Tag Archives: bittorrent

Anti-Virus Vendors Flag uTorrent and BitTorrent as a “Threat” Again

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/anti-virus-vendors-flag-utorrent-and-bittorrent-as-a-threat-again-191206/

After the TRON acquisition, uTorrent and BitTorrent’s social media channels have been predominantly ‘crypto’ oriented.

The core audience of the file-sharing clients, which still consists of millions of users, remains mostly interested in downloading and sharing files though.

This is something uTorrent still does well and the same is true for the BitTorrent Mainline client. However, new users of these clients have repeatedly been warned not to use the software by several leading anti-virus vendors.

In the past BitTorrent Inc. classified such warnings as false positives which it could resolve relatively easily. While that may be true, it appears that the problem is rather persistent and likely more structural than some would think.

After alarmed users reported the issue in uTorrent’s forums this week, we decided to scan the latest release for potential threats. According to VirusTotal, nine separate anti-virus vendors currently flag the software as problematic.

This includes the popular Windows Defender, which labels the torrent client as a severe threat. While that sounds scary, the detailed description shows that it may include “Potentially Unwanted Software,” a term commonly used for adware.

This is not the first time uTorrent has had this problem. Microsoft has flagged the torrent client in the past as well, as the dedicated Utorrent threat page shows as well. This flag was later removed, presumably after the software was updated, but now they are back in full force.

Other anti-virus tools that warn users against uTorrent include Comodo, drWeb, Eset and Sophos, as the list below shows.

It’s unclear what has triggered the recent warnings. According to VirusTotal, two anti-virus companies mention “Web Companion” as the problem. This likely points to Lavasoft’s Ad-Aware software, which is sometimes bundled with uTorrent.

The warnings are not limited to the uTorrent desktop client either. The BitTorrent Mainline client, which shares most of its code with uTorrent, is also flagged as harmful by eight anti-virus tools and uTorrent web by four.

When similar issues occurred early last year, uTorrent parent company BitTorrent Inc. informed us that a “false positive” was triggered by one of their releases. However, if these are indeed false positives, they are recurring ones.

We reached out to the company for a comment on our findings, but at the time of writing, we have yet to hear back.

Any uTorrent users who receive the warning should proceed at their own risk. When we installed the most recent uTorrent we didn’t spot anything nefarious being installed but, in the past, we have noticed that the client was bundled with adware.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

uTorrent Desktop Client Will Stop Working on New Mac OS

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-desktop-client-will-stop-working-on-new-mac-os-190803/

uTorrent for Windows first came out in September 2005. Soon after, it became the most widely used torrent client, which it still is today.

Initially, Apple users were left out, but after three years BitTorrent Inc. released their long-awaited version for Mac OS.

While official numbers are not available, uTorrent likely never gained the impressive market share it enjoyed on Windows. This is, in part, was due to the fact that there were already several established Mac torrent clients around, including Transmission and Vuze.

In recent years there’s been very little progress on the Mac development front. The last client update dates back to last year, and there is virtually no discussion going on in the official Mac forums. It was also excluded from the recent BitTorrent Speed release, which is Windows only.

That said, something big is expected next month. BitTorrent Inc. just announced that the desktop versions of uTorrent and BitTorrent Mainline won’t be available on the new Mac OS Catalina (version 10.15 and up). Instead, all users will be updated to the browser-based web clients.

The reason for this is fairly simple. uTorrent Mac is only available as a 32-bit application, while Apple’s upcoming release of Mac OS Catalina is only compatible with 64-bit apps.

“Therefore, in early September, we will automatically update µTorrent Classic for Mac to our newest torrent downloader and player, µTorrent Web for Mac. This is necessary to ensure that our torrent downloading software continues to work seamlessly with Catalina when millions of users update to the new version,” BitTorrent Inc announces.

“We will start updating users in early September. If you are using µTorrent Classic for Mac version 1.87 or earlier version, you will automatically get upgraded to µTorrent Web for Mac.”

It’s no surprise that support for 32-bit applications will end on the newer Mac OS. This has been known for a while and, for this reason, a 64-bit version of uTorrent was put on the feature request list last year. However, that request didn’t receive an official response.

As a result, all users of the new Mac OS Catalina will have to move their torrenting activity to the browser, or find an alternative client. Users who haven’t updated Mac OS to Catalina can continue to use the desktop version

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

ISP Questions Impartiality of Judges in Copyright Troll Cases

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/isp-questions-impartiality-of-judges-in-copyright-troll-cases-180602/

Following in the footsteps of similar operations around the world, two years ago the copyright trolling movement landed on Swedish shores.

The pattern was a familiar one, with trolls harvesting IP addresses from BitTorrent swarms and tracing them back to Internet service providers. Then, after presenting evidence to a judge, the trolls obtained orders that compelled ISPs to hand over their customers’ details. From there, the trolls demanded cash payments to make supposed lawsuits disappear.

It’s a controversial business model that rarely receives outside praise. Many ISPs have tried to slow down the flood but most eventually grow tired of battling to protect their customers. The same cannot be said of Swedish ISP Bahnhof.

The ISP, which is also a strong defender of privacy, has become known for fighting back against copyright trolls. Indeed, to thwart them at the very first step, the company deletes IP address logs after just 24 hours, which prevents its customers from being targeted.

Bahnhof says that the copyright business appeared “dirty and corrupt” right from the get go, so it now operates Utpressningskollen.se, a web portal where the ISP publishes data on Swedish legal cases in which copyright owners demand customer data from ISPs through the Patent and Market Courts.

Over the past two years, Bahnhof says it has documented 76 cases of which six are still ongoing, 11 have been waived and a majority 59 have been decided in favor of mainly movie companies. Bahnhof says that when it discovered that 59 out of the 76 cases benefited one party, it felt a need to investigate.

In a detailed report compiled by Bahnhof Communicator Carolina Lindahl and sent to TF, the ISP reveals that it examined the individual decision-makers in the cases before the Courts and found five judges with “questionable impartiality.”

“One of the judges, we can call them Judge 1, has closed 12 of the cases, of which two have been waived and the other 10 have benefitted the copyright owner, mostly movie companies,” Lindahl notes.

“Judge 1 apparently has written several articles in the magazine NIR – Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd (Nordic Intellectual Property Protection) – which is mainly supported by Svenska Föreningen för Upphovsrätt, the Swedish Association for Copyright (SFU).

“SFU is a member-financed group centered around copyright that publishes articles, hands out scholarships, arranges symposiums, etc. On their website they have a public calendar where Judge 1 appears regularly.”

Bahnhof says that the financiers of the SFU are Sveriges Television AB (Sweden’s national public TV broadcaster), Filmproducenternas Rättsförening (a legally-oriented association for filmproducers), BMG Chrysalis Scandinavia (a media giant) and Fackförbundet för Film och Mediabranschen (a union for the movie and media industry).

“This means that Judge 1 is involved in a copyright association sponsored by the film and media industry, while also judging in copyright cases with the film industry as one of the parties,” the ISP says.

Bahnhof’s also has criticism for Judge 2, who participated as an event speaker for the Swedish Association for Copyright, and Judge 3 who has written for the SFU-supported magazine NIR. According to Lindahl, Judge 4 worked for a bureau that is partly owned by a board member of SFU, who also defended media companies in a “high-profile” Swedish piracy case.

That leaves Judge 5, who handled 10 of the copyright troll cases documented by Bahnhof, waiving one and deciding the remaining nine in favor of a movie company plaintiff.

“Judge 5 has been questioned before and even been accused of bias while judging a high-profile piracy case almost ten years ago. The accusations of bias were motivated by the judge’s membership of SFU and the Swedish Association for Intellectual Property Rights (SFIR), an association with several important individuals of the Swedish copyright community as members, who all defend, represent, or sympathize with the media industry,” Lindahl says.

Bahnhof hasn’t named any of the judges nor has it provided additional details on the “high-profile” case. However, anyone who remembers the infamous trial of ‘The Pirate Bay Four’ a decade ago might recall complaints from the defense (1,2,3) that several judges involved in the case were members of pro-copyright groups.

While there were plenty of calls to consider them biased, in May 2010 the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, a fact Bahnhof recognizes.

“Judge 5 was never sentenced for bias by the court, but regardless of the court’s decision this is still a judge who shares values and has personal connections with [the media industry], and as if that weren’t enough, the judge has induced an additional financial aspect by participating in events paid for by said party,” Lindahl writes.

“The judge has parties and interest holders in their personal network, a private engagement in the subject and a financial connection to one party – textbook characteristics of bias which would make anyone suspicious.”

The decision-makers of the Patent and Market Court and their relations.

The ISP notes that all five judges have connections to the media industry in the cases they judge, which isn’t a great starting point for returning “objective and impartial” results. In its summary, however, the ISP is scathing of the overall system, one in which court cases “almost looked rigged” and appear to be decided in favor of the movie company even before reaching court.

In general, however, Bahnhof says that the processes show a lack of individual attention, such as the court blindly accepting questionable IP address evidence supplied by infamous anti-piracy outfit MaverickEye.

“The court never bothers to control the media company’s only evidence (lists generated by MaverickMonitor, which has proven to be an unreliable software), the court documents contain several typos of varying severity, and the same standard texts are reused in several different cases,” the ISP says.

“The court documents show a lack of care and control, something that can easily be taken advantage of by individuals with shady motives. The findings and discoveries of this investigation are strengthened by the pure numbers mentioned in the beginning which clearly show how one party almost always wins.

“If this is caused by bias, cheating, partiality, bribes, political agenda, conspiracy or pure coincidence we can’t say for sure, but the fact that this process has mainly generated money for the film industry, while citizens have been robbed of their personal integrity and legal certainty, indicates what forces lie behind this machinery,” Bahnhof’s Lindahl concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Majority of Canadians Consume Online Content Legally, Survey Finds

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/majority-of-canadians-consume-online-content-legally-survey-finds-180531/

Back in January, a coalition of companies and organizations with ties to the entertainment industries called on local telecoms regulator CRTC to implement a national website blocking regime.

Under the banner of Fairplay Canada, members including Bell, Cineplex, Directors Guild of Canada, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, Movie Theatre Association of Canada, and Rogers Media, spoke of an industry under threat from marauding pirates. But just how serious is this threat?

The results of a new survey commissioned by Innovation Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) in collaboration with the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH) aims to shine light on the problem by revealing the online content consumption habits of citizens in the Great White North.

While there are interesting findings for those on both sides of the site-blocking debate, the situation seems somewhat removed from the Armageddon scenario predicted by the entertainment industries.

Carried out among 3,301 Canadians aged 12 years and over, the Kantar TNS study aims to cover copyright infringement in six key content areas – music, movies, TV shows, video games, computer software, and eBooks. Attitudes and behaviors are also touched upon while measuring the effectiveness of Canada’s copyright measures.

General Digital Content Consumption

In its introduction, the report notes that 28 million Canadians used the Internet in the three-month study period to November 27, 2017. Of those, 22 million (80%) consumed digital content. Around 20 million (73%) streamed or accessed content, 16 million (59%) downloaded content, while 8 million (28%) shared content.

Music, TV shows and movies all battled for first place in the consumption ranks, with 48%, 48%, and 46% respectively.

Copyright Infringement

According to the study, the majority of Canadians do things completely by the book. An impressive 74% of media-consuming respondents said that they’d only accessed material from legal sources in the preceding three months.

The remaining 26% admitted to accessing at least one illegal file in the same period. Of those, just 5% said that all of their consumption was from illegal sources, with movies (36%), software (36%), TV shows (34%) and video games (33%) the most likely content to be consumed illegally.

Interestingly, the study found that few demographic factors – such as gender, region, rural and urban, income, employment status and language – play a role in illegal content consumption.

“We found that only age and income varied significantly between consumers who infringed by downloading or streaming/accessing content online illegally and consumers who did not consume infringing content online,” the report reads.

“More specifically, the profile of consumers who downloaded or streamed/accessed infringing content skewed slightly younger and towards individuals with household incomes of $100K+.”

Licensed services much more popular than pirate haunts

It will come as no surprise that Netflix was the most popular service with consumers, with 64% having used it in the past three months. Sites like YouTube and Facebook were a big hit too, visited by 36% and 28% of content consumers respectively.

Overall, 74% of online content consumers use licensed services for content while 42% use social networks. Under a third (31%) use a combination of peer-to-peer (BitTorrent), cyberlocker platforms, or linking sites. Stream-ripping services are used by 9% of content consumers.

“Consumers who reported downloading or streaming/accessing infringing content only are less likely to use licensed services and more likely to use peer-to-peer/cyberlocker/linking sites than other consumers of online content,” the report notes.

Attitudes towards legal consumption & infringing content

In common with similar surveys over the years, the Kantar research looked at the reasons why people consume content from various sources, both legal and otherwise.

Convenience (48%), speed (36%) and quality (34%) were the most-cited reasons for using legal sources. An interesting 33% of respondents said they use legal sites to avoid using illegal sources.

On the illicit front, 54% of those who obtained unauthorized content in the previous three months said they did so due to it being free, with 40% citing convenience and 34% mentioning speed.

Almost six out of ten (58%) said lower costs would encourage them to switch to official sources, with 47% saying they’d move if legal availability was improved.

Canada’s ‘Notice-and-Notice’ warning system

People in Canada who share content on peer-to-peer systems like BitTorrent without permission run the risk of receiving an infringement notice warning them to stop. These are sent by copyright holders via users’ ISPs and the hope is that the shock of receiving a warning will turn consumers back to the straight and narrow.

The study reveals that 10% of online content consumers over the age of 12 have received one of these notices but what kind of effect have they had?

“Respondents reported that receiving such a notice resulted in the following: increased awareness of copyright infringement (38%), taking steps to ensure password protected home networks (27%), a household discussion about copyright infringement (27%), and discontinuing illegal downloading or streaming (24%),” the report notes.

While these are all positives for the entertainment industries, Kantar reports that almost a quarter (24%) of people who receive a notice simply ignore them.

Stream-ripping

Once upon a time, people obtaining music via P2P networks was cited as the music industry’s greatest threat but, with the advent of sites like YouTube, so-called stream-ripping is the latest bogeyman.

According to the study, 11% of Internet users say they’ve used a stream-ripping service. They are most likely to be male (62%) and predominantly 18 to 34 (52%) years of age.

“Among Canadians who have used a service to stream-rip music or entertainment, nearly half (48%) have used stream-ripping sites, one-third have used downloader apps (38%), one-in-seven (14%) have used a stream-ripping plug-in, and one-in-ten (10%) have used stream-ripping software,” the report adds.

Set-Top Boxes and VPNs

Few general piracy studies would be complete in 2018 without touching on set-top devices and Virtual Private Networks and this report doesn’t disappoint.

More than one in five (21%) respondents aged 12+ reported using a VPN, with the main purpose of securing communications and Internet browsing (57%).

A relatively modest 36% said they use a VPN to access free content while 32% said the aim was to access geo-blocked content unavailable in Canada. Just over a quarter (27%) said that accessing content from overseas at a reasonable price was the main motivator.

One in ten (10%) of respondents reported using a set-top box, with 78% stating they use them to access paid-for content. Interestingly, only a small number say they use the devices to infringe.

“A minority use set-top boxes to access other content that is not legal or they are unsure if it is legal (16%), or to access live sports that are not legal or they are unsure if it is legal (11%),” the report notes.

“Individuals who consumed a mix of legal and illegal content online are more likely to use VPN services (42%) or TV set-top boxes (21%) than consumers who only downloaded or streamed/accessed legal content.”

Kantar says that the findings of the report will be used to help policymakers evaluate how Canada’s Copyright Act is coping with a changing market and technological developments.

“This research will provide the necessary information required to further develop copyright policy in Canada, as well as to provide a foundation to assess the effectiveness of the measures to address copyright infringement, should future analysis be undertaken,” it concludes.

The full report can be found here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

ExtraTorrent Replacement Displays Warning On Predecessor’s Shutdown Anniversary

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/extratorrent-replacement-displays-warning-on-predecessors-shutdown-anniversary-180518/

Exactly one year ago, millions of users in the BitTorrent community went into mourning with the shock depature of one of its major players.

ExtraTorrent was founded in back in November 2006, at a time when classic platforms such as TorrentSpy and Mininova were dominating the torrent site landscape. But with dedication and determination, the site amassed millions of daily visitors, outperforming every other torrent site apart from the mighty Pirate Bay.

Then, on May 17, 2017, everything came crashing down.

“ExtraTorrent has shut down permanently,” a note in the site read. “ExtraTorrent with all mirrors goes offline. We permanently erase all data. Stay away from fake ExtraTorrent websites and clones. Thx to all ET supporters and torrent community. ET was a place to be….”

While ExtraTorrent staff couldn’t be more clear in advising people to stay away from clones, few people listened to their warnings. Within hours, new sites appeared claiming to be official replacements for the much-loved torrent site and people flocked to them in their millions.

One of those was ExtraTorrent.ag, a torrent site connected to the operators of EZTV.ag, which appeared as a replacement in the wake of the official EZTV’s demise. Graphically very similar to the original ExtraTorrent, the .ag ‘replacement’ had none of its namesake’s community or unique content. But that didn’t dent its popularity.

ExtraTorrent.ag

At the start of this week, ExtraTorrent.ag was one of the most popular torrent sites on the Internet. With an Alexa rank of around 2,200, it would’ve clinched ninth position in our Top 10 Torrent Sites report earlier this year. However, after registering the site’s domain a year ago, something seems to have gone wrong.

Yesterday, on the anniversary of ExtraTorrent’s shutdown and exactly a year after the ExtraTorrent.ag domain was registered, ExtraTorrent.ag disappeared only to be replaced by a generic landing page, as shown below.

ExtraTorrent.ag landing page

This morning, however, there appear to be additional complications. Accessing with Firefox produces the page above but attempting to do so with Chrome produces an ominous security warning.

Chrome warning

Indeed, those protected by MalwareBytes won’t be able to access the page at all, since ExtraTorrent.ag redirects to the domain FindBetterResults.com, which the anti-malware app flags as malicious.

The change was reported to TF by the operator of domain unblocking site Unblocked.lol, which offers torrent site proxies as well as access to live TV and sports.

“I noticed when I started receiving emails saying ExtraTorrent was redirecting to some parked domain. When I jumped on the PC and checked myself it was just redirecting to a blank page,” he informs us.

“First I thought they’d blocked our IP address so I used some different ones. But I soon discovered the domain was in fact parked.”

So what has happened to this previously-functioning domain?

Whois records show that ExtraTorrent.ag was created on May 17, 2017 and appears to have been registered for a year. Yesterday, on May 17, 2018, the domain was updated to list what could potentially be a new owner, with an expiry date of May 17, 2019.

Once domains have expired, they usually enter an ‘Auto-Renew Grace Period’ for up to 45 days. This is followed by a 30-day ‘Redemption Grace Period’. At the end of this second period, domains cannot be renewed and are released for third-parties to register. That doesn’t appear to have been the case here.

So, to find out more about the sudden changes we reached out to the email address listed in the WHOIS report but received no response. Should we hear more we’ll update this report but in the meantime the Internet has lost one of its largest torrent sites and gained a rather pointless landing page with potential security risks.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Danish Traffic to Pirate Sites Increases 67% in Just a Year

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/danish-traffic-to-pirate-sites-increases-67-in-just-a-year-180501/

For close to 20 years, rightsholders have tried to stem the tide of mainstream Internet piracy. Yet despite increasingly powerful enforcement tools, infringement continues on a grand scale.

While the problem is global, rightsholder groups often zoom in on their home turf, to see how the fight is progressing locally. Covering Denmark, the Rights Alliance Data Report 2017 paints a fairly pessimistic picture.

Published this week, the industry study – which uses SimilarWeb and MarkMonitor data – finds that Danes visited 2,000 leading pirate sites 596 million times in 2017. That represents a 67% increase over the 356 million visits to unlicensed platforms made by citizens during 2016.

The report notes that, at least in part, this explosive growth can be attributed to mobile-compatible sites and services, which make it easier than ever to consume illicit content on the move, as well as at home.

In a sea of unauthorized streaming sites, Rights Alliance highlights one platform above all the others as a particularly bad influence in 2017 – 123movies (also known as GoMovies and GoStream, among others).

“The popularity of this service rose sharply in 2017 from 40 million visits in 2016 to 175 million visits in 2017 – an increase of 337 percent, of which most of the traffic originates from mobile devices,” the report notes.

123movies recently announced its closure but before that the platform was subjected to web-blocking in several jurisdictions.

Rights Alliance says that Denmark has one of the most effective blocking systems in the world but that still doesn’t stop huge numbers of people from consuming pirate content from sites that aren’t yet blocked.

“Traffic to infringing sites is overwhelming, and therefore blocking a few sites merely takes the top of the illegal activities,” Rights Alliance chief Maria Fredenslund informs TorrentFreak.

“Blocking is effective by stopping 75% of traffic to blocked sites but certainly, an upscaled effort is necessary.”

Rights Alliance also views the promotion of legal services as crucial to its anti-piracy strategy so when people visit a blocked site, they’re also directed towards legitimate platforms.

“That is why we are working at the moment with Denmark’s Ministry of Culture and ISPs on a campaign ‘Share With Care 2′ which promotes legal services e.g. by offering a search function for legal services which will be placed in combination with the signs that are put on blocked websites,” the anti-piracy group notes.

But even with such measures in place, the thirst for unlicensed content is great. In 2017 alone, 500 of the most popular films and TV shows were downloaded from P2P networks like BitTorrent more than 15 million times from Danish IP addresses, that’s up from 11.9 million in 2016.

Given the dramatic rise in visits to pirate sites overall, the suggestion is that plenty of consumers are still getting through. Rights Alliance says that the number of people being restricted is also hampered by people who don’t use their ISP’s DNS service, which is the method used to block sites in Denmark.

Additionally, interest in VPNs and similar anonymization and bypass-capable technologies is on the increase. Between 3.5% and 5% of Danish Internet users currently use a VPN, a number that’s expected to go up. Furthermore, Rights Alliance reports greater interest in “closed” pirate communities.

“The data is based on closed [BitTorrent] networks. We also address the challenges with private communities on Facebook and other [social media] platforms,” Fredenslund explains.

“Due to the closed doors of these platforms it is not possible for us to say anything precisely about the amount of infringing activities there. However, we receive an increasing number of notices from our members who discover that their products are distributed illegally and also we do an increased monitoring of these platforms.”

But while more established technologies such as torrents and regular web-streaming continue in considerable volumes, newer IPTV-style services accessible via apps and dedicated platforms are also gaining traction.

“The volume of visitors to these services’ websites has been sharply rising in 2017 – an increase of 84 percent from January to December,” Rights Alliance notes.

“Even though the number of visitors does not say anything about actual consumption, as users usually only visit pages one time to download the program, the number gives an indication that the interest in IPTV is increasing.”

To combat this growth market, Rights Alliance says it wants to establish web-blockades against sites hosting the software applications.

Also on the up are visits to platforms offering live sports illegally. In 2017, Danish IP addresses made 2.96 million visits to these services, corresponding to almost 250,000 visits per month and representing an annual increase of 28%.

Rights Alliance informs TF that in future a ‘live’ blocking mechanism similar to the one used by the Premier League in the UK could be deployed in Denmark.

“We already have a dynamic blocking system, and we see an increasing demand for illegal TV products, so this could be a natural next step,” Fredenslund explains.

Another small but perhaps significant detail is how users are accessing pirate sites. According to the report, large volumes of people are now visiting platforms directly, with more than 50% doing so in preference to referrals from search engines such as Google.

In terms of deterrence, the Rights Alliance report sticks to the tried-and-tested approaches seen so often in the anti-piracy arena.

Firstly, the group notes that it’s increasingly encountering people who are paying for legal services such as Netflix and Spotify so believe that allows them to grab something extra from a pirate site. However, in common with similar organizations globally, the group counters that pirate sites can serve malware or have other nefarious business interests behind the scenes, so people should stay away.

Whether significant volumes will heed this advice will remain to be seen but if a 67% increase last year is any predictor of the future, piracy is here to stay – and then some. Rights Alliance says it is ready for the challenge but will need some assistance to achieve its goals.

“As it is evident from the traffic data, criminal activities are not something that we, private companies (right holders in cooperation with ISPs), can handle alone,” Fredenslund says.

“Therefore, we are very pleased that DK Government recently announced that the IP taskforce which was set down as a trial period has now been made permanent. In that regard it is important and necessary that the police will also obtain the authority to handle blocking of massively infringing websites. Police do not have the authority to carry out blocking as it is today.”

The full report is available here (Danish, pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Aussie Federal Court Orders ISPs to Block Pirate IPTV Service

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/aussie-federal-court-orders-isps-to-block-pirate-iptv-service-180427/

After successful applying for ISP blocks against dozens of traditional torrent and streaming portals, Village Roadshow and a coalition of movie studios switched tack last year.

With the threat of pirate subscription IPTV services looming large, Roadshow, Disney, Universal, Warner Bros, Twentieth Century Fox, and Paramount targeted HDSubs+ (also known as PressPlayPlus), a fairly well-known service that provides hundreds of otherwise premium live channels, movies, and sports for a relatively small monthly fee.

The injunction, which was filed last October, targets Australia’s largest ISPs including Telstra, Optus, TPG, and Vocus, plus subsidiaries.

Unlike blocking injunctions targeting regular sites, the studios sought to have several elements of HD Subs+ infrastructure rendered inaccessible, so that its sales platform, EPG (electronic program guide), software (such as an Android and set-top box app), updates, and sundry other services would fail to operate in Australia.

After a six month wait, the Federal Court granted the application earlier today, compelling Australia’s ISPs to block “16 online locations” associated with the HD Subs+ service, rendering its TV services inaccessible Down Under.

“Each respondent must, within 15 business days of service of these orders, take reasonable steps to disable access to the target online locations,” said Justice Nicholas, as quoted by ZDNet.

A small selection of channels in the HDSubs+ package

The ISPs were given flexibility in how to implement the ban, with the Judge noting that DNS blocking, IP address blocking or rerouting, URL blocking, or “any alternative technical means for disabling access”, would be acceptable.

The rightsholders are required to pay a fee of AU$50 fee for each domain they want to block but Village Roadshow says it doesn’t mind doing so, since blocking is in “public interest”. Continuing a pattern established last year, none of the ISPs showed up to the judgment.

A similar IPTV blocking application was filed by Hong Kong-based broadcaster Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) last year.

TVB wants ISPs including Telstra, Optus, Vocus, and TPG plus their subsidiaries to block access to seven Android-based services named as A1, BlueTV, EVPAD, FunTV, MoonBox, Unblock, and hTV5.

The application was previously heard alongside the HD Subs+ case but will now be handled separately following complications. In April it was revealed that TVB not only wants to block Internet locations related to the technical operation of the service, but also hosting sites that fulfill a role similar to that of Google Play or Apple’s App Store.

TVB wants to have these app marketplaces blocked by Australian ISPs, which would not only render the illicit apps inaccessible to the public but all of the non-infringing ones too.

Justice Nicholas will now have to decide whether the “primary purpose” of these marketplaces is to infringe or facilitate the infringement of TVB’s copyrights. However, there is also a question of whether China-focused live programming has copyright status in Australia. An additional hearing is scheduled for May 2 for these matters to be addressed.

Also on Friday, Foxtel filed yet another blocking application targeting “15 online locations” involving 27 domain names connected to traditional BitTorrent and streaming services.

According to ComputerWorld the injunction targets the same set of ISPs but this time around, Foxtel is trying to save on costs.

The company doesn’t want to have expert witnesses present in court, doesn’t want to stage live demos of websites, and would like to rely on videos and screenshots instead. Foxtel also says that if the ISPs agree, it won’t serve its evidence on them as it has done previously.

The company asked Justice Nicholas to deal with the injunction application “on paper” but he declined, setting a hearing for June 18 but accepting screenshots and videos as evidence.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

How Many Piracy Warnings Would Get You to Stop?

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/how-many-piracy-warnings-would-get-you-to-stop-180422/

For the past several years, copyright holders in the US and Europe have been trying to reach out to file-sharers in an effort to change their habits.

Whether via high-profile publicity lawsuits or a simple email, it’s hoped that by letting people know they aren’t anonymous, they’ll stop pirating and buy more content instead.

Traditionally, most ISPs haven’t been that keen on passing infringement notices on. However, the BMG v Cox lawsuit seems to have made a big difference, with a growing number of ISPs now visibly warning their users that they operate a repeat infringer policy.

But perhaps the big question is how seriously users take these warnings because – let’s face it – that’s the entire point of their existence.

There can be little doubt that a few recipients will be scurrying away at the slightest hint of trouble, intimidated by the mere suggestion that they’re being watched.

Indeed, a father in the UK – who received a warning last year as part of the Get it Right From a Genuine Site campaign – confidently and forcefully assured TF that there would be no more illegal file-sharing taking place on his ten-year-old son’s computer again – ever.

In France, where the HADOPI anti-piracy scheme received much publicity, people receiving an initial notice are most unlikely to receive additional ones in future. A December 2017 report indicated that of nine million first warning notices sent to alleged pirates since 2012, ‘just’ 800,000 received a follow-up warning on top.

The suggestion is that people either stop their piracy after getting a notice or two, or choose to “go dark” instead, using streaming sites for example or perhaps torrenting behind a decent VPN.

But for some people, the message simply doesn’t sink in early on.

A post on Reddit this week by a TWC Spectrum customer revealed that despite a wealth of readily available information (including masses in the specialist subreddit where the post was made), even several warnings fail to have an effect.

“Was just hit with my 5th copyright violation. They halted my internet and all,” the self-confessed pirate wrote.

There are at least three important things to note from this opening sentence.

Firstly, the first four warnings did nothing to change the user’s piracy habits. Secondly, Spectrum presumably had enough at five warnings and kicked in a repeat-infringer suspension, presumably to avoid the same fate as Cox in the BMG case. Third, the account suspension seems to have changed the game.

Notably, rather than some huge blockbuster movie, that fifth warning came due to something rather less prominent.

“Thought I could sneak in a random episode of Rosanne. The new one that aired LOL. That fast. Under 24 hours I got shut off. Which makes me feel like [ISPs] do monitor your traffic and its not just the people sending them notices,” the post read.

Again, some interesting points here.

Any content can be monitored by rightsholders but if it’s popular in the US then a warning delivered via an ISP seems to be more likely than elsewhere. However, the misconception that the monitoring is done by ISPs persists, despite that not being the case.

ISPs do not monitor users’ file-sharing activity, anti-piracy companies do. They can grab an IP address the second someone enters a torrent swarm, or even connects to a tracker. It happens in an instant, at a time of their choosing. Quickly jumping in and out of a torrent is no guarantee and the fallacy of not getting caught due to a failure to seed is just that – a fallacy.

But perhaps the most important thing is that after five warnings and a disconnection, the Reddit user decided to take action. Sadly for the people behind Rosanne, it’s not exactly the reaction they’d have hoped for.

“I do not want to push it but I am curious to what happens 6th time, and if I would even be safe behind a VPN,” he wrote.

“Just want to learn how to use a VPN and Sonarr and have a guilt free stress free torrent watching.”

Of course, there was no shortage of advice.

“If you have gotten 5 notices, you really should of learnt [sic] how to use a VPN before now,” one poster noted, perhaps inevitably.

But curiously, or perhaps obviously given the number of previous warnings, the fifth warning didn’t come as a surprise to the user.

“I knew they were going to hit me for it. I just didn’t think a 195mb file would do it. They were getting me for Disney movies in the past,” he added.

So how do you grab the attention of a persistent infringer like this? Five warnings and a suspension apparently. But clearly, not even that is a guarantee of success. Perhaps this is why most ‘strike’ schemes tend to give up on people who can’t be rehabilitated.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Libertarians are against net neutrality

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/12/libertarians-are-against-net-neutrality.html

This post claims to be by a libertarian in support of net neutrality. As a libertarian, I need to debunk this. “Net neutrality” is a case of one-hand clapping, you rarely hear the competing side, and thus, that side may sound attractive. This post is about the other side, from a libertarian point of view.

That post just repeats the common, and wrong, left-wing talking points. I mean, there might be a libertarian case for some broadband regulation, but this isn’t it.

This thing they call “net neutrality” is just left-wing politics masquerading as some sort of principle. It’s no different than how people claim to be “pro-choice”, yet demand forced vaccinations. Or, it’s no different than how people claim to believe in “traditional marriage” even while they are on their third “traditional marriage”.

Properly defined, “net neutrality” means no discrimination of network traffic. But nobody wants that. A classic example is how most internet connections have faster download speeds than uploads. This discriminates against upload traffic, harming innovation in upload-centric applications like DropBox’s cloud backup or BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer file transfer. Yet activists never mention this, or other types of network traffic discrimination, because they no more care about “net neutrality” than Trump or Gingrich care about “traditional marriage”.

Instead, when people say “net neutrality”, they mean “government regulation”. It’s the same old debate between who is the best steward of consumer interest: the free-market or government.

Specifically, in the current debate, they are referring to the Obama-era FCC “Open Internet” order and reclassification of broadband under “Title II” so they can regulate it. Trump’s FCC is putting broadband back to “Title I”, which means the FCC can’t regulate most of its “Open Internet” order.

Don’t be tricked into thinking the “Open Internet” order is anything but intensely politically. The premise behind the order is the Democrat’s firm believe that it’s government who created the Internet, and all innovation, advances, and investment ultimately come from the government. It sees ISPs as inherently deceitful entities who will only serve their own interests, at the expense of consumers, unless the FCC protects consumers.

It says so right in the order itself. It starts with the premise that broadband ISPs are evil, using illegitimate “tactics” to hurt consumers, and continues with similar language throughout the order.

A good contrast to this can be seen in Tim Wu’s non-political original paper in 2003 that coined the term “net neutrality”. Whereas the FCC sees broadband ISPs as enemies of consumers, Wu saw them as allies. His concern was not that ISPs would do evil things, but that they would do stupid things, such as favoring short-term interests over long-term innovation (such as having faster downloads than uploads).

The political depravity of the FCC’s order can be seen in this comment from one of the commissioners who voted for those rules:

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel wants to increase the minimum broadband standards far past the new 25Mbps download threshold, up to 100Mbps. “We invented the internet. We can do audacious things if we set big goals, and I think our new threshold, frankly, should be 100Mbps. I think anything short of that shortchanges our children, our future, and our new digital economy,” Commissioner Rosenworcel said.

This is indistinguishable from communist rhetoric that credits the Party for everything, as this booklet from North Korea will explain to you.

But what about monopolies? After all, while the free-market may work when there’s competition, it breaks down where there are fewer competitors, oligopolies, and monopolies.

There is some truth to this, in individual cities, there’s often only only a single credible high-speed broadband provider. But this isn’t the issue at stake here. The FCC isn’t proposing light-handed regulation to keep monopolies in check, but heavy-handed regulation that regulates every last decision.

Advocates of FCC regulation keep pointing how broadband monopolies can exploit their renting-seeking positions in order to screw the customer. They keep coming up with ever more bizarre and unlikely scenarios what monopoly power grants the ISPs.

But the never mention the most simplest: that broadband monopolies can just charge customers more money. They imagine instead that these companies will pursue a string of outrageous, evil, and less profitable behaviors to exploit their monopoly position.

The FCC’s reclassification of broadband under Title II gives it full power to regulate ISPs as utilities, including setting prices. The FCC has stepped back from this, promising it won’t go so far as to set prices, that it’s only regulating these evil conspiracy theories. This is kind of bizarre: either broadband ISPs are evilly exploiting their monopoly power or they aren’t. Why stop at regulating only half the evil?

The answer is that the claim “monopoly” power is a deception. It starts with overstating how many monopolies there are to begin with. When it issued its 2015 “Open Internet” order the FCC simultaneously redefined what they meant by “broadband”, upping the speed from 5-mbps to 25-mbps. That’s because while most consumers have multiple choices at 5-mbps, fewer consumers have multiple choices at 25-mbps. It’s a dirty political trick to convince you there is more of a problem than there is.

In any case, their rules still apply to the slower broadband providers, and equally apply to the mobile (cell phone) providers. The US has four mobile phone providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint) and plenty of competition between them. That it’s monopolistic power that the FCC cares about here is a lie. As their Open Internet order clearly shows, the fundamental principle that animates the document is that all corporations, monopolies or not, are treacherous and must be regulated.

“But corporations are indeed evil”, people argue, “see here’s a list of evil things they have done in the past!”

No, those things weren’t evil. They were done because they benefited the customers, not as some sort of secret rent seeking behavior.

For example, one of the more common “net neutrality abuses” that people mention is AT&T’s blocking of FaceTime. I’ve debunked this elsewhere on this blog, but the summary is this: there was no network blocking involved (not a “net neutrality” issue), and the FCC analyzed it and decided it was in the best interests of the consumer. It’s disingenuous to claim it’s an evil that justifies FCC actions when the FCC itself declared it not evil and took no action. It’s disingenuous to cite the “net neutrality” principle that all network traffic must be treated when, in fact, the network did treat all the traffic equally.

Another frequently cited abuse is Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent.Comcast did this because Netflix users were complaining. Like all streaming video, Netflix backs off to slower speed (and poorer quality) when it experiences congestion. BitTorrent, uniquely among applications, never backs off. As most applications become slower and slower, BitTorrent just speeds up, consuming all available bandwidth. This is especially problematic when there’s limited upload bandwidth available. Thus, Comcast throttled BitTorrent during prime time TV viewing hours when the network was already overloaded by Netflix and other streams. BitTorrent users wouldn’t mind this throttling, because it often took days to download a big file anyway.

When the FCC took action, Comcast stopped the throttling and imposed bandwidth caps instead. This was a worse solution for everyone. It penalized heavy Netflix viewers, and prevented BitTorrent users from large downloads. Even though BitTorrent users were seen as the victims of this throttling, they’d vastly prefer the throttling over the bandwidth caps.

In both the FaceTime and BitTorrent cases, the issue was “network management”. AT&T had no competing video calling service, Comcast had no competing download service. They were only reacting to the fact their networks were overloaded, and did appropriate things to solve the problem.

Mobile carriers still struggle with the “network management” issue. While their networks are fast, they are still of low capacity, and quickly degrade under heavy use. They are looking for tricks in order to reduce usage while giving consumers maximum utility.

The biggest concern is video. It’s problematic because it’s designed to consume as much bandwidth as it can, throttling itself only when it experiences congestion. This is what you probably want when watching Netflix at the highest possible quality, but it’s bad when confronted with mobile bandwidth caps.

With small mobile devices, you don’t want as much quality anyway. You want the video degraded to lower quality, and lower bandwidth, all the time.

That’s the reasoning behind T-Mobile’s offerings. They offer an unlimited video plan in conjunction with the biggest video providers (Netflix, YouTube, etc.). The catch is that when congestion occurs, they’ll throttle it to lower quality. In other words, they give their bandwidth to all the other phones in your area first, then give you as much of the leftover bandwidth as you want for video.

While it sounds like T-Mobile is doing something evil, “zero-rating” certain video providers and degrading video quality, the FCC allows this, because they recognize it’s in the customer interest.

Mobile providers especially have great interest in more innovation in this area, in order to conserve precious bandwidth, but they are finding it costly. They can’t just innovate, but must ask the FCC permission first. And with the new heavy handed FCC rules, they’ve become hostile to this innovation. This attitude is highlighted by the statement from the “Open Internet” order:

And consumers must be protected, for example from mobile commercial practices masquerading as “reasonable network management.”

This is a clear declaration that free-market doesn’t work and won’t correct abuses, and that that mobile companies are treacherous and will do evil things without FCC oversight.

Conclusion

Ignoring the rhetoric for the moment, the debate comes down to simple left-wing authoritarianism and libertarian principles. The Obama administration created a regulatory regime under clear Democrat principles, and the Trump administration is rolling it back to more free-market principles. There is no principle at stake here, certainly nothing to do with a technical definition of “net neutrality”.

The 2015 “Open Internet” order is not about “treating network traffic neutrally”, because it doesn’t do that. Instead, it’s purely a left-wing document that claims corporations cannot be trusted, must be regulated, and that innovation and prosperity comes from the regulators and not the free market.

It’s not about monopolistic power. The primary targets of regulation are the mobile broadband providers, where there is plenty of competition, and who have the most “network management” issues. Even if it were just about wired broadband (like Comcast), it’s still ignoring the primary ways monopolies profit (raising prices) and instead focuses on bizarre and unlikely ways of rent seeking.

If you are a libertarian who nonetheless believes in this “net neutrality” slogan, you’ve got to do better than mindlessly repeating the arguments of the left-wing. The term itself, “net neutrality”, is just a slogan, varying from person to person, from moment to moment. You have to be more specific. If you truly believe in the “net neutrality” technical principle that all traffic should be treated equally, then you’ll want a rewrite of the “Open Internet” order.

In the end, while libertarians may still support some form of broadband regulation, it’s impossible to reconcile libertarianism with the 2015 “Open Internet”, or the vague things people mean by the slogan “net neutrality”.

Security updates for Monday

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/740605/rss

Security updates have been issued by Arch Linux (cacti, curl, exim, lib32-curl, lib32-libcurl-compat, lib32-libcurl-gnutls, lib32-libxcursor, libcurl-compat, libcurl-gnutls, libofx, libxcursor, procmail, samba, shadowsocks-libev, and thunderbird), Debian (tor), Fedora (kernel, moodle, mupdf, python-sanic, qbittorrent, qpid-cpp, and rb_libtorrent), Mageia (git, lame, memcached, nagios, perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Static-Simple, php-phpmailer, shadowsocks-libev, and varnish), openSUSE (binutils, libressl, lynx, openssl, tor, wireshark, and xen), Red Hat (thunderbird), Scientific Linux (kernel, qemu-kvm, and thunderbird), SUSE (kernel, ncurses, openvpn-openssl1, and xen), and Ubuntu (curl, evince, and firefox).

Concerns About The Blockchain Technology

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://techblog.bozho.net/concerns-blockchain-technology/

The so-called (and marketing-branded) “blockchain technology” is promised to revolutionize every industry. Anything, they say, will become decentralized, free from middle men or government control. Services will thrive on various installments of the blockchain, and smart contracts will automatically enforce any logic that is related to the particular domain.

I don’t mind having another technological leap (after the internet), and given that I’m technically familiar with the blockchain, I may even be part of it. But I’m not convinced it will happen, and I’m not convinced it’s going to be the next internet.

If we strip the hype, the technology behind Bitcoin is indeed a technical masterpiece. It combines existing techniques (likes hash chains and merkle trees) with a very good proof-of-work based consensus algorithm. And it creates a digital currency, which ontop of being worth billions now, is simply cool.

But will this technology be mass-adopted, and will mass adoption allow it to retain the technological benefits it has?

First, I’d like to nitpick a little bit – if anyone is speaking about “decentralized software” when referring to “the blockchain”, be suspicious. Bitcon and other peer-to-peer overlay networks are in fact “distributed” (see the pictures here). “Decentralized” means having multiple providers, but doesn’t mean each user will be full-featured nodes on the network. This nitpicking is actually part of another argument, but we’ll get to that.

If blockchain-based applications want to reach mass adoption, they have to be user-friendly. I know I’m being captain obvious here (and fortunately some of the people in the area have realized that), but with the current state of the technology, it’s impossible for end users to even get it, let alone use it.

My first serious concern is usability. To begin with, you need to download the whole blockchain on your machine. When I got my first bitcoin several years ago (when it was still 10 euro), the blockchain was kind of small and I didn’t notice that problem. Nowadays both the Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains take ages to download. I still haven’t managed to download the ethereum one – after several bugs and reinstalls of the client, I’m still at 15%. And we are just at the beginning. A user just will not wait for days to download something in order to be able to start using a piece of technology.

I recently proposed downloading snapshots of the blockchain via bittorrent to be included in the Ethereum protocol itself. I know that snapshots of the Bitcoin blockchain have been distributed that way, but it has been a manual process. If a client can quickly download the huge file up to a recent point, and then only donwload the latest ones in the the traditional way, starting up may be easier. Of course, the whole chain would have to be verified, but maybe that can be a background process that doesn’t stop you from using whatever is built ontop of the particular blockchain. (I’m not sure if that will be secure enough, and that, say potential Sybil attacks on the bittorrent part won’t make it undesirable, it’s just an idea).

But even if such an approach works and is adopted, that would still mean that for every service you’d have to download a separate blockchain. Of course, projects like Ethereum may seem like the “one stop shop” for cool blockchain-based applications, but fragmentation is already happening – there are alt-coins bundled with various services like file storage, DNS, etc. That will not be workable for end-users. And it’s certainly not an option for mobile, which is the dominant client now. If instead of downloading the entire chain, something like consistent hashing is used to distribute the content in small portions among clients, it might be workable. But how will trust work in that case, I don’t know. Maybe it’s possible, maybe not.

And yes, I know that you don’t necessarily have to install a wallet/client in order to make use of a given blockchain – you can just have a cloud-based wallet. Which is fairly convenient, but that gets me to my nitpicking from a few paragraphs above and to may second concern – this effectively turns a distributed system into a decentralized one – a limited number of cloud providers hold most of the data (just as a limited number of miners hold most of the processing power). And then, even though the underlying technology allows for a distributed deployment, we’ll end-up again with simply decentralized or even de-facto cenetralized, if mergers and acquisitions lead us there (and they probably will). And in order to be able to access our wallets/accounts from multiple devices, we’d use a convenient cloud service where we’d login with our username and password (because the private key is just too technical and hard for regular users). And that seems to defeat the whole idea.

Not only that, but there is an inevitable centralization of decisions (who decides on the size of the block, who has commit rights to the client repository) as well as a hidden centralization of power – how much GPU power does the Chinese mining “farms” control and can they influence the network significantly? And will the average user ever know that or care (as they don’t care that Google is centralized). I think that overall, distributed technologies will follow the power law, and the majority of data/processing power/decision power will be controller by a minority of actors. And so our distributed utopia will not happen in its purest form we dream of.

My third concern is incentive. Distributed technologies that have been successful so far have a pretty narrow set of incentives. The internet was promoted by large public institutions, including government agencies and big universitives. Bittorrent was successful mainly because it allowed free movies and songs with 2 clicks of the mouse. And Bitcoin was successful because it offered financial benefits. I’m oversimplifying of course, but “government effort”, “free & easy” and “source of more money” seem to have been the successful incentives. On the other side of the fence there are dozens of failed distributed technologies. I’ve tried many of them – alternative search engines, alternative file storage, alternative ride-sharings, alternative social networks, alternative “internets” even. None have gained traction. Because they are not easier to use than their free competitors and you can’t make money out of them (and no government bothers promoting them).

Will blockchain-based services have sufficient incentives to drive customers? Will centralized competitors just easily crush the distributed alternatives by being cheaper, more-user friendly, having sales departments that can target more than hardcore geeks who have no problem syncing their blockchain via the command line? The utopian slogans seem very cool to idealists and futurists, but don’t sell. “Free from centralized control, full control over your data” – we’d have to go through a long process of cultural change before these things make sense to more than a handful of people.

Speaking of services, often examples include “the sharing economy”, where one stranger offers a service to another stranger. Blockchain technology seems like a good fit here indeed – the services are by nature distributed, why should the technology be centralized? Here comes my fourth concern – identity. While for the cryptocurrencies it’s actually beneficial to be anonymous, for most of the real-world services (i.e. the industries that ought to be revolutionized) this is not an option. You can’t just go in the car of publicKey=5389BC989A342…. “But there are already distributed reputation systems”, you may say. Yes, and they are based on technical, not real-world identities. That doesn’t build trust. I don’t trust that publicKey=5389BC989A342… is the same person that got the high reputation. There may be five people behind that private key. The private key may have been stolen (e.g. in a cloud-provider breach).

The values of companies like Uber and AirBNB is that they serve as trust brokers. They verify and vouch for their drivers and hosts (and passengers and guests). They verify their identity through government-issued documents, skype calls, selfies, compare pictures to documents, get access to government databases, credit records, etc. Can a fully distributed service do that? No. You’d need a centralized provider to do it. And how would the blockchain make any difference then? Well, I may not be entirely correct here. I’ve actually been thinking quite a lot about decentralized identity. E.g. a way to predictably generate a private key based on, say biometrics+password+government-issued-documents, and use the corresponding public key as your identifier, which is then fed into reputation schemes and ultimately – real-world services. But we’re not there yet.

And that is part of my fifth concern – the technology itself. We are not there yet. There are bugs, there are thefts and leaks. There are hard-forks. There isn’t sufficient understanding of the technology (I confess I don’t fully grasp all the implementation details, and they are always the key). Often the technology is advertised as “just working”, but it isn’t. The other day I read an article (lost the link) that clarifies a common misconception about smart contracts – they cannot interact with the outside world – they can’t call APIs (e.g. stock market prices, bank APIs), they can’t push or fetch data from anywhere but the blockchain. That mandates the need, again, for a centralized service that pushes the relevant information before smart contracts can pick it up. I’m pretty sure that all cool-sounding applications are not possible without extensive research. And even if/when they are, writing distributed code is hard. Debugging a smart contract is hard. Yes, hard is cool, but that doesn’t drive economic value.

I have mostly been referring to public blockchains so far. Private blockchains may have their practical application, but there’s one catch – they are not exactly the cool distributed technology that the Bitcoin uses. They may be called “blockchains” because they…chain blocks, but they usually centralize trust. For example the Hyperledger project uses PKI, with all its benefits and risks. In these cases, a centralized authority issues the identity “tokens”, and then nodes communicate and form a shared ledger. That’s a bit easier problem to solve, and the nodes would usually be on actual servers in real datacenters, and not on your uncle’s Windows XP.

That said, hash chaining has been around for quite a long time. I did research on the matter because of a side-project of mine and it seems providing a tamper-proof/tamper-evident log/database on semi-trusted machines has been discussed in many computer science papers since the 90s. That alone is not “the magic blockchain” that will solve all of our problems, no matter what gossip protocols you sprinkle ontop. I’m not saying that’s bad, on the contrary – any variation and combinations of the building blocks of the blockchain (the hash chain, the consensus algorithm, the proof-of-work (or stake), possibly smart contracts), has potential for making useful products.

I know I sound like the a naysayer here, but I hope I’ve pointed out particular issues, rather than aimlessly ranting at the hype (though that’s tempting as well). I’m confident that blockchain-like technologies will have their practical applications, and we will see some successful, widely-adopted services and solutions based on that, just as pointed out in this detailed report. But I’m not convinced it will be revolutionizing.

I hope I’m proven wrong, though, because watching a revolutionizing technology closely and even being part of it would be quite cool.

The post Concerns About The Blockchain Technology appeared first on Bozho's tech blog.

Defending anti-netneutrality arguments

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/07/defending-anti-netneutrality-arguments.html

Last week, activists proclaimed a “NetNeutrality Day”, trying to convince the FCC to regulate NetNeutrality. As a libertarian, I tweeted many reasons why NetNeutrality is stupid. NetNeutrality is exactly the sort of government regulation Libertarians hate most. Somebody tweeted the following challenge, which I thought I’d address here.

The links point to two separate cases.

  • the Comcast BitTorrent throttling case
  • a lawsuit against Time Warning for poor service
The tone of the tweet suggests that my anti-NetNeutrality stance cannot be defended in light of these cases. But of course this is wrong. The short answers are:

  • the Comcast BitTorrent throttling benefits customers
  • poor service has nothing to do with NetNeutrality

The long answers are below.

The Comcast BitTorrent Throttling

The presumption is that any sort of packet-filtering is automatically evil, and against the customer’s interests. That’s not true.
Take GoGoInflight’s internet service for airplanes. They block access to video sites like NetFlix. That’s because they often have as little as 1-mbps for the entire plane, which is enough to support many people checking email and browsing Facebook, but a single person trying to watch video will overload the internet connection for everyone. Therefore, their Internet service won’t work unless they filter video sites.
GoGoInflight breaks a lot of other NetNeutrality rules, such as providing free access to Amazon.com or promotion deals where users of a particular phone get free Internet access that everyone else pays for. And all this is allowed by FCC, allowing GoGoInflight to break NetNeutrality rules because it’s clearly in the customer interest.
Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent is likewise clearly in the customer interest. Until the FCC stopped them, BitTorrent users were allowed unlimited downloads. Afterwards, Comcast imposed a 300-gigabyte/month bandwidth cap.
Internet access is a series of tradeoffs. BitTorrent causes congestion during prime time (6pm to 10pm). Comcast has to solve it somehow — not solving it wasn’t an option. Their options were:
  • Charge all customers more, so that the 99% not using BitTorrent subsidizes the 1% who do.
  • Impose a bandwidth cap, preventing heavy BitTorrent usage.
  • Throttle BitTorrent packets during prime-time hours when the network is congested.
Option 3 is clearly the best. BitTorrent downloads take hours, days, and sometimes weeks. BitTorrent users don’t mind throttling during prime-time congested hours. That’s preferable to the other option, bandwidth caps.
I’m a BitTorrent user, and a heavy downloader (I scan the Internet on a regular basis from cloud machines, then download the results to home, which can often be 100-gigabytes in size for a single scan). I want prime-time BitTorrent throttling rather than bandwidth caps. The EFF/FCC’s action that prevented BitTorrent throttling forced me to move to Comcast Business Class which doesn’t have bandwidth caps, charging me $100 more a month. It’s why I don’t contribute the EFF — if they had not agitated for this, taking such choices away from customers, I’d have $1200 more per year to donate to worthy causes.
Ask any user of BitTorrent which they prefer: 300gig monthly bandwidth cap or BitTorrent throttling during prime-time congested hours (6pm to 10pm). The FCC’s action did not help Comcast’s customers, it hurt them. Packet-filtering would’ve been a good thing, not a bad thing.

The Time-Warner Case
First of all, no matter how you define the case, it has nothing to do with NetNeutrality. NetNeutrality is about filtering packets, giving some priority over others. This case is about providing slow service for everyone.
Secondly, it’s not true. Time Warner provided the same access speeds as everyone else. Just because they promise 10mbps download speeds doesn’t mean you get 10mbps to NetFlix. That’s not how the Internet works — that’s not how any of this works.
To prove this, look at NetFlix’s connection speed graphis. It shows Time Warner Cable is average for the industry. It had the same congestion problems most ISPs had in 2014, and it has the same inability to provide more than 3mbps during prime-time (6pm-10pm) that all ISPs have today.

The YouTube video quality diagnostic pages show Time Warner Cable to similar to other providers around the country. It also shows the prime-time bump between 6pm and 10pm.
Congestion is an essential part of the Internet design. When an ISP like Time Warner promises you 10mbps bandwidth, that’s only “best effort”. There’s no way they can promise 10mbps stream to everybody on the Internet, especially not to a site like NetFlix that gets overloaded during prime-time.
Indeed, it’s the defining feature of the Internet compared to the old “telecommunications” network. The old phone system guaranteed you a steady 64-kbps stream between any time points in the phone network, but it cost a lot of money. Today’s Internet provide a free multi-megabit stream for free video calls (Skype, Facetime) around the world — but with the occasional dropped packets because of congestion.
Whatever lawsuit money-hungry lawyers come up with isn’t about how an ISP like Time Warner works. It’s only about how they describe the technology. They work no different than every ISP — no different than how anything is possible.
Conclusion

The short answer to the above questions is this: Comcast’s BitTorrent throttling benefits customers, and the Time Warner issue has nothing to do with NetNeutrality at all.

The tweet demonstrates that NetNeutrality really means. It has nothing to do with the facts of any case, especially the frequency that people point to ISP ills that have nothing actually to do with NetNeutrality. Instead, what NetNeutrality really about is socialism. People are convinced corporations are evil and want the government to run the Internet. The Comcast/BitTorrent case is a prime example of why this is a bad idea: government definitions of what customers want is actually far different than what customers actually want.

Съд на ЕС: за достъпа до The Pirate Bay

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/the-pirate-bay-5/

Вчера беше публикувано решението на Съда на ЕС по дело C‑610/15 Stichting Brein срещу Ziggo BV и XS4ALL Internet BV.

Решението засяга функционирането и достъпа до The Pirate Bay.

Спорът

9 Ziggo и XS4ALL са доставчици на достъп до интернет. Значителна част от техните абонати ползват платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB, индексатор на BitTorrent файлове. BitTorrent е протокол, чрез който потребителите (наричани „равноправни устройства“ или „peers“) могат да споделят файлове. Съществената характеристика на BitTorrent се състои в това, че файловете, които се споделят, са разделени на малки сегменти, като по този начин отпада необходимостта от централен сървър за съхраняване на тези файлове, което облекчава тежестта на индивидуалните сървъри в процеса на споделянето. За да могат да споделят файлове, потребителите трябва най-напред да свалят специален софтуер, наречен „BitTorrent клиент“, който не се предлага от платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB. Този BitTorrent клиент представлява софтуер, който позволява създаването на торент файлове.

10      Потребителите (наричани „seeders“ [сийдъри]), които желаят да предоставят файл от своя компютър на разположение на други потребители (наричани „leechers“ [лийчъри]), трябва да създадат торент файл чрез своя BitTorrent клиент. Торент файловете препращат към централен сървър (наричан „tracker“ [тракер]), който идентифицира потребители, които могат да споделят конкретен торент файл, както и прилежащия към него медиен файл. Тези торент файлове се качват (upload) от сийдърите (на платформа за онлайн споделяне, каквато е TPB, която след това ги индексира, за да могат те да бъдат намирани от потребителите на платформата за онлайн споделяне и произведенията, към които тези торент файлове препращат, да могат да бъдат сваляни (download) на компютрите на последните на отделни сегменти чрез техния BitTorrent клиент.

11      Често пъти вместо торенти се използват магнитни линкове. Тези линкове идентифицират съдържанието на торента и препращат към него чрез цифров отпечатък.

12      Голямото мнозинство от предлаганите на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB торент файлове препращат към произведения, които са обект на закрила от авторски права, без да е дадено разрешение от носителите на авторското право на администраторите и на потребителите на тази платформа за извършване на действията по споделянето.

13      Главното искане на Stichting Brein в производството пред националната юрисдикция е да разпореди на Ziggo и на XS4ALL да блокират имената на домейни и интернет адресите на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB с цел да се предотврати възможността за ползване на услугите на тези доставчици на достъп до интернет за нарушаване на авторското и сродните му права на носителите на правата, чиито интереси защитава Stichting Brein.

Въпросите

 При тези обстоятелства Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Върховен съд на Нидерландия) решава да спре производството по делото и да постави на Съда следните преюдициални въпроси:

„1)      Налице ли е публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29 от страна на администратора на уебсайт, ако на този уебсайт не са налице защитени произведения, но съществува система […], с която намиращи се в компютрите на потребителите метаданни за защитени произведения се индексират и категоризират за потребителите по начин, по който последните могат да проследяват, да качват онлайн, както и да свалят закриляните произведения?

2)      При отрицателен отговор на първия въпрос:

Дават ли член 8, параграф 3 от Директива 2001/29 и член 11 от Директива 2004/48 основание за издаването на забрана по отношение на посредник по смисъла на тези разпоредби, който по описания във въпрос 1 начин улеснява извършването на нарушения от трети лица?“.

Вече имаме заключението на Генералния адвокат Szpunar, според което

обстоятелството, че операторът на уебсайт индексира файлове, съдържащи закриляни с авторско право произведения, които се предлагат за споделяне в peer-to-peer мрежа, и предоставя търсачка, с което позволява тези файлове да бъдат намирани, представлява публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29, когато операторът знае, че дадено произведение е предоставено на разположение в мрежата без съгласието на носителите на авторските права, но не предприема действия за блокиране на достъпа до това произведение.

Решението

Понятието „публично разгласяване“ обединява два кумулативни елемента, а именно „акт на разгласяване“ на произведение и „публичност“ на разгласяването (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 29 и цитираната съдебна практика). За да се прецени дали даден ползвател извършва акт на публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29, трябва да се отчетат няколко допълнителни критерия, които не са самостоятелни и са взаимозависими.

  • ключовата роля на потребителя и съзнателния характер на неговата намеса. Всъщност този потребител извършва акт на разгласяване, когато, като съзнава напълно последиците от своето поведение, се намесва, за да предостави на клиентите си достъп до произведение, което е обект на закрила, и по-специално когато без неговата намеса тези клиенти по принцип не биха могли да се ползват от разпространеното произведение. (вж. в този смисъл решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 31 и цитираната съдебна практика).
  • понятието „публично“ се отнася до неопределен брой потенциални адресати и освен това предполага наличие на доста голям брой лица (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 32 и цитираната съдебна практика).
  • закриляното произведение трябва да бъде разгласено, като се използва специфичен технически способ, различен от използваните дотогава, или, ако не е използван такъв способ — пред „нова публика“, тоест публика, която не е била вече взета предвид от носителите на авторското право при даването на разрешение за първоначалното публично разгласяване на произведението им (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 33 и цитираната съдебна практика).
  • дали публичното разгласяване  е извършено с цел печалба (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 34 и цитираната съдебна практика).

42 В случая, видно от акта за преюдициално запитване, значителна част от абонатите на Ziggo и XS4ALL са сваляли медийни файлове чрез платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB. Както следва и от представените пред Съда становища, тази платформа се използва от значителен брой лица, като администраторите от TPB съобщават на своята платформа за онлайн споделяне за десетки милиони „потребители“. В това отношение разглежданото в главното производство разгласяване се отнася най-малкото до всички потребители на тази платформа. Тези потребители могат да имат достъп във всеки момент и едновременно до защитените произведения, които са споделени посредством посочената платформа. Следователно това разгласяване се отнася до неопределен брой потенциални адресати и предполага наличие на голям брой лица (вж. в този смисъл решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 45 и цитираната съдебна практика).

43      От това следва, че с разгласяване като разглежданото в главното производство закриляни произведения действително се разгласяват „публично“ по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29.

44      Освен това, що се отнася до въпроса дали тези произведения са разгласяват на „нова“ публика по смисъла на съдебната практика, цитирана в точка 28 от настоящото съдебно решение, следва да се посочи, че в решението си от 13 февруари 2014 г., Svensson и др. (C‑466/12, EU:C:2014:76, т. 24 и 31), както и в определението си от 21 октомври 2014 г., BestWater International (C‑348/13, EU:C:2014:2315, т. 14) Съдът е приел, че това е публика, която носителите на авторските права не са имали предвид, когато са дали разрешение за първоначалното разгласяване.

45      В случая, видно от становищата, представени пред Съда, от една страна, администраторите на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB са знаели, че тази платформа, която предоставят на разположение на потребителите и която администрират, дава достъп до произведения, публикувани без разрешение на носителите на правата, и от друга страна, че същите администратори изразяват изрично в блоговете и форумите на тази платформа своята цел да предоставят закриляните произведения на разположение на потребителите и поощряват последните да реализират копия от тези произведения. Във всички случаи, видно от акта за преюдициално запитване, администраторите на онлайн платформата TPB не може да не са знаели, че тази платформа дава достъп до произведения, публикувани без разрешението на носителите на правата, с оглед на обстоятелството, което се подчертава изрично от запитващата юрисдикция, че голяма част от торент файловете, които се намират на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB, препращат към произведения, публикувани без разрешението на носителите на правата. При тези обстоятелства следва да се приеме, че е налице разгласяване пред „нова публика“ (вж. в този смисъл решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 50).

46      От друга страна, не може да се оспори, че предоставянето на разположение и администрирането на платформа за онлайн споделяне като разглежданата в главното производство се извършва с цел да се извлече печалба, тъй като тази платформа генерира, видно от становищата, представени пред Съда, значителни приходи от реклама.

47      Вследствие на това трябва да се приеме, че предоставянето на разположение и администрирането на платформа за онлайн споделяне като разглежданата в главното производство, съставлява „публично разгласяване“ по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29.

48      С оглед на всички изложени съображения на първия въпрос следва да се отговори, че понятието „публично разгласяване“  трябва да се тълкува в смисъл, че  в неговия обхват попада предоставянето на разположение и администрирането в интернет на платформа за споделяне, която чрез индексиране на метаданните относно закриляните произведения и с предлагането на търсачка позволява на потребителите на платформата да намират тези произведения и да ги споделят в рамките на мрежа с равноправен достъп (peer-to-peer).

Масовите коментари са, че решението засилва позициите на търсещите блокиране организации.

Filed under: Digital, EU Law, Media Law Tagged: съд на ес

John Oliver is wrong about Net Neutrality

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/05/john-oliver-is-wrong-about-net.html

People keep linking to John Oliver bits. We should stop doing this. This is comedy, but people are confused into thinking Oliver is engaging in rational political debate:
Enlightened people know that reasonable people disagree, that there’s two sides to any debate. John Oliver’s bit erodes that belief, making one side (your side) sound smart, and the other side sound unreasonable.
The #1 thing you should know about Net Neutrality is that reasonable people disagree. It doesn’t mean they are right, only that they are reasonable. They aren’t stupid. They aren’t shills for the telcom lobby, or confused by the telcom lobby. Indeed, those opposed to Net Neutrality are the tech experts who know how packets are routed, whereas the supporters tend only to be lawyers, academics, and activists. If you think that the anti-NetNeutrality crowd is unreasonable, then you are in a dangerous filter bubble.
Most everything in John Oliver’s piece is incorrect.
For example, he says that without Net Neutrality, Comcast can prefer original shows it produces, and slow down competing original shows by Netflix. This is silly: Comcast already does that, even with NetNeutrality rules.
Comcast owns NBC, which produces a lot of original shows. During prime time (8pm to 11pm), Comcast delivers those shows at 6-mbps to its customers, while Netflix is throttled to around 3-mbps. Because of this, Comcast original shows are seen at higher quality than Netflix shows.
Comcast can do this, even with NetNeutrality rules, because it separates its cables into “channels”. One channel carries public Internet traffic, like Netflix. The other channels carry private Internet traffic, for broadcast TV shows and pay-per-view.
All NetNeutrality means is that if Comcast wants to give preference to its own contents/services, it has to do so using separate channels on the wire, rather than pushing everything over the same channel. This is a detail nobody tells you because NetNeutrality proponents aren’t techies. They are lawyers and academics. They maximize moral outrage, while ignoring technical details.
Another example in Oliver’s show is whether search engines like Google or the (hypothetical) Bing can pay to get faster access to customers. They already do that. The average distance a packet travels on the web is less than 100-miles. That’s because the biggest companies (Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.) pay to put servers in your city close to you. Smaller companies, such as search engine DuckDuckGo.com, also pay third-party companies like Akamai or Amazon Web Services to get closer to you. The smallest companies, however, get poor performance, being a thousand miles away.
You can test this out for yourself. Run a packet-sniffer on your home network for a week, then for each address, use mapping tools like ping and traceroute to figure out how far away things are.
The Oliver bit mentioned how Verizon banned Google Wallet. Again, technical details are important here. It had nothing to do with Net Neutrality issues blocking network packets, but only had to do with Verizon-branded phones blocking access to the encrypted enclave. You could use Google Wallet on unlocked phones you bought separately. Moreover, market forces won in the end, with Google Wallet (aka. Android Wallet) now the preferred wallet on their network. In other words, this incident shows that the “free market” fixes things in the long run without the heavy hand of government.
Oliver shows a piece where FCC chief Ajit Pai points out that Internet companies didn’t do evil without Net Neutrality rules, and thus NetNeutrality rules were unneeded. Oliver claimed this was a “disingenuous” argument. No, it’s not “disingenuous”, it entirely the point of why Net Neutrality is bad. It’s chasing theoretical possibility of abuse, not the real thing. Sure, Internet companies will occasionally go down misguided paths. If it’s truly bad, customers will rebel. In some cases, it’s not actually a bad thing, and will end up being a benefit to customers (e.g. throttling BitTorrent during primetime would benefit most BitTorrent users). It’s the pro-NetNeutrality side that’s being disingenuous, knowingly trumping up things as problems that really aren’t.
The point is this. The argument here is a complicated one, between reasonable sides. For humor, John Oliver has created a one-sided debate that falls apart under any serious analysis. Those like the EFF should not mistake such humor for intelligent technical debate.

Hacker dumps, magnet links, and you

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/05/hacker-dumps-magnet-links-and-you.html

In an excellent post pointing out Wikileaks deserves none of the credit given them in the #MacronLeaks, the author erroneously stated that after Archive.org took down the files, that Wikileaks provided links to a second archive. This is not true. Instead, Wikileaks simply pointed to what’s known as “magnet links” of the first archive. Understanding magnet links is critical to understanding all these links and dumps, so I thought I’d describe them.

The tl;dr version is this: anything published via BitTorrent has a matching “magnet link” address, and the contents can still be reached via magnet links when the original publisher goes away.

In this case, the leaker uploaded to “archive.org”, a popular Internet archiving resource. This website allows you to either download files directly, which is slow, or via peer-to-peer using BitTorrent, which is fast. As you know, BitTorrent works by all the downloaders exchanging pieces with each other, rather getting them from the server. I give you a piece you don’t have, in exchange for a piece I don’t have.

BitTorrent, though still requires a “torrent” (a ~30k file that lists all the pieces) and a “tracker” (http://bt1.archive.org:6969/announce) that keeps a list of all the peers so they can find each other. The tracker also makes sure that every piece is available from at least one peer.

When “archive.org” realized what was happening, they deleted the leaked files, the torrent, and the tracking.

However, BitTorrent has another feature called “magnet links”. This is simply the “hash” of the “torrent” file contents, which looks something like “06724742e86176c0ec82e294d299fba4aa28901a“. (This isn’t a hash of the entire file, but just the important parts, such as the filenames and sizes).

Along with downloading files, BitTorrent software on your computer also participates in a “distributed hash” network. When using a torrent file to download, your BitTorrent software still tell other random BitTorrent clients about the hash. Knowledge of this hash thus spreads throughout the BitTorrent world. It’s only 16 bytes in size, so the average BitTorrent client can keep track of millions of such hashes while consuming very little memory or bandwidth.

If somebody decides they want to download the BitTorrent with that hash, they broadcast that request throughout this “distributed hash” network until they find one or more people with the full torrent. They then get the torrent description file from them, and also a list of peers in the “swarm” who are downloading the file.

Thus, when the original torrent description file, the tracker, and original copy goes away, you can still locate the swarm of downloaders through this hash. As long as all the individual pieces exist in the swarm, you can still successfully download the original file.

In this case, one of the leaked documents was a 2.3 gigabyte file called “langannerch.rar”. The torrent description file called “langanerch_archive.torrent” is 26 kilobytes in size. The hash (magnet link) is 16 bytes in size, written “magnet:?xt=urn:btih:06724742e86176c0ec82e294d299fba4aa28901a“. If you’ve got BitTorrent software installed and click on the link, you’ll join the swarm and start downloading the file, even though the original torrent/tracker/files have gone away.

According to my BitTorrent client, there are currently 108 people in the swarm downloading this file world-wide. I’m currently connected to 11 of them. Most of them appear to be located in France.

Looking at the General tab, I see that “availability” is 2.95. That means there exist 2.95 complete copies of the download. In other words, if there are 20 pieces, it means that for one of the pieces in the swarm, only 2 people have it. This is dangerously small — if those two people leave the network, then a complete copy of the dump will no longer exist in the swarm, and it’ll be impossible to download it all.

Such dumps can remain popular enough for years after the original tracker/torrent has disappeared, but at some point, a critical piece disappears, and it becomes impossible for anybody to download more than 99.95%, with everyone in the swarm waiting for that last piece. If you read this blogpost 6 months from now, you are likely to see 10 people in the swarm, all stuck at 99.95% complete.

Conclusion


The upshot of this is that it’s hard censoring BitTorrent, because all torrents also exist as magnet links. It took only a couple hours for Archive.org to take down the tracker/torrents/files, but after complete downloads were out in the swarm, all anybody needed was the hash of the original torrent to create a magnet link to the data. Those magnet links had already been published by many people. The Wikileaks tweet that linked to them was fairly late, all things considered, other people had already published them.

Security updates for Monday

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/720203/rss

Security updates have been issued by Debian (libosip2, openoffice.org-dictionaries, and qbittorrent), Fedora (kernel, libpng12, libsndfile, libtiff, mediawiki, mupdf, qt5-qtwebengine, samba, xen, xorgxrdp, and xrdp), Mageia (mediawiki, ming, python-django, unshield, and webkit2), and openSUSE (postgresql93).

Security updates for Wednesday

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/718385/rss

Security updates have been issued by CentOS (icoutils and openjpeg), Debian (eject, graphicsmagick, libytnef, and tnef), Fedora (drupal8, firefox, kernel, ntp, qbittorrent, texlive, and webkitgtk4), Oracle (bash, coreutils, glibc, gnutls, kernel, libguestfs, ocaml, openssh, qemu-kvm, quagga, samba, samba4, tigervnc, and wireshark), Red Hat (curl), Slackware (mariadb), SUSE (samba), and Ubuntu (apparmor).

Security updates for Tuesday

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/718262/rss

Security updates have been issued by Debian (eject, gst-plugins-bad1.0, gst-plugins-base1.0, gst-plugins-good1.0, gst-plugins-ugly1.0, gstreamer1.0, php5, and tiff), Fedora (kernel), Gentoo (curl, deluge, libtasn1, and xen-tools), Mageia (mbedtls, putty, and roundcubemail), openSUSE (dbus-1, gegl, mxml, open-vm-tools, partclone, qbittorrent, tcpreplay, and xtrabackup), and Ubuntu (eject, gst-plugins-base0.10, gst-plugins-base1.0, and gst-plugins-good0.10, gst-plugins-good1.0).

Security updates for Thursday

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/717368/rss

Security updates have been issued by CentOS (thunderbird), Fedora (ettercap, jasper, qbittorrent, and tcpreplay), Oracle (tomcat6), Red Hat (rabbitmq-server), Slackware (pidgin), SUSE (flash-player), and Ubuntu (libxml2, linux, linux-aws, linux-gke, linux-raspi2, linux-snapdragon, and linux-lts-xenial).