Anti-Virus Company Says PeerGuardian is Malware
Written by Ben Jones on February 24, 2008Over the past week, some servers used for updating the anti-virus software NOD32 were labeled as anti-p2p by a popular list maker for PeerGuardian. In response, NOD32’s company, ESET, has categorised PG2 as malware in some of its latest updates.
It started off with Bluetack adding some IP addresses to its “Level 1 blocklist” that belonged to ESET (NOD32) update servers. “Level 1″ is the term that Bluetack use for their lists containing (according to site admin ‘monk’):
- Companies (Or organizations. I won’t repeat orgs. over and over) who are clearly involved with trying to stop filesharing.
- Companies which anti-p2p activity has been seen from.
- Companies that produce or have a stong financial interest in copyrighted material.
- Government ranges or companies that have a strong financial interest in doing work for governments.
- Legal industry ranges.
- IPs or ranges of ISPs from which anti-p2p activity has been observed.
The IP addresses added were 89.202.149.32 to 89.202.149.63, 89.202.157.88 to 89.202.157.95 and 89.202.157.128 to 89.202.157.159, according to this forum post on the NOD32 support forum. These blocked IP ranges contain many of the servers used to provide anti-virus signatures for NOD32. These were added to the blocklist for alleged anti-p2p activities. However, what kind of anti-p2p activity was taking place is unclear.
Bluetack administrator ‘m00re’ told TorrentFreak that the IPs were added because “someone noticed them on a torrent”. ‘m0nk’, another administrator later told TorrentFreak that he noticed an IP belonging to ESET on a private tracker’s movie torrent that he was on. “It was only 1 IP, but since they’re a commercial software company with a strong financial interest in copyrighted material, they go on level 1 regardless”.
However, ESET didn’t take too kindly to this disruption of its business. A representative from ESET tried to contact Bluetack, to see about the removal from the list. He later posted a screenshot of the discussion to the ESET support forum.
This was the same kind of attitude experienced by Ludvig Strigeus almost exactly two years ago, after utorrent.com was added to the Bluetack lists. Similarly by the Opentracker people, and the German Chaos Computer Club.
Based on the feedback from Bluetack, ESET added PeerGuardian to their anti-virus updates. Two signatures called Win32/PeerGuardian were added in update number 2894 on the 21st of Feb, with another 5 added in update number 2895 the following day. These updates identify the PeerGuardian application as malware, and offer the user the ability to deal with the ‘infection’. Those that do, have been unable to use PeerGuardian afterwards.
Phoenixlabs, which makes PeerGuardian, put out this statement in response. Their representatives would not comment further on the subject, referring only to the statement. Bluetack, on the other hand, have been very vocal about it. ‘m00re’ said “whomever the person/persons are that made the flawed decision to maliciously target a non threatening application like PG2 is clearly a moron.” whilst ‘firstaid’ suggested that “people call them and have them stop having their product remove PG2 from their systems.”
ESET defended the addition, “By blocking update and threatsense servers detection of PeerGuardian as potentially unwanted application is fully justified as it could disrupt normal operation of NOD32 and or ESS.”
However, ESET has now changed it’s mind, saying “We have reconsidered detection of PeerGuardian and it will be removed in the upcoming update. However, we will actively continue protecting our users from blacklists that contain the IP addresses (ranges) of our update servers and thus preventing our paying or trial users receiving updates and keeping their computers protected.”
Previously: Mininova: Serving Billions of Torrents and Buying Bugattis
Next: Oscar Winners 2008 Popular on BitTorrent
215 Responses
what if i use both of the apps all the time? will they try to block each other? :P
Norman also detects Peer Guardian as malware.
Actually I prefer to block within an application, i.e. adding a IPFilter.dat (or similar) to Amule/Ktorrent/Qbittorrent/whatever instead of using PeerGuardian. Why should I block all access to a certain range, if I’m only concerned about anti-p2p activity in that range?
Well, that all looks pretty screwed up!
hmm.. Forget it.
I tried installing Peer Guardian, but this time Norman didn’t detect it as malware.
Maybe Norman was detected as malware in an earlier version of Norman. Well well..
All good now :)
Because someone noticed them on a torrent? You call that a reliable justification to add IPs that can change anytime on a blocklist?
“Maybe Norman was detected as malware in an earlier version of Norman. Well well..”
ehm.,. :p
I guess you can see the mistake there.
I meant Peer Guardian and then Norman
Norman says, PeerGuardian is spyware.
Just a thought, but isn’t Peer Guardian entirely redundant? I mean any serious Anti-P2P activity, i mean the stuff designed to get people in court, is usually carried out by people that are reasonably savy.
PG2 and its blocklists are in the public domain, so any serious anti-P2P agent is going to ensure the IP address they are opperating from isn’t on that list before even starting. We all know that fresh IP addresses and sets aren’t hard to come by. Just a thought and MHO
I keep a blue flag hanging out my backside
But only on the left side, yeah that’s the Crip side
Whatever
Oops, bad PR for ESET!
blocklist bastards do it again lol
[quote comment="297004"]Oops, bad PR for ESET![/quote]
More like bad PR for Bluetack.
Seriously, these dimwits need to get of their high horse. Putting in IPs of anti-p2p/investigative companies is one thing, IPs of entertainment mafiaa is another, and IPs of software mafiaa is yet another. How many people actually mess with peerguardian settings? If I used PG2+NOD, I’d sure be pissed if I found that I wasn’t getting updates because of it - ESET had all the right to do what it did.
Put another way - how is this different from TPB blocking Tele2 when Tele2 blocked allofmp3? If ESET makes the signatures temporary, it only serves to get the message out which seems to be their goal.
What is even more annoying is that this wouldn’t happen if Bluetack actually made more sensible blocklists instead of putting everything into level1 - see my first paragraph.
That said, are there any other blocklist providers out there?
use ubuntu, no need of nod32, for like ever!
it is extremely lame to label peerguardian as malware when it clearly is NOT.
it will drive more confusion and maybe some people realy believe pg is infected… :S
Stupid companies
ohh demonoid come back :(
2 days ago:
http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/b3fb9400909ca3f61b0750501d31ac24
Today:
http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/edfafa71189a764e950254a147b95052
ESET wankers!
no problem with me .
usually i turn off my auto update on my anti virus. when i need to update , i turn off pg and manually update my virus list.
i don’t see any problem here, why need to make into such big issue here
Peerguardian is just a falls sense of security. no point having it installed. ESET should just leave them blocked.
Peerguardian is my favorite example of “snakeoil”.
How much do they block currently? 50% of the internet?
So stupid to block universities and such stuff, because they have good connections.
And of course useless (for security) because anyone can collect the IPs on a torrent from a dial-up connection. And injection of bad data is not a problem. (Only reduces speed a little)
[quote comment="297018"][quote comment="297004"]Oops, bad PR for ESET![/quote]
More like bad PR for Bluetack.
Seriously, these dimwits need to get of their high horse. Putting in IPs of anti-p2p/investigative companies is one thing, IPs of entertainment mafiaa is another, and IPs of software mafiaa is yet another. How many people actually mess with peerguardian settings? If I used PG2+NOD, I’d sure be pissed if I found that I wasn’t getting updates because of it - ESET had all the right to do what it did.
What is even more annoying is that this wouldn’t happen if Bluetack actually made more sensible blocklists instead of putting everything into level1 - see my first paragraph.[/quote]
This is all down to a lack of accountability on bluetacks behalf. I did also write a personal opinion on this - http://neuron2neuron.blogspot.com/2008/02/eset-nod32-is-malware.html - It’s seperate because TF is not the place to mix opinion and news.
why no one is questioning how did that ip got blacklisted? why did some update server connected to torrent?
Something to remind ourselves of here also is that PeerGuardian is OpenSource.
The source code clearly has no malware or other malicious stuff in there. Anyone who needs to is very able to check this for themselves, Norman, ESET, whoever included.
I have no problem with PG2.
thats bullshit
Frankly, its wrecklessly irresponsible for PG to block antivirus update service. Antivirus PROTECTS people’s machines from malware that is in P2P networks, PG opened the door for newer malware and viruses to infect a user.
As a typical (not a power) user, do you EVER want your antivirus NOT to get ???? thats insane. we are not talking about “rules” we are talking common sense. Common Sense is that you want the virus protection.
[quote comment="297071"]Something to remind ourselves of here also is that PeerGuardian is OpenSource.
The source code clearly has no malware or other malicious stuff in there. Anyone who needs to is very able to check this for themselves, Norman, ESET, whoever included.[/quote]
What is Malware? Malware is something that has an undesirable effect on a system. There is malware that has perfectly clean code, but in use gives undesirable results.
You admit that nod32 is a legitimate antivirus program? Thus, bluetack has disrupted, or attempted to disrupt the operations of a legitimate antivirus program. If that doesn’t fit the definition of malware, i don’t know what does.
“Lets also remember that people chose to run nod32, and chose to update to the lists that ESET provides, and tens of millions of people have made that decision. It is easy enough to circumvent the entry, and put it in the allow list, but we err on the side of caution, in an attempt to protect our users, but we still want to keep them informed”. (if you hadn’t noticed, this is the standard argument that bluetack makes when it adds a block, swapping PG with nod32 and bluetack with ESET - why doesn’t the same arguments work the other way?)
Blocklists are also compiled using user data/reports. While this is a good thing, this data/report really needs to be verified somehow, rather than blind inclusion.
But the question remains as to why an ESET server IP was sitting on a torrent.
agree with 28 - its stopping peeps from updating, which is what a handfull of other nasty progs do that are quite rightly labeled as malware or what ever they fall into.
I would be more understanding if bt actually did more investigation into the ips they blocked. I mean comon … those update servers are gonna have great connectivity, we can’t blaim some board admin for wanting a seedbox can we???
Once they tag a non-malicious app as a reprisal (or hostage) I am off the bus. Anti-Virus is a business about trust. If you delete my port-scanner, my penetration tests, disable my firewall or my malware blacklist, you are a security risk instead of a solution, and I don’t want your software in my computer anymore.
The next obvious step is to tag competing products as malware and delete it, that is, if you want a nazi signature scanner to reach complete control over your computer.
However, and to be balanced, if you disable the updates of the antivirus, that could be malicious and it is a security risk instead of a solution, too.
Shitty managers destroying good software. Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Sounds like both sides are playing silly buggers here.
Sounds more like Bluetack’s fault..
If you cant update your anti-virus because a program is blocking it yes it WILL be considered malware..
“whomever the person/persons are that made the flawed decision to maliciously target a non threatening application like PG2 is clearly a moron.”
Whoever the person/persons are that made the flawed decision to maliciously target a anti-virus company and preventing its users to update their payed programs is clearly a moron imo..
An employee use bittorrent, most likely to download a movie or music hardly to do any network sabotage ;)
Bluetack were too trigger happy.
Nice post on N2N Ben.
Bluetack never admit to mistakes, because they don’t have to. It’s not just a case of being anonymous, there’s also a massive fanboy culture surrounding them. I hate to think what your inbox looks like right now.
Not everyone uses Nod32 or needs access to an ESET server for def updates. People who use PG2 should know how to remove entries or at least how to do a manual allow. I think this is a case of making a mountain out of a molehill on both their parts, moreso on the part of the folks at ESET. We all already know what the folks at bluetack are like, but they are a product of the internet. I expected more than tit for tat from ESET.
who?
PeerGuardian is no malware per se. But as it uses the Bluefuck uhh tack list, it evolves to malware.
I completely agree with Ben Jones blog entry.
ben, what if companies like the mpaa and riaa are working from behind virus companies? isn’t it corrent then to have them in the blocklists?
bluetack make mistakes. it took me 4 months of badgering them to remove the CentOS repo servers from their Level1 … for 3 months they were blocking ALL CentOS updates. however, they were reasonable about it and eventually removed the IP’s from the list
do not listen to the people who say filtering does not work because of the high availability of off-campus IP ranges which can be used by anti-p2p phishing operations. these IPs are very quickly identified by their behaviour and added to the lists
ipfiltering is a strong weapon against the anti-p2p agencies and i wish every tracker and every client ran a blocklist (and every client disabled the evil-DHT). consequently, blocklists and the groups who manage them are gonna come under increasing attack from the enemy
look what new VERY worrying trend has started with multi-tracked torrents. multi-tracker torrents are a security risk. it takes only one of those trackers to operate without a blocklist OR belong to Media Defender for the whole swarm to be revealed. multi-tracked torrents are a stupid stupid idea. what we need is more trackers better secured
Peerguardian has had its day.Its trying to spoil Eset reputation.
Eset softwares are super.
I hope they blow the shit out of PG.
PG admins made a mistake. a big one. Not beeing able to update one’s antivirus is a big problem.
BlueTack has already shown to everyone in the past that they are over paranoid geeks. This just adds another nail to their already over nailed coffin.
PeerGuardian is not Bluetack you fuktards
another anti-p2p attempt to confuse the picture by pissing in the media pool. like equating filesharing with piracy or tort with criminal
fuktards fuktards fuktards fuktards fuktards fuktards fuktards fuktards fuktards fuktards fuktards fuktards
thank the FSM the enemy are all fuktards or we might be worried
PeerGuardian sucks.
Doesn’t seem like it would be to hard to allow Eset to get threw on updates. anyone who has been using Pg2 should know how .
As for the PG2 anti-fanboys claim of it blocking “half of the internets”
When you do surf “half of the internets”. Have fun cleaning the tracking cookies left behind that pg2 would have blocked on the fly.
@31
Since when did the average user used a port scanner and ran penetration tests?
“Disable my firewall”
Quit crying and get one from SonicWall or the Cisco ASA 5500 Series already.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
It’s obvious..
Some donkey at ESET tried to do some P2P on one of their servers.
They got caught and put on a blocklist.
PG (a separate app) uses that blocklist.
Every bugger sties to assume it’s someone’s fault.
It’s not Bluetacks as they were doing what they were doing.
It’s not PG as it’s not their blocklist
It’s ESET for doing some p2p when they should not have.
EST try to cover there arses by blaming anyone but them self and it just shows that they were messing about cause they put PG on they list as Malware and then took it off days later.
Peerguardian is just an IP blocker, It can only block or allow whatever list you point it to.
To those saying PG is “blocking half of the Internet”…does it matter?
Do you have some verifiable statistical proof (DNS and Wireshark logs) that you have been unable to access half of the IP addresses available in the IPv4 address range that it has compromised your way of life? Post them on pastebin and give us the link.
127.x.x.x, 192.x.x.x, host 0, host 255, and class D addresses are reserved. So before you had PG, IANA actually took a chunk out of that already.
It blocks a gazillion addresses, so what, I can still browse normally with it. Its not like I need to *actually* NEED to access THAT much IP addresses in my life.
[quote comment="297210"]PeerGuardian sucks.[/quote]
You suck.
Now blow me…
Peer Guardian makes me feel safe, and I think in the long run, it becomes harder for anti-p2p companies to track you the larger the blocklist becomes.
The simple solution for people that want to get their full updates is to just disable Peer Guardian while doing so.
@45
Tracking cookies? Really? Afraid someone is going to know what you do online? OH MY GOD! A quick Google search usually turns up a lot about someone anyway, and that’s not something you can block.
I’ve used ESET products before, they are top-notch. I agree with OP. While ESET should have more control over their employee’s activities on the server, it’s overzealous to block the update servers. If another program did the same, would you call it malware?
Avast is the best antivirus ever created! its free and it walks all over nod32!
[quote comment="297243"]Avast is the best antivirus ever created! its free and it walks all over nod32![/quote]
quoted for truth! :)
[quote comment="297082"]
What is Malware? Malware is something that has an undesirable effect on a system. There is malware that has perfectly clean code, but in use gives undesirable results.
You admit that nod32 is a legitimate antivirus program? Thus, bluetack has disrupted, or attempted to disrupt the operations of a legitimate antivirus program. If that doesn’t fit the definition of malware, i don’t know what does.
[/quote]
Where did I admit that nod32 is a legitimate antivirus program?
I simply stated that Peerguardian is open source and free for you or anyone to check for anything malicious.
By the way, a quote about malware from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
[quote]
Malware is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner’s informed consent. It is a portmanteau of the words “malicious” and “software”. The expression is a general term used by computer professionals to mean a variety of forms of hostile, intrusive, or annoying software or program code.
Many normal computer users are however still unfamiliar with the term, and most never use it. Instead, “computer virus” is used in common parlance and often in the general media to describe all kinds of malware, though not all malware are viruses. Another term that has been recently coined for malware is badware, perhaps due to the anti-malware initiative Stopbadware.
Software is considered malware based on the perceived intent of the creator rather than any particular features. It includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, most rootkits, spyware, dishonest adware, and other malicious and unwanted software. In law, malware is sometimes known as a computer contaminant, for instance in the legal codes of California, West Virginia, and several other American states.
[/quote]
What I find amusing, is these tards at ESET cannot even figure out the difference between PG2 and Bluetack, so they develop a destroyer for PG2 even though there are like 20 other softwares using the same blocklist!.
Another thing, WHY was there p2p activity from their servers? Was some IT guy grabbing some free bandwidth? OR are they really fronting for an ANTI-P2P org?
Do you really want these guy’s AV protecting your computer?
I would like to know also why someone from this company was connecting to a .torrent file. Especially when P2P is supposed to be responsible for spreading viruses, trojans and malware. Most hardcore p2p’ers know that blocklists are not infallible but when used in conjunction with other tools and common sense they definitely add some degree of security. I myself do not use Peerguardian but use bluetacks list in my favorite bittorrent app and will sometimes modify it to my usage. I would think with savvy users that this is no big deal, just remove the ip or ip range and update the definitions. But this whole episode makes me just a tad curious about ESET.
Not just someone, but an Update Server?? What would an Anti-Virus update server have to do with connecting to a .torrent file?? Very fishy…
Peerguardian is great and all, but there is zero oversight of what IPs go on the list. It’s essentially maintained by some random dudes. So if you’re fine with blocking all access to IPs based on what some random dudes think, go for it. Personally I’ve had a number of instances where I had to remove IPs from the list that were on it for no good reason, and it’s more of a pain in the ass than it’s worth.
Not all of Eset’s update servers were blocked and you could still update nod32 wtihout fucking with pg. Hell, I don’t even use the official Eset update servers.
It was kind of annoying, but all I did was add pg2.exe to the amon exclusion list.
I don’t really see the big deal?
Why was (someone from) ESET on a movie torrent? Odd.
P.S. Rapper Alliance’s raps are getting better.
As many have stated already the PG application is great but the bozos compiling the blocklist are rude arrogant and technically inept, I have had first hand experience of “first aid” and “moore” from the BISS forum in regard to their blocking of the entire WinMX p2p networks peer caches for reasons known only to themselves,they have subsequently stealthily removed the abusive posts they made to me when I asked on behalf of the communities 1/4 million users why they they where blocking our essential connection method.
I support Nods actions in regard to these children playing at god by adding IP,s they “guess” might be dangerous, to their list without any technical evidence or public notification, and would like to bring it to folks attention that using this app with the BISS lists will leave you blocking connections to many p2p resources, networks and genuine users.
Many have wondered if this org is a front for the cartel as its clear they have made no effort to halt disruption of any of the p2p apps or their users with their half-baked list.
Can folks really afford to use an app with a default list compiled by guys who dont know what a peer cache is or anything regarding p2p protocols in general ?
I did not understand what you say about this can you give me some more informetion about torrentfreak?
My E-mail is at Paulgmazzola68@msn.com thank you for your help.
Just wondering - does NOD32 automatically “call home” to verify that it’s not a pirated copy?
I always hate that sort of thing.
While they’re at it why don’t they remove every firewall as well? You know they could be infected by these dangerous blocklists blocking the update servers…
i am just random anonymous user. no one would listen to me.but, anyway i hold my right to repeat myself again, and to expand a bit.
why was av update server on torrent download? only 2 options.
eset crew used a update server to download something… do i really need to comment that?
second, they used av update server in anti-p2p action. that can be a bit disturbing, dont you think so?
i dont want to take sides. but all thing just bounces back on eset. so will anyone make post worth reading or i can just continue to read posts like “this sux that sux blablabla”?
what i wonder is how many comments on torrentfreak threads and sites like it are from anti-p2p companies or people working for them spreading bad propaganda about blocklists for there interest
You know, I was going to try out nod32 one of these days to see if it really lived up to the hype. Then I see this news and my interest fades completely. How fucking INEPT are you if you can’t tell the difference between an application and the blocklists it utilizes? seriously? This just makes me think that nod32 are no better than the paranoid bluetack people. Yes, I adore peerguardian 2, it’s a GREAT ip blocker but I seriously am going to tell everybody to avoid using NOD32, because they’ve obviously shown that their software is based on the age old principle of “money talks”..
Avast! yaaarrrr!
PeerGuardian has served me well for many years. I only have the highest respect for them. I have been using computers for 38 years (mainframes to pc).
[quote comment="297414"]what i wonder is how many comments on torrentfreak threads and sites like it are from anti-p2p companies or people working for them spreading bad propaganda about blocklists for there interest[/quote]
You may wish to ask the same of the bluetack editors who repeatedly block various ranges that contain trackers and seedboxes. Would the antip2p lot simply mention that blocklists do not offer the protection claimed, or would they block trackers and the fastest seeders?
But then again, most of the pro-bluetack comments are coming from the army of fanboys they told to come here.
As to other comments about why an update server was using p2p, nobody knows what it was doing because bluetack seem reluctant to say anything other than they noticed the IP. They wont say whether it was seeding/leeching, simply listed by the tracker or involved with bittorrent at all (as opposed to some other form of p2p).
PEER GUARDIAN AND BLUTAC FAIL SO FUCKING HARD IT IS UNBELIEVABLE.
Both of these pieces of software are utterly useless and exist to combat problems that are non-existent for anyone with an ounce of common sense.
I’m not rooting for either program here.
[quote comment="297244"][quote comment="297243"]Avast is the best antivirus ever created! its free and it walks all over nod32![/quote]
quoted for truth! :)[/quote]
avast blows it uses way to many resources compared to nod32..I honesly don’t care what you use as long as its not mcafee or norton ( besides ghost)
peerguardian IS malware. it does nothing except block legit ip addresses despite what they claim.
[quote comment="297436"][quote comment="297414"]what i wonder is how many comments on torrentfreak threads and sites like it are from anti-p2p companies or people working for them spreading bad propaganda about blocklists for there interest[/quote]
You may wish to ask the same of the bluetack editors who repeatedly block various ranges that contain trackers and seedboxes. Would the antip2p lot simply mention that blocklists do not offer the protection claimed, or would they block trackers and the fastest seeders?
But then again, most of the pro-bluetack comments are coming from the army of fanboys they told to come here.
As to other comments about why an update server was using p2p, nobody knows what it was doing because bluetack seem reluctant to say anything other than they noticed the IP. They wont say whether it was seeding/leeching, simply listed by the tracker or involved with bittorrent at all (as opposed to some other form of p2p).[/quote]
Something I for one have been wondering, is if Bluetack is working for someone like the BSA, FACT, BPI etc.
After all, what does anyone know about the bluetack people? Do you know who they are, who they work for. People want to be paranoid about things, why don’t they start at the beginning, and wonder who exactly is making these lists.
Seedboxes get blocked because the asshats that rent them do so from dubious companies that have dealing with anti p2p who also use them to run fakes server farms and trackers. Its not bluetacks problem your server IP happens to sit in a range used by MediaDefender or Safenet is it? No, its yours for trying to be ’special’ and renting a server from a company known to have dealings with anti p2p.
also NOD32 pwns other anti-virus progs!
Jesus, people!!?? You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater!!
Level1 lists software companies — including companies like BitTorrent and Vuze. People that use their lists know this, and it’s one a right-mouseclick to permanently verify that you want to allow a connection.
You’re worried about your AV program not getting updated? How many of you have noticed that Level1 blocks “Limelight Networks?” If you haven’t, better check — because that’s Windows Update!
Level1 is designed to put the users back in control — you had to install Peerguardian — did you really think you would never have to adjust it???????!!!!!!******
PeerGuardian does not make any fucking sense. I can change my IP address in 10 fucking seconds. Why couldn’t the RIAA. MediaDefender was even about to use employee’s home lines. PG IS FOR RETARDS WHO DO NOT KNOW HOW THE INTERNET WORKS AND LIKE TO GIVE POWER TO MORONS LIKE THE BLUETACK ADMINS
I often guess Anti-virus companys hope there are more Malware.
http://www.highlasers.com
you’re obviously extremely ignorant, to the point that I don’t even feel like explaining anything to you, just do everyone else a favor and reframe from posting comments on the internet, forever.
“Something I for one have been wondering, is if Bluetack is working for someone like the BSA, FACT, BPI etc.”
Who ever they are working for, I pity the company because they are completely incompetent maniacs.
“Antivirus PROTECTS people’s machines from malware that is in P2P networks, PG opened the door for newer malware and viruses to infect a user.”
How many copyright infringing filesharers get caught? Maybe 0.0001%? How many file-sharers have infected machines? Easily 20%. So indeed, the latter problem is more severe by several magnitudes. Too bad nobody gets sued for spreading spam with their crap infested machines. I really wonder why because even pissing in public can get you into jail and that’s much less of an issue.
“I would like to know also why someone from this company was connecting to a .torrent file.”
I’m sure your ISP would like to know as well why you have to fetch a Hollywood movie from TPB each day. In other words, it’s none of your business. Using BitTorrent is neither illegal nor dubious. If even the readers here don’t know that little, I really wonder whether there isn’t some really big fucking bug in the matrix. Maybe someone there was fetching some updates via BitTorrent or whatever, it doesn’t matter and nobody cares.
“Especially when P2P is supposed to be responsible for spreading viruses, trojans and malware.”
That statement is so full of shit, it can be reduced to “Bullshit.”. No fricking idiot notices when he gets infected via Internet Explorer, Outlook or some “codec update”. All these idiots realize later is that they were using file-sharing, so it has to be the fault of file-sharing because the RIAA says so. The RESPONSIBILITY for an infection is YOURS until proven otherwise. If it is was caused by one of the million bugs in Windows, then it might not *entirely* your fault. It’s your goddamn job as a user to use your rotten braincells, just like you do when driving a car. Just because the PC doesn’t kill you as easily, you can’t use it like an uneducated, illiterate monkey.
NOBODY gets infected by DOWNLOADING anyway. You get infected because you’re so dull to expect a movie in a tiny ZIP file and then click on “Setup”. Or you think you’re so INCREDIBLY smart that you could get expensive professional software without paying for it through file-sharing. Or you’re such a moron that you believe if the AV scanner finds nothing that there IS nothing.
You see whether you get a computer virus or AIDS, it’s the same cause: Lack of functional brain-cells.
[quote comment="297492"]PeerGuardian does not make any fucking sense. I can change my IP address in 10 fucking seconds. Why couldn’t the RIAA. MediaDefender was even about to use employee’s home lines. PG IS FOR RETARDS WHO DO NOT KNOW HOW THE INTERNET WORKS AND LIKE TO GIVE POWER TO MORONS LIKE THE BLUETACK ADMINS[/quote]
Get a clue snowflake. PG2 is a deterrent. Bluetack is a community. You are a failure.
[quote comment="296962"]Actually I prefer to block within an application, i.e. adding a IPFilter.dat (or similar) to Amule/Ktorrent/Qbittorrent/whatever instead of using PeerGuardian. Why should I block all access to a certain range, if I’m only concerned about anti-p2p activity in that range?[/quote]PG2 does a much better job at it, memory footprint and admin-time wise. If you config PG the right way, you’ll rarely if at all, need to look at it. It has not failed me once, ever.
And frankly, I side with bluetack on this all the way. How ESET is selectively posting a chat is even more reason for distrust. It’s a freaking choice to use PG. I’d never use NOD32 either way.
[quote comment="297505"]You get infected because you’re so dull to expect a movie in a tiny ZIP file and then click on “Setup”. Or you think you’re so INCREDIBLY smart that you could get expensive professional software without paying for it through file-sharing.[/quote]Hmm.. I agree with you on much of what you write here, but really have to disappoint you;
I never get infected, yet I’ve been trying out full versions of expensive professional software without paying, without fail, thanks to file sharing. And yes, it’s easy if you know what to scan, what to check, where to look, where to read. Many people luckily ARE that incredibly smart. Smarter than you, it seems ;-)
[quote comment="297492"]PeerGuardian does not make any fucking sense. I can change my IP address in 10 fucking seconds. Why couldn’t the RIAA.[/quote]Oh maybe because, you know, we’re running out of IPv4 address space real fast? Trust me, it ain’t that easy to change entire blocks. You can only change your IP-address within a range, it won’t differ much from what it was before. IPv4 addresses are an expensive commodity real soon.
[quote comment="297378"]While they’re at it why don’t they remove every firewall as well? You know they could be infected by these dangerous blocklists blocking the update servers…[/quote]
EXACTLY!
Each and every Billion ADSL modem blocks ESET requests at default installation. Do we see them sueing Billion, or malware-flagging firmware updates for Billion modems? Of course not.
And that’s just ONE firewall type in one brand of modem/router. There are millions out there.
I’m sorry, but ESET is really in the wrong here.
[quote comment="296979"]PG2 and its blocklists are in the public domain, so any serious anti-P2P agent is going to ensure the IP address they are opperating from isn’t on that list before even starting. We all know that fresh IP addresses and sets aren’t hard to come by.[/quote]They ARE hard to come by! And, what’s most important here: It takes time to obtain them and put them in use! Of course, it’s a cat-mouse game all the way, but I’d rather be a few hours late than not safe at all. Which is exactly what PG2 is good at doing:
Providing a better safe than sorry shield.
And this is also exactly WHY Bluetack responds as fast and sensitive as they do; in order to safeguard its users from people who think they’re smart, but mistakenly reveal what side they’re on. You NEED to be a little paranoid if you are relied on by so many trusting users. Strike 1 is for Bluetack.
[quote comment="297082"]this is the standard argument that bluetack makes when it adds a block, swapping PG with nod32 and bluetack with ESET - why doesn’t the same arguments work the other way?)[/quote]Well take a guess! Because the one yields a very expensive and considered illegal act, punishable by law, very unfortunate for the user, and the other doesn’t.
I’d know which one to choose if I was working for a site called “torrentfreak”. Apparently I’m wrong.
[quote comment="297469"]Something I for one have been wondering, is if Bluetack is working for someone like the BSA, FACT, BPI etc.
After all, what does anyone know about the bluetack people? Do you know who they are, who they work for. People want to be paranoid about things, why don’t they start at the beginning, and wonder who exactly is making these lists.[/quote]LOL, that’s probably why it’s freeware, right? I don’t think you understand: We, the users, the people, KNOW how good this list is, because they’ve often added OUR requests, visibly did so, in the open.
This time is a good example. Who are the assholes out for legal threat and thus money-wolves? ESET, not bluetack. Who do I trust? Take a guess…
[quote comment="297064"]This is all down to a lack of accountability on bluetacks behalf.[/quote]Lack of countability my ass. It’s called staying safe from scary moneygrabbing corporates, my friend!
[quote comment="297374"]Just wondering - does NOD32 automatically “call home” to verify that it’s not a pirated copy?
I always hate that sort of thing.[/quote]
No. In fact, pirated versions of nod32 don’t even use Eset’s servers for updates.
lol. people actually think that Bluetack’s blocklists keep them safe? There’s a better chance of you winning the lottery than getting caught by the “scary” MAFIAA. Besides, Bluetack blocks a lot of legit IPs. GG ESET.
[quote comment="297531"][quote comment="297082"]this is the standard argument that bluetack makes when it adds a block, swapping PG with nod32 and bluetack with ESET - why doesn’t the same arguments work the other way?)[/quote]Well take a guess! Because the one yields a very expensive and considered illegal act, punishable by law, very unfortunate for the user, and the other doesn’t.
[/quote]
Punishable for what? Libel? Yeah, Were Eset to act like Bluetack, they’d have been sued many times over for Libel. Bluetack, well, i’m guessing thats why no-one actually knows who they are.
[quote comment="297545"]LOL, that’s probably why it’s freeware, right? I don’t think you understand: We, the users, the people, KNOW how good this list is, because they’ve often added OUR requests, visibly did so, in the open.
This time is a good example. Who are the assholes out for legal threat and thus money-wolves? ESET, not bluetack.[/quote] Really? you check every IP added to the list? all what, 150,000 of them, each week? Are they still valid? If not, why are they still in the list? Have they provided to you, or anyone else, the evidence behind the block? I remember that Slyck went to test the quality of the lists, by checking the MD-D provided IP addresses. There were so many, it was impossible to do a comprehensive check, but of the ranges tested, only a 2% block rate, and this was after the IPs had been public for more than one update cycle.
You also say ESET are ‘money wolves’ because of a legal threat. Legal threat is a bit strong of a term for a letter from the companies attorney, requesting clarification for the block entries, and to warn that spreading false info may be litigatable. Lawyers are the prefered agent of choice for contacts such as these between two companies (and yes, despite their claims, bluetack is a company)
How do I know this? It’s called research, and it’s called verification. According to bluetack themselves, in discussion with our researcher, the extent of bluetack investigation is who an IP block is registered to. Not ‘who is actually using it’, not what they are using it for, nor ‘who else may be included in that block’.
Damnit, I use both of these programs and got the NOD32 alert last night. I thought something had infected PG2.
I see where they’re both coming from, but PG2 shouldn’t block the definitions update from ESET. If you want to talk about problems for filesharing, what will outdated definitions do to the user?
turn PG off when it stops you from doing something.
Do you pay for pg? You choose to have it on your computer, so that kind of agreeing to just about whatever it does. Besides that you can alter the lists yourself. I don’t see any harm done here. They are just trying to lookout for you.
[quote comment="297577"]How do I know this? It’s called research, and it’s called verification. According to bluetack themselves, in discussion with our researcher, the extent of bluetack investigation is who an IP block is registered to. Not ‘who is actually using it’, not what they are using it for, nor ‘who else may be included in that block’.[/quote]Hehe, and you call YOUR type of verification more valuable? Don’t make me laugh. I’d rather rely on an anarchist list from paranoids like MYSELF at bluetack than on your verifications and research. They both look way too cold, official and biased to be trusted. Before you know it, you’ll be the kind to try and ban anarchism simply because you disagree with their policy of acting on instinct and better being safe than sorry.
I’ve been in discussions with bluetack people way longer than you are (obvious to me, at least), on their forums and in IRC. I know exactly who to trust and why. I don’t trust Eset, for the same reasons why I don’t trust you, or my employer, or the state, or THIS website.
Oh and for the other idiots posting against the use of PG; Do you know the actual stats on PG usage and the amount of PG users caught in one way or the other by anti-p2p groups/the law? I do. None of them were using PG, ever.
I don’t really get this… don’t most people usually set up their blocklists so that it is only getting applied to p2p traffic? I just don’t see what the god damn issue is.
[quote comment="297589"]Do you pay for pg? You choose to have it on your computer, so that kind of agreeing to just about whatever it does. Besides that you can alter the lists yourself. I don’t see any harm done here. They are just trying to lookout for you.[/quote]
Again, you could say exactly the same about NOD32. The difference is that if Nod32 does something really bad, they have this list of offices and phone numbers to contact people, to deal with it (one of the bluetack admins, as I wrote above, even psoted it to the forums). Bluetack screws the pooch, there’s email, their own forum, and IRc, and thats it. Complaints are usually treated by Bluetack with either ignored emails, deleted forum posts, and IRC bans.
[quote comment="297592"]Again, you could say exactly the same about NOD32.[/quote]No you cannot.
Again: Users will not be pursued, logged, watched (with negative-result-for-said-users forces behind it) for updating virusscanner files. They WILL be pursued for trying to get Nod32 for free, for example. Which is highly prevented with the use of PG. Obviously ESET doesn’t like to lose money on p2p distribution of pirated copies, period.
[quote comment="297592"]Complaints are usually treated by Bluetack with either ignored emails, deleted forum posts, and IRC bans.[/quote]Ah, there you have it: They have never failed me or any of my requests or questions. You seem one of those angry victims of your own suspicious actions. I’d have banned you too, most likely.
I find it quite disturbing to see this site clearly siding with a stupid money-hungry virus-company over this. PG is open source, NOD32 isn’t. There are reasons for that.
For those who have missed the motives behind this:
http://torrentz.com/searchA?q=nod32
One of the recent ones up there had the dreaded detected peer in a swarm. Yes, I’d say that qualifies as suspicious. Ego-checking your own software’s cracks is not very smart. They’re just sad cowards for having been caught snooping, and now they try and turn it around on bluetack. bad losers.
TorrentFreak, why do you have a blatant shill for media companies like Ben Jones writing for you? This place gives me the creeps now after seeing his performance.
Sorry, I was a bit sleepy when I wrote the following;
[quote comment="297590"]They both look way too cold, official and biased to be trusted. Before you know it,[/quote]They both was refering to “verification and research” not, at anything else..
[quote comment="297590"]Oh and for the other idiots posting against the use of PG; Do you know the actual stats on PG usage and the amount of PG users caught in one way or the other by anti-p2p groups/the law? I do. None of them were using PG, ever.[/quote]That last bit was meant to read: None of the ones caught were using PG, ever. - Which, by the way, is true. ;-)
[quote comment="297607"]For those who have missed the motives behind this:
http://torrentz.com/searchA?q=nod32
[/quote]
Looks like its seeded very well. They are hurting them selfs when bringing this to attention.
There are just as many valid reasons for using blocklists as there are reasons for saying they don’t work or to put it in a better way they don’t offer 100% protection but this is not what this should be about!
Both ESET and Bluetack are at fault here.
Is that really so hard to see!?!
Bluetack shouldn’t have banned them in the first place without any ‘real evidence’ (if they don’t ban ranges because of stupid reasons the lists will provide even less security tho) and NOD shouldn’t have added PG (which has nothing to do with Bluetack in the first place big lol at that).
The only difference is ESET is a company and however made that decision is a true moron.
BT always does stuff like this and is therefore not a bit better than ESET.
So both sides are morons and they didn’t handle the situation very well.
On another note:
I wouldn’t really trust someone with my security stuff who makes an irc ’screenshot’ with a camera *shakes head*.
It seems the entire admin base of BISS are here trolling this thread because once again they have been caught abusing Peer Guardian users trust with their ridiculous blocklists, what started out as an excellent idea has denigrated into a “power trip” by those supposedly acting to protect file sharers.
As a file sharer myself and responsible for the best part of 250,000 users affected by the lists given out by Blutak I can claim some authority to speak aloud, they they do not represent the file sharing community.
It wont matter how many trolls you deploy BISS, the facts wont change, instead of cleaning up your act you threaten, abuse and mislead folks who ask questions you cannot answer such as why you seek to pretend you have some technical methods of detecting anti p2p folks when after discussions on your forum its 100% clear you do not, you couldnt even hold your own in the two conversations that have since been hidden from the public on your forum, not only where you unable to state why you felt it was ok to block an entire p2p network but you had no clue as to how the network operated, something that scared me as I was prior to that a PG user myself.
The end of the day comment is ppl like myself have the technical level of expertise to do the job properly and look only with sadness at BISS for making a great idea something thats an enemy to filesharers, its 2008 BISS, clean up your act, and dont waste your time shooting the messenger when mistakes are revealed, we SHOULD all be on the same side, learn to say sorry.
I would not pretend to claim no one using PG has ever been sued, this is not only wrong but factually inacurrate, BayTSP and MediaSentry have been logging many P2P networks activities for many years using various IP,s not on any of the blocklists to harvest traffic, to claim otherwise is to delude yourself, I am aware of a small quantity of user who have received notices of copyright infringing activity from their ISP’s whilst using PG over the years, lets stop with the propaganda please.
buhahahhahaha! die motherfuckerS!!!!!
Good gravy, people. Like people have been posting all over this thread, PeerGuardian is COMPLETELY USELESS. I wish more people would understand this. Here’s a little thought experiment. Let’s pretend that you have PG installed, and blocklist which perfectly describes all IP addresses used by the MPAA (this is laughably far from the truth, but that’s not the point). And let’s say you’re downloading a copy of Shrek from mininova.
If the MPAA wants to see who is downloading that copy, they don’t ever need to make a connection to your computer. They make a connection to the torrent’s tracker and they ask it for a list of every IP address in the swarm. That’s what a tracker does, it tracks your IP address and tells you the addresses of other peers.
So even though you have PG running, the MPAA doesn’t ever need to try to connect to you and get blocked. They already have your IP, and they’ll go ahead and send a subpoena to your ISP. Why should they waste their bandwidth trying to connect to you?
This isn’t a case of “PG is not perfect but it might help.” PG is totally useless with a perfect list, and this article is a clear demonstration that the quality of the lists is way, way worse than perfect.
If you think you are safe with peerguardian you are so wrong.
Lets not forget who are we fighting and how much money they have: enough to buy servers around the world at any isp. Lets block the ip of their servers? Oh yeah guess what? They have even more money and all you get is a stupid blocklist that probably blocks legit stuff too.
Everyone should know that you cannot be 100% safe with a blocklist (pg)
and anti-p2p companies often change their ip’s to stay away from the blocklist.
However you do block BAD connections and no one can access you from those ip’s so that means they constantly need to move on.
Look,… if no one is using a blocklist that means anti-p2p companies can constantly use the same ip and it will be much easier for them to do their job.
blocklists are good if they are UP-2-Date.
The childish Bluetack kiddies should ask mummy to wipe their snotty noses occasionally.
Ben Jones, thanks for an informative AND investigative post (except for the headline, should be the other way around).
This article gives me a bit of faith into this site again. No blatant “self-linking” to old posts instead of sources etc.
Thanks!
One important thing, it was never added as “malware” to the database.
It’s detected as “Potentially unwanted application”, something the customer specifically has to decide if he wants to detect during installation of NOD32.
ESET probably makes the BEST AV software there is. Seems a bit hasty to block them right off the bat. Maybe an employee at eset was a member of the tracker?
Either way, seems as though ESET was more or less right.
[quote comment="297577"][quote comment="297531"][quote comment="297082"]this is the standard argument that bluetack makes when it adds a block, swapping PG with nod32 and bluetack with ESET - why doesn’t the same arguments work the other way?) [/quote]
Well take a guess! Because the one yields a very expensive and considered illegal act, punishable by law, very unfortunate for the user, and the other doesn’t.
[/quote]
Punishable for what? Libel? Yeah, Were Eset to act like Bluetack, they’d have been sued many times over for Libel. Bluetack, well, i’m guessing thats why no-one actually knows who they are.
[/quote]
You are a little off the path here. Bluetack is a community effort. Bluetack allows people to make a choice. Bluetack blacklists are ‘freeware’.
You are welcome to use or not use their lists. There is no use libeling them every chance you get. You are just like the guy who downloads a free copy of Linux and then constantly complains about it not being just as easy to use as Windows; it’s FREE, don’t use it if you don’t like it!!!
You are welcome to make your own list. Good Luck! Quit libeling the Bluetack community! I’d like to see how friendly you are with the whiney n00bs after you spend a few years creating a FREE blacklist.
PG2 users have a good reason to press a class action suit against ESET. ESET has zero legal recourse against Bluetack or PG2. It is that simple!
[quote comment="297577"][quote comment="297545"]LOL, that’s probably why it’s freeware, right? I don’t think you understand: We, the users, the people, KNOW how good this list is, because they’ve often added OUR requests, visibly did so, in the open.
This time is a good example. Who are the assholes out for legal threat and thus money-wolves? ESET, not bluetack.[/quote]
Really? you check every IP added to the list? all what, 150,000 of them, each week? Are they still valid? If not, why are they still in the list? Have they provided to you, or anyone else, the evidence behind the block? I remember that Slyck went to test the quality of the lists, by checking the MD-D provided IP addresses. There were so many, it was impossible to do a comprehensive check, but of the ranges tested, only a 2% block rate, and this was after the IPs had been public for more than one update cycle.
You also say ESET are ‘money wolves’ because of a legal threat. Legal threat is a bit strong of a term for a letter from the companies attorney, requesting clarification for the block entries, and to warn that spreading false info may be litigatable. Lawyers are the prefered agent of choice for contacts such as these between two companies (and yes, despite their claims, bluetack is a company)
How do I know this? It’s called research, and it’s called verification. According to bluetack themselves, in discussion with our researcher, the extent of bluetack investigation is who an IP block is registered to. Not ‘who is actually using it’, not what they are using it for, nor ‘who else may be included in that block’.
[/quote]
Again, you are twisting a simple fact into your biased rhetoric. Why are you so concerned with what is on the list? Are you an active member of the Bluetack community? If you are a reporter of the news, why are you attempting to force your bias on the readers? If you feel there are so many problems with the blacklists, why don’t YOU get involved with the community and offer some constructive solutions? Be warned the community may decide against you.
Or, better yet, why don’t you create your own list, from scratch and comment every IP, proving why your list is sooooo much better than Bluetacks….
[quote comment="297577"]
Legal threat is a bit strong of a term for a letter from the companies attorney, requesting clarification for the block entries, and to warn that spreading false info may be litigatable.
[/quote]
That is a ‘legal threat’. See, ‘to warn that spreading false info may be litigatable’ is legalese for ‘we think you are libeling our company and we will sue you’.
So, one of ESET’s servers, according to Bluetack, was connected to a movie(?) torrent(s). Bluetack then blacklisted ESET’s servers. That is what Bluetack does. That is a foundation of Bluetack. Bluetack users have the capability of rejecting any part of the blacklists if they don’t agree. It is their free choice. We don’t have to listen to your bias, to make our decisions. In fact we question why you are so adamant against blacklisting ESET when you refuse to address the main issue.
The main issue here is WHY WERE ESET SERVER CONNECTED TO MOVIE TORRENT(S)???
As a TorrentFreak reporter, I think you should be feverently investigating this issue! Instead, you seem more concerned about the welfare and feelings of a possible anti-torrent company. Instead, you would rather focus your energy babbling about unconfirmed entries in a blacklist created by a leader in antip2p deterrence!
Get your priorities straight!!!
1.) i use both with latest updates .. nothing changed, no virus warning no update blocking ?!
2.) so what ? even if .. fuck em both i disable peerguardian to update and tell nod32 to ignore pg2
3.) is this for american servers or european ?! or both ?!
its logical that a antivirus company PROTECTS it users when a software blocks the virus definitions update servers by making peerguardian malware
and it might well be someone spoofing ip on the torrent ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing
peerguardin blocks many government tv stations that might well not be smart to block, as they might give users more infomation if a hurricane, tornado or any natural disasters happends!
[quote comment="297783"]and it might well be someone spoofing ip on the torrent ?[/quote]Yeah right. Try and spoof the IP addresses that ESET uses and I’ll send you a million dollars right away.
Sorry, yet another excuse that’s not gonna fly for any serious IT security expert.
[quote comment="297768"]ESET probably makes the BEST AV software there is.[/quote]I’ve seen people write this here many times. It’s simply not true. Do some Google searching on impartial tests on virus scanning software and they’ll end up somewhere in the top 10, but not “the BEST”, ever.
In my long time professional experience, even the free Avira antivir software is a better choice, and has an earlier detecting karma than nod32. Oh, and doesn’t regard PG2 as malware (quite an important feature these days)!
Next to that, if you don’t require real-time scanning (which applies for me personally) clamwin from clamAV is by far THE best virus scanner software around. Oh, and open source.
ESET does not make the best AntiVirus software there is.
[quote comment="297687"]Good gravy, people. Like people have been posting all over this thread, PeerGuardian is COMPLETELY USELESS. I wish more people would understand this. Here’s a little thought experiment. Let’s pretend that you have PG installed, and blocklist which perfectly describes all IP addresses used by the MPAA (this is laughably far from the truth, but that’s not the point). And let’s say you’re downloading a copy of Shrek from mininova.
If the MPAA wants to see who is downloading that copy, they don’t ever need to make a connection to your computer. They make a connection to the torrent’s tracker and they ask it for a list of every IP address in the swarm. That’s what a tracker does, it tracks your IP address and tells you the addresses of other peers.
So even though you have PG running, the MPAA doesn’t ever need to try to connect to you and get blocked. They already have your IP, and they’ll go ahead and send a subpoena to your ISP. Why should they waste their bandwidth trying to connect to you?
This isn’t a case of “PG is not perfect but it might help.” PG is totally useless with a perfect list, and this article is a clear demonstration that the quality of the lists is way, way worse than perfect.[/quote]
Hmmm, hello, anybody in there?
The MAFIAA have to prove they were able to download an actual pirated version of a copyrighted work. IOW, they actually must download the evidence that they will use in court. Just to have a data that you were hooked up to a tracker torrenting some.copyrighted.material.foo does not mean squat and could be used as supporting evidence only.
[quote comment="297700"]Everyone should know that you cannot be 100% safe with a blocklist (pg)
and anti-p2p companies often change their ip’s to stay away from the blocklist.[/quote]Which is WHY bluetack responds so quickly on suspicious activity. Man, you people are stubborn!
Read and learn: http://www.bluetack.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=daa03e6b34a8e1e9ede0ef60b386c7fe&showtopic=18392&view=findpost&p=85958
[quote comment="297687"]Good gravy, people. Like people have been posting all over this thread, PeerGuardian is COMPLETELY USELESS.[/quote]Speaking from personal experiences with the law regarding serving and torrenting I can assure it’s not.
[quote comment="297703"]The childish Bluetack kiddies should ask mummy to wipe their snotty noses occasionally.[/quote]
If you don’t like it, don’t use it. It is that simple.
Why spend the rest of your life proving to the world what a complete immature ass you are?
[quote comment="297656"]It wont matter how many trolls you deploy BISS[/quote]The trolls deployed here are those from the wrong side of the fence, among which you are the biggest one of all, clearly. People using PG2 have made a choice, it’s good security and safety software, and the blocklists are quite an impressive effort for any outsider new in blocking spyware, malware, phising sites, governmental snooping, spying, logging, spamming and harvesting user addresses and much more. PG does protect you, and it does so quite well I might add. It’s one of the best engineered and functioning software packages I’ve ever known, to be really honest about it.
The only reason not to use it, is when you think you’re some type of untouchable high-brow fool like Quartz, who can live above the law in any circumstance. It’s like saying it’s useless to wear a helmet, or wear a seatbelt. Of course it seems useless if you’re suffering from delusions of grandeur.
The world would be a far better place without scams like Bluetack. I do hope Peter L. Davies will be sued until there’s no penny left in his pocket and Bluetack has been vanished.
[quote comment="297783"]its logical that a antivirus company PROTECTS it users when a software blocks the virus definitions update servers by making peerguardian malware
and it might well be someone spoofing ip on the torrent ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing
peerguardin blocks many government tv stations that might well not be smart to block, as they might give users more infomation if a hurricane, tornado or any natural disasters happends![/quote]
What would be LOGICAL is for you to do your research before you spout uneducated reasoning. What would be logical is for you to change the lists in PG2 to some other source if you don’t agree with the ones you chose to currently use.
PG2 uses a list supplied from some source(s) other than PG2. Those lists have the IPs blocked that you are so concerned with. To my own determination, PG2 recommends that you should use the Bluetack lists, because they are most likely the best lists available, the ones that can protect you obvious n00bs the best. You have every opportunity to change the lists used with PG2 if you don’t agree. There is NOTHING stated in the terms of use that you must use any specific list!
FOR ALL OF THE ANTI PG2/BLUETACK COMPLAINERS, I HAVE A SOLUTION FOR YOU!!!
There is a list provided by the RIAA, FBI, CIA, NSA and the MPAA for you to use instead of the Bluetack blacklists.
It is called a GREYLIST. On this list you will find many IPs, but they will not prevent you to browse or download torrents from every corporation, government, pr0n site and antip2p site in the world!!!!
Aren’t you excited????
Aren’t you thrilled???
Every site the Bluetack blocks for your protection will now be totally accessible by your computer and all of your software!!!!
You have the added bonus that every corporation, government, antip2p, etc. will be able to completely access your computer any time they want!!!!!
You are so lucky to be included in this one time offer!!!!
Contact your local branch and beg them to allow you to use the GREYLIST!!!!!
[quote]The only reason not to use it, is when you think you’re some type of untouchable high-brow fool like Quartz, who can live above the law in any circumstance. It’s like saying it’s useless to wear a helmet, or wear a seatbelt. Of course it seems useless if you’re suffering from delusions of grandeur.[/quote]
Your point being ?
I of course expect Pro BISS posters like yourself to cherry pick through what I posted and reply in some sycophantic style, but.. please re-read what in fact was posted once more.
to quote myself:
“The end of the day comment is ppl like myself have the technical level of expertise to do the job properly and look only with sadness at BISS for making a great idea something thats an enemy to filesharers, its 2008 BISS, clean up your act, and dont waste your time shooting the messenger when mistakes are revealed, we SHOULD all be on the same side, learn to say sorry.”
Let be be even clearer for you, whilst it does not inspect traffic at packet level and is no good for network fake flooding of most commercial P2P networks PG has in the past been a useful tool for protecting file sharers, but when utilising the current BISS blocklists any supposed gain is negated by a decrease in legitimate sources due to badly out of date and poorly checked blocklists, does anyone at BISS have any clue what a dynamically allocated IP is ?
You wouldnt think so from looking at their lists.
This in essence is whats wrong with allowing yourself to be lead by the technically inept BISS folks, when comfronted with their own mistakes they attack and abuse, feel free to name call all you wish, the facts have been posted and are checkable by readers using a little common sense.
[quote comment="297789"]The MAFIAA have to prove they were able to download an actual pirated version of a copyrighted work. IOW, they actually must download the evidence that they will use in court. Just to have a data that you were hooked up to a tracker torrenting some.copyrighted.material.foo does not mean squat and could be used as supporting evidence only.[/quote]
It is a nice fantasy that the MPAA needs to *prove* that you are actually sharing the contested file to sue you, and I hope you can afford a good lawyer. But frankly this isn’t CSI. What the MPAA is looking for is not definitive, conclusive proof that they can take all the way to the supreme court; what they’re looking for is something that is good enough to get your ISP to divulge your true name to their legal department. Once they have that, they are banking on the idea that you will not spend thousands of dollars and weeks out of your life in a quixotic fight against top-notch corporate lawyers to argue in court about the fine distinctions between having your IP listed on a tracker and sharing copyrighted material.
Keep in mind that these are civil suits, not criminal prosecutions, and they don’t have the same standards of proof. There’s a reason that almost all of these cases are settled out of court. I’m not saying it’s fair, right, or just, but that’s the reality of it. If your goal in running PG is not to get sued by the MPAA, you should know that it will not help you in any way.
[quote comment="297802"][quote comment="297783"]its logical that a antivirus company PROTECTS it users when a software blocks the virus definitions update servers by making peerguardian malware
and it might well be someone spoofing ip on the torrent ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing
peerguardin blocks many government tv stations that might well not be smart to block, as they might give users more infomation if a hurricane, tornado or any natural disasters happends![/quote]
What would be LOGICAL is for you to do your research before you spout uneducated reasoning. What would be logical is for you to change the lists in PG2 to some other source if you don’t agree with the ones you chose to currently use.
PG2 uses a list supplied from some source(s) other than PG2. Those lists have the IPs blocked that you are so concerned with. To my own determination, PG2 recommends that you should use the Bluetack lists, because they are most likely the best lists available, the ones that can protect you obvious n00bs the best. You have every opportunity to change the lists used with PG2 if you don’t agree. There is NOTHING stated in the terms of use that you must use any specific list![/quote]
my point is if someone blocks antivirus updates they should be classified malware
as far i know peergurdian blocks whole system from the ips in the list and uses bluetrack list as default
here is a quote from a ESET moderator
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1188549&postcount=43
bluetrack just made a big hole in everyones ESET antivirus software
and eset responded to call it malware as it IS malware when it disabled antivirus updates!
no antivirus updates = wide open for viruses and spyware…
Let me add that I actually *like* PeerGuardian as a piece of software. It’s unobtrusive, flexible, and it performs well. I just don’t think anyone should have any illusions about what kind of protection it offers (which is: none).
[quote comment="297826"]Let me add that I actually *like* PeerGuardian as a piece of software. It’s unobtrusive, flexible, and it performs well. I just don’t think anyone should have any illusions about what kind of protection it offers (which is: none).[/quote]You use useless software? That’s a new one! What an idiot.
It does offer VERY much protection, not only gegarding filesharing. Show me a case where the user caught for any type of considered unlawful p2p activity was using PG2. They don’t exist. Check out the phoenixlabs forums on this subject.
Ben Jones and TorrentFreak’s behavior has been very unprofessional with their handling of this story.
For starters, someone with such a clear personal bias should not have been allowed to cover this story. And to make matters worse, the author has taken it upon himself to play the role of advocate, jumping into the discussion and attempting to influence it. If this were Ben Jones personal blog, that would be fine, but he and this site present him as a journalist and what has transpired has been unprofessional and unethical, to say the least.
[quote comment="297834"]For starters, someone with such a clear personal bias should not have been allowed to cover this story.[/quote]Have you ever read his ‘profile’ on this site? I don’t trust this man if only for that information.
I trust that flock of paranoids behind the bluetack blacklist a lot more, I can tell you that much!
PG2 is clearly a bunch of morons for still allowing Bluetack to provide the blacklist, unquestioned. And Bluetack is a bunch of morons for their “we don’t make any mistakes” attitude, and their failure to actually learn anything.
For your convenience, here’s a black list that’s clearly superior to Bluetack’s:
0.0.0.0/0
It also gives about the same performance.
Really, get off my internets, bluetack. Your behavior is disruptive, and does more harm than good.