Bluetack has ALWAYS been straight with everyone. Just the CORPs dont like it when they are caught with pants down.

ASK ESET for the Source and see what reply you get :) ROFL..

As was written above, it wasn’t a ‘britney flop’, it was a movie. LAst time I checked, ESET didn’t own the copyrights on any movies, thus it was an act of infringement.

Contrary to what many (well Ok, Bluetack) would have you believe, you can’t infringe copyright to ‘protect’ someone elses, even if you make a financial gain from copyrighted material. If that were the case, us at TorrentFreak could download all we wanted, and if we were caught, point to the copyrights here, from which a small amount of money is made (a financial gain) and claim we were ‘protecting it’. It sounds absurd, yet that is the picture you, and bluetack, attempt to portray this in.

“dding PG2 to the definitions list, even as a “potentially unwanted program” was an extremelu childish, unprofessional, unwarranted and IRRESPONSIBLE thing for a security company to do.”
ACtually, I think you’ll find its a pretty much standard thing for any antivirus company to do, to a program that then prevents, or severely restricts, the software from updating. I mean, we have a program that protects tens of thousands of people every day, and then there’s peerguardian, with no actual effective use ever proven. Or, put another way – Has nod32 ever removed a virus, YES. Has nod32 prevented a virus from getting on people’s systems, YES. Has PG2 ever prevented antip2p from connecting to people’s systems, maybe but no way to tell. Has PG2 ever actually had a solid verifyable case of actually doing what is claimed? Has anyone actually said “we tried to connect to them, but they were running a blocklist so we couldn’t” NO.

By the way, when it came to nod32 blocking PG2, I’ll leave you with the standard reply for when PG2 blocks things “just put it in your exception list” – or it it not a valid solution when it hits you?

I still have tremendous dificulty believing there are people out there that have such a poor grasp of the very basics of logic, have no ability to process common sense, and no aspect of free thought, that they can’t take independant facts, or even the facts given by groups like bluetack, and see the errors. Worse, I can’t believe they’ve never actually thought of how difficult these lists are to circumvent. Again,
1) there’s no law saying they have to use a corporate network to log you.
2) There’s no way to tell if a client is logging you.
3) they don’t have to act in any way different to a normal client, and that includes uploading – they after all, are authorised to distribute (ie, upload), you are not.

As for the whole “Americans = fear mongering” crap that some idiot posted somewhere in the sea of responses; get a clue. The police won’t knock on your door because they don’t have probable cause? And how do you think they OBTAIN the probable cause to come knock on your door and take your PC away?

Oh yeah.. They go onto a tracker and get your IP, then subpoena your ISP for your name, address & other personal info. Get a warrant and come to your house. Knock on your door, PUSH you aside and take your PC then arrest your ass if your crime was serious enough in scope.

PG2 will not prevent that 100% of the time for 100% of users, but it can help lower the risk by blocking some random task force’s rookie attempt at nailing people.

That being said there is a very key difference in position here.. PG2 is a freely available program. It allows you to manually add or remove IP’s from your block list, and any standard user of PG2 should already know this, and know how to deal with ESET being blocked by themself; assuming they have a brain.

ESET on the other hand is not just some free IP blocking product provider. They provide a computer security product for a nominal fee, designed to detect and alert the user to SERIOUS threats from malicious program code and viruses. ESET is in a position of authority far exceeding PG2 and the users trusts this company to keep their PC safe from REAL dangerous programs.

PG2 is not malicious code. It does not infect your PC to make it destroy data or do other things you don’t intend to happen. Adding PG2 to the definitions list, even as a “potentially unwanted program” was an extremelu childish, unprofessional, unwarranted and IRRESPONSIBLE thing for a security company to do. They abused their position of TRUST & AUTHORITY on their users’ personal computers, to achieve a means to an end in a childish rivalry situation.

If this were any other software, not PG2 adding ESET to the list for being seen on a torrent tracker, ESET would have at LEAST released a new item for their customers, making a big precautionary deal out of it, saying that PG2 may prevent ESET products from updating, and that they should either disable PG2 when attempting to update, or “Take the following steps” to add ESET update servers to PG2′s white list features.

THAT would have been the mature, responsible, and appropriate thing to do. If this were a government agency, or Norton or some other hated entity doing something like this, it would be front page news bashing them for abusing their trust and power over their users’ systems in such a way.. Just like Sony with the root kit scandal.

But this is all about an anti-peer-2-peer agenda, and the bias is so thick all over that you need a MACHETE to cut through it

And now for that time once again:

DADA-DA-DADA-DA-DAAAAA!!!

It’s: “My tuppence worth:”

PG _is_ a great app & BISS _are_ b0rking it. They need to audit that enormous list AT LEAST once a month – once a week would be better (when was the last time a full-scale IP-Addr. check was performed on it, if ever?). After all, thay’re always banging on about what a great community they have; then put the peons to work – anyone below the set poast-count, perhaps?

P.S. It’s obvious from even a short visit to BISS’ fora that the tweenies have taken over. The unneccesarily abusive power-tripping really IS something to behold.

P.P.S. I trust Ben Jones (who “used to work in copyright enforcement”) about as far as I could throw his fat, pimply ass.

Ben Jones anti-ipfiltering

You might want to inform yourself about the dangers of openly up- or downloading stuff you’re not allowed to up- or download or own or have on your harddisk, before firing off your worthless advices about PeerGuardian.

It’s quite clear you haven’t even used the software once to check out what it CAN do for you.[/quote]

Thanks for your scary warning, and other worthless advice but I have already stopped using PG a long time ago and i have a feeling you will be dead by the time police come knocking on my door. you know why? because they have no reason so and your stupid assumptions just show your ignorance and irrelevance in this discussion.

you probably live in america so fear-mongering is natural for you and contradictory laws are also fine for you so keep scaring yourself for whatever illegal shit you’re apparently doing is and forget about reality, it doesn’t matter after all, right?

anyways thanks for the completely worthless response and for helping me make my point: its only idiots like you who use peerguardian (which are many). you’ve made numerous ridiculous assumptions which shows you have an inability to think clearly due to your irrational fears.

i also want to thank you for enjoying reading my “worthless” opinion.

and to all morons who think SHARING is a bad thing and/or should be illegal: please wake up to the reality we are living in. that’s all i can say to you, please accept reality. police knocking on door for you NOT using peerguardian is a complete joke! and its just as funny even if you happen to live in a country with outdated laws such as the decaying usa!

oh and i also forgot to thank you for proving how effective fear-mongering is. your response was actually very revealing.

As far as research goes, again, according to m0nk and m00re,
m00re> and just for the record we dont just add ips that are seen on torrents and p2p downloads
m00re> people research everything
m00re> ip databases and companies
TorrentFreak> what sort of research?
M0nk> yes, very time consuming
m00re> following the rabbitholes to see where they lead
M0nk> we search the regional registries for ranges of companies, look at ASN numbers, investigate domains, look into reports of ap2p activity
M0nk> do a lot fo search engine work
m00re> start with somehting like a list of compnies who hire places like baytsp and media sentry
M0nk> to find out what companies are associated with certain comapnies or organizations, subsidiares, etc
m00re> and malware companies as well, no one can hide

Basically, no actual research, just hearsay, and so-and-so maybe hired a server there, or has a company there that did a non-p2p-related deal there a few years back.

You do realise that the IP addresses blocked by PG have nothing to do with people connecting to BT right ?[/quote]Sorry, they do have something to do with torrents. Not everything about this affair has leaked to the public, you know?

There are reasons for those blocks, trust me on that. And instead of being thankful, or at least secretly thankful, to bluetack for blocking them, you bash them without knowing what goes on behind the scenes.

Stop pretending you know everything when all you have done is read some forums and websites. There’s more to bluetack than just that.[/quote]

Yes there is, as I mentioned, there is a complete lack of technical knowledge, quality control, vetting and accountability to go with the obvious lack of credibility.

“The currrent tally of blocked IP is a mind staggering 864,502,226″

This isn’t something that deserves debate. Either you can look at that number and take 2 seconds to figure out what blutack is or you can’t.

That’s how gullibility and snakeoil work kid.

Switch to Linux, use ClamAV which is free and open source if you feel you need an antivirus, you can examine the code yourself.

Fuck Windows, fuck closed source antivirus programs, fuck the corporations who lie to us, and fuck you if you’re a stupid Windows user who funds these rogues.

Switch to Linux, breathe easy.

All WinMX users know where to obtain the WinMX list I make no pretence it does anything other than what it does for WinMX.
PG is a decent enough program but BISS is an ongoing blocklist compilation project relying on its members who could be working for anyone.

As stated previously even when handed an active anti P2P list in a public test BISS scored zero, this of course is only likely to occur because someone had “friends” they where protecting, that is my honest belief.

I think anyone operating a blocklist has a responsibility to ensure the list is well maintained and also to ensure others dont abuse the list in ways the original compiler had not forseen, to this end we monitor and unblock Dynamic IP’s (after a time of zero activity) this keeps the list from becoming overbroad and more of a hindrance than a benefit.
BISS and other do not practice this themselves and its a tragedy but given time their list will be so full of false entries that any filesharer operating PG with the BISS lists would effectively be unable to fileshare or take part in P2P activities, this is counter to what PG was designed to implement, protection is the word we should strive to focus on not P2P prevention.
The currrent tally of blocked IP is a mind staggering eight hundred and sixty four and a half million IP’s
(864,502,226) Does anyone really believe all these addresses are the enemy ?

Moving forward what will happen when BISS have blocked the entire internet as at the rate their currently blocking it will occur in less than ten years.

It has often seemed to me that trying to get P2P users informed of problems and issues is an uphill struggle due to the widespread dynamic nature of the group, but as long as I have drawn atention to the potential pitfall of being lazy and blindly implementing a blocklist then my work is done, thanks for reading this far fellow P2P users, I believe there is nothing more constructive to add at this stage.

PG has nothing to do with m0nk, so it shouldn’t be too hard to pick a different one. Easy to implement in the current setup of the software. Even when they would, bluetack’s list somehow gives me a safer feeling..

We shouldn’t be using services like this to secure our P2P connections.

Please take the time to read through what I,m trying to get bISS to undestand, any group can make a list, to keep it well maintained is alwys going to ba a challenge, meeting the challege should be their goal, not wasting time arguing with me.

I doubt your claims that your list protects better, show me the proof.

Perhaps a little refresher for you BISS folks I am not kingmacro, so you have now no excuse to start throwing unfounded accusations around except to show your obvious malice towards a filesharing support site operator.

I have unlike yourselves only ever told the truth of the matter regarding my dealings with BISS and have a quantity of missing BISS posts to prove they abuse folks who ask how the heck they ended up on a BISS blocklist.

For the poster of 187:
I do in fact already operate a superior blocklist to any that BISS generate it is updated whenever necessary and can block interlopers in about five minutes from initial detection, there are two teams watching out for the cartel each covering a 12 hour segment, ask any WinMX user and you,ll be told straight that no cartel lacky can join the WinMX network to flood or share fake files with the WinMXGroup patch installed, this is 100% effective and proven to be so.

I actually feel sorry for you guys at BISS it must be so hard to know I,m correct regarding the problems with your bloated blocklist but instead of resolving them you all huddle together to plan childish attacks on peoples characters and how to add them to your list for spite, make your move and prove how you abuse your list to try to censor opinions you cant hide from.

If but one of you guys had any common sense and honesty you would be taking action to resolve the problems with your blocklists I indicated.

I warned BISS when they acted like the RIAA and tried to close down the WinMX P2P network by blocking our network connection sites (peer caches in fact) some time ago that I would make it my business to expose their continued abuse of the PG blocklist and its users trust.

You reap what you sow BISS.

Quartz:
You go and start your own blocklist. For now, bluetack is the BEST option for us, by far. And I don’t notice a particular adverse/negative effect of using their list on my download speeds in p2p land. So there.
Peerguardian’s memory usage idles (normal use) around 2 Megs, peaks at 75 Megs. This just doesn’t impact my 2 GB DDR3 system-performance at all.

And that brazilian poster here, use this: http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/
but I don’t know if there is even a need to worry if you’re in Brazil.

The problem with that is that should you find yourself on the blocklist some unhelpful personality from BISS takes this as an opportunity to abuse you and claim all sorts of things when in fact there is no evidence or technical information forthcoming of how your IP ended up on their blocklists, not only will they not remove the IP they will add the forum posters IP to their lists also in many cases.

Anyone with a functioning brain can see this is “power tripping” pure and simple, there is no trust and instead of creating some their own members troll the forums in mindless attempst to shout down those questioning the validity of either their blocklist or them.

Whilst common sense says a quantity of BISS members are trying to do a good job the facts speak for themselves:

1) The blocklist is always increasing in size.
2) the amount of IP,s actually removed from their lists are so small as to be unoticable and likely maybe 20 a year in total, this despite adding at least to my knowledge at least 10 million new IP,s and ranges a year, it stands to reason with this sort of addition rates to the lists there cannot possibly be enough time or folks to be certain that the reported IP’s are in fact genuine.
People are human and prone to mistakes so BISS in effect unstatedly relies on its members to report IP’s and keep an eye on them, the trust is moving down the chain you notice whilst to question any of this obviously “open to mischief” process is heresy.

If BISS want trust and respect they need to take action on why folks have lost their trust. here is a list of recommendations to ensure we dont have to battle their trolls each time the PG name is mentioned blocking something that should never have been blocked.

1)Be firm but fair, investigate concerned or affected folks claims when you find they have been added to your blocklist.
Make your findings public so there is a level of transparency over how the claim was handled.

2) Do not become involved in blocking sites that are outside the scope of the core usergroup, many folks are not aware what is being blocked to “protect them” it public knowledge that the blocklist has been used to settle personality clashes or personal gripes, this must cease, there is never any excuse to do this and is a clear abuse of those trusting the blocklist compilers, root this activity out and restore confidence that the list really is only blocking those who deserve to be on it.

3) And this is the most important, remove some of the dead wood IP,s from those lists.
In converations with BISS I have had it stated to me that if an IP has been used by the anti filesharing folks once it should stay on the list permanently, this is lunacy of the highest order, most filesharers etc use dynamically allocated IP ranges given to them from an ISP, blocking any of these for any elongated period of time impacts only on the users of filesharing programs who are the most likely group to be affected by this sort of blanket banning.
There should be a specialist group of BISS trackers set up to look after dynamics such as this as to block them for ever will be the death of PG and asociated programs, the logic is you cannot chop your leg off to spite one of your toes, and it makes sense that after a sensible period of time they will not be using theses ranges themselves anyway, after all they do have access to the blocklist too dont they.

Paranoia is ok in moderation but cannot ever be an excuse in itself to block sites on spec, I have the tools to examine packets and network activity for my area of expertise , I expect the same of you BISS folks, weed out some of the lesser talented folks or reassign them to tasks more fitting of their talent level. this will ensure confidence is regained in the tracker teams and in those staffing them and I,m sure you will appreciate that its sometimes hard to pull the cart out of the mud but better results are obtained once you have done so, Now please stop fighting potential allies and sort your house out.

I look forward to reading something positive in the future if you guys want a future that is.

You BlueTicks must read this sentence very often.

Nope, Sorry, According to m0nk, as it says in the story, he spotted one IP belonging to them, on a movie torrent he was downloading off a private tracker. Nothing to do with nod32 torrents at all.

You do realise that the IP addresses blocked by PG have nothing to do with people connecting to BT right ?[/quote]Sorry, they do have something to do with torrents. Not everything about this affair has leaked to the public, you know?

There are reasons for those blocks, trust me on that. And instead of being thankful, or at least secretly thankful, to bluetack for blocking them, you bash them without knowing what goes on behind the scenes.

Stop pretending you know everything when all you have done is read some forums and websites. There’s more to bluetack than just that.

This started because PG labelled an AV update service as malicious when it clearly isn’t.[/quote]No it did not. PG only uses a blocklist in which a few update server addresses were listed. Any other software that makes use of bluetack lists would show that ‘problem’.

And by the waym bluetack blacklisted those addresses for a reason. They were peers in downloading nod32 torrents with ESET cracks. You know, like http://torrentz.com/searchA?q=nod32+eset

ben jones anti-piracy employee of the month your bonus cheque is in the post

Nobody is questioning why an AV update server was connecting to BT because they are smart enough to figure out it didn’t.

You do realise that the IP addresses blocked by PG have nothing to do with people connecting to BT right ?

The last time I bothered looking at what they do block, they had a whole IP range in there because it was a webserver that hosted the website of a security screen door company. Because the company’s domain name had “security” in it.

Why not question that instead ?

There isn’t a website on the internet that is trying to connect to your BT, just like there’s not a billboard that will steal your car if you park in front of it.
Only retards believe this nonsense.

Some retard saw his AV checking for updates and thought he was getting attacked = highest priority threat.

That means everything below level 1 is less threatening than BS like this. LMAO.

Were you not paying attention?

This started because PG labelled an AV update service as malicious when it clearly isn’t.

PG should rightly be disabled by the AV software because it interferes with people updating their virus definitions.

PG should be labelled snakeoil.
2 products, each claiming to provide the user protection from 1000s of threats and only 1 of these products can substantiate that claim.

i say this if they block other antivirus update servers they should be classifed as malware, also their list

If you’re not, you’re a smegging fucktard anyway.

Still waiting on your unbiased report about why your friends at ESET
are spying on movie torrents.[/quote]

I wait for unbias report why monk motherfucker bastard block Czech Republic Eset sites, when they have not any p2p? For a reason? Or just for a spite revenge? Fucken schoolboy!

Norman has their shit together. They didn’t start detecting Peer Guardian as malware until the BISS/Bluetack asswipes came along and fucked the program up with paranoid overkill.

ESET were behind the times. They didn’t start detecting Peer Guardian as an undesirable program until the BISS/Bluetack asswipes came along and fucked THEM up with paranoid overkill.

Phoenix Labs should kick monk in the balls for all the shit and derision his childish ego brought down on them.

Still waiting on your unbiased report about why your friends at ESET
are spying on movie torrents.

There are so many stooooopid people.

Because otherwise PG2 would be useless, amirite?[/quote]No, and no. Read earlier listings against such idiotic arguments. Also, bluetack *already* blocks a couple of ISP’s address ranges because of that, but what do you know? You haven’t even taken the effort of informing yourself before making embarrassingly dumb statements trying to look cool.

New, unused IPv4 address space is expensive and hard to obtain. Contrary to your fairytale mindset, it is not at all easy to change public IP-addresses. Dynamic address space is just one block, most of the time, easy to block, hard to get unblocked. There are even financial and commercial risks involved for the ISP allowing anti-p2p using their (expensive) address space. Permission isn’t granted for that out of the blue.

Also, Peerguardian isn’t bluetack. And, as mentioned earlier too; There hasn’t been 1 known case of a seized user’s machine that had PG2 running on it. None of the caught victims used it. Check phoenixlabs forums on this, it’s widely known.

Stop being such puppets on strings, use your brain, think.

You might want to inform yourself about the dangers of openly up- or downloading stuff you’re not allowed to up- or download or own or have on your harddisk, before firing off your worthless advices about PeerGuardian.

It’s quite clear you haven’t even used the software once to check out what it CAN do for you.[/quote]

Exactly, well said. I’m tired of responding to the ignorance of people who are either too stupid to know how to properly use such a useful tool or just talk out their a$$ without ever really investigating for themselves what this program can do for them. So all of you PG haters can please just go on not using it. But don’t come sniffling and crying here for donations to your legal defense when you get that knock on the door or your ISP disconnects you.