http://torrentfreak.com/how-and-why-bittorrent-works-a-visualization-100217/#comment-641344

France has cearly ambition to have most tightly montitored and “depolluted” Internet: The French lower house, the National Assembly, has just passed a security bill known as LOPPSI2, which is “grab bag of security items that includes state-sanctioned computer Trojans, a massive new database of citizen data (dubbed “Pericles”), and a requirement that ISPs start censoring sites on a government blacklist” – quoting ArsTechnica.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/move-over-australia-france-taking-net-censorship-lead.ars

Maybe but you’d have to be some kind of idiot to go to that length to use Bittorrent at a once a year convention that runs for a few days.

It’s not hard to sniff out another users’ MAC address on wi-fi – then clone it. It might even come down to that, if that’s the only way blocked users can get back online.

““I think the MS crew were just trying to show off how “smart” they were, but they certainly lack maturity.

Excessive port usage seems like a poor excuse. Packet inspection, port forwarding and Upnp quickly handles and directs data where it needs to go on a wired or wireless network so the MS kids can’t be that smart. ”

Port forwarding and UPNP have nothing to do with controlling or restricting which ports are used on any kind of network. DPI requires hardware that is expensive and hence is only used on an ISP or corporate WAN setting usually.

I think the MS crew were just trying to show off how “smart” they were, but they certainly lack maturity.

Well you didn’t succeed and now you look like an idiot and yes that is egg on your face. Making up arbitary functions for commonly used features of the Windows operating system in order to demonstrate how stupid people are is very immature. It also proves that you have no training in network administration.

Oh and it also proves that you’re so hellbent on showing us how awesome you are with MS bashing that you’re willing to just make up facts to suit your own argument. So mature that…

Frankly you sound like one of those high school kids who attaches a large part of their ego to the online experience in order to avoid any social contact.

Google is your friend.

@ Gelnn

obvious idiot is obvious

No.

Also, never gonna give you up.

“I think the MS crew were just trying to show off how “smart” they were, but they certainly lack maturity.

Excessive port usage seems like a poor excuse. Packet inspection, port forwarding and Upnp quickly handles and directs data where it needs to go on a wired or wireless network so the MS kids can’t be that smart.”

Port forwarding and UPNP have nothing to do with directing traffic or restricting ports on any form of network. They have nothing to do with restricting port usage either. And DPI requires specialised hardware. So, speaking of trying to appear smart, I guess you fail. And it’s not really that mature to make up uses and functionality for arbitary functions that Windows uses in an effort to demonstrate how stupid you think others are BTW.

Fail.

there are unlimited ports.

Excessive port usage seems like a poor excuse. Packet inspection, port forwarding and Upnp quickly handles and directs data where it needs to go on a wired or wireless network so the MS kids can’t be that smart. They’d never be able to filter out users that are using a VPN for torrents. The data stream is scrambled/encrypted/filtered. What would they do if they found alot of ports being used by VPNs where I’m guite sure that some of it is used for torrenting? Block all VPNs too? Not possible or legal.

If the admins of the wireless network got a complaint from a copyright holder and if they ignored it they would be in serious trouble. The copyright holder could easily track things back to Microsoft. They could then sue Microsoft for enabling piracy to occur by not taking necessary action to stop them. Microsoft has been butt buddies with the media corporations for a very long time, and Microsoft is used to subserviently bending over like a slave he-bitch each time the media corporations want some really good Hershey-flap lovin’ (which Microsoft really loves).

So I don’t by it. They were targeting torrenting because it’s the pirates favourite way to access content. VPN is the only way to go. ”

Ironic that this nonsensical blathering starts off with comments on how smart and mature MS network admins were “trying to be”.

In other completely misinformed ramblings he also accuses MS of bending over to content producers – talk about being misinformed. It’s certain he’s a Windows user and yet he doesn’t know the role MS actually had in defining the very system he’s using, which is very permissive as far as media and piracy goes in the name of flexibility – but he can still use his imagination to work think how they tried to stop him though, LMAO.

As well as that we have this idiots main thrust of the comment which seems to be: “If you don’t allow piracy you’re immature”. This indicates almost certainly that if he even works it’s in a minimum wage job where he cannot afford to leave the house of parents. Who else would have this attitude ?

I teach 12 and 13 year olds, many of whom apparently have a better grasp of reality and context than this buffoon.

A fun though not so creative way to address a problem…. much better than just a boring block.

Damn you Rick Astley~

FUD?

The huge number of connections bt use might be problematic for wireless connections, my router doesn’t really like when I use bt via wifi…