What he meant by that was these people are also spamming other networks (FastTrack, WinMX, eDonkey, etc.) so it's not ONLY on Gnutella, and this is true. I don't think they use the same tactics on the other networks(they migh, I rarely use the other networks anymore), but they still spam them.

Well, you have a point there. To be honest, I don't spend very much time paying attention to this stuff. Certainly not to the point where I know every type of file-sharing system that exists and what type of technology it uses. I wasn't aware that those (eDonkey, WinMX) were distinct filesharing networks. I thought they were just different clients or something.

Whatever. This is getting silly. I don't want to argue semantics or talk politics. I just wanted to find out what was going on with these weird hits I was getting. And I was surprised that spammers had already devised a way to bend "peer-to-peer file-sharing technology" (to use the technically correct, inclusive term) to their own slimy ends. That's all.

With Gnucleus 1.8.4 you can block spammers. if you download it from online it automatically stops spammers with an list. I ram into this problem while beta testing a client i created.

Ok, this is a really old thread so I guess I can use it to follow the suggestion that I post to freshen-up my activity here ("Hello cnshht it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a conversation with another member in any one of our forums?")

Due to the nature of my connectivity, I've been unwilling to risk sharing my files for quite a while, thus endangering my associates, here in the USA where legal threats from large corporations and their sponsored organizations.... I thus felt like a leech and my P2P activity was minimized. I was away for a while....

I came back and found the above-described phenomenon in full force. Valid search results were deeply immersed in trash, to the point where my searches were sometimes completely futile. My theory is similar to that above. Certain corporate interests are funding a deliberate spoiling of P2P by intercepting search queries, generating matching trash files, and quickly sharing them. I was able to wade through the trash by using careful queries and avoiding the "matches" described above. But it quickly occurs to me that a well-funded group employing script-writers and programmers can cripple P2P with ever-more complex routines that basically result in ever-increasing denial-of-service....

And public discussion of the phenomenon might even help those spoilers, so I feel gagged by my own preference for filesharing freedom. If anyone sees this and wants to offer a peptalk or a few links to help me fight the spoilers in my spare time, ...that would be welcome.

Well cnshht (how do you pronounce that name?)

You've summed up the current and ongoing problem with the gnutella network, not to mention the planted viruses and booby trapped software.

However, your idea of fighting this problem is somewhat surprising considering that you have large companies, major western government organisations all trying to stop their computer users from using P2P apps and facilities by whatever means.

Consequently, I do strongly disagree when you said:I believe the only way to offer protection to P2P users is discussion, like we are having now, and educating users to spot and avert the network's dangers.

But saying all that, once using the P2P stop being fun then, I guess, most people, like myself, will just stop using it.



UK Bob

As a relatively ignorant end-user (who can't get i2Phex to install) I do have vague hopes that P2P client developers will feel intrigued by the challenge of defeating Megacorporate programmer-goons, and pass along to me the fruits of their efforts at some point. I'm historically a Phex-user (came here looking for clues to this conundrum) and I see signs of an adaptive move toward private networks, etc. I hope to study it in the future. You bet I'd like to see P2P evolve into something that makes those media conglomerates who are funding denial-of-service efforts wish they'd never screwed with P2P.

Could blacklisting be refined by a dynamic service that works within our client programs, so that when we send a query and shortly afterward receive garbage results that contain our exact string, those hosts are filtered or auto-blocked...?

Beyond that, ...would it be possible for a script or program/module to be written that would identify/track-back the hosts of the spoilers, and target THEM with enough retaliatory traffic that their own rotten activity becomes untenable? They are doing something that no public-minded P2P user would engage in. Can their activity can be used to dynamically and automatically identify them and retalitate? Can we respectful users, in our greater numbers, with the help of those developers who don't like seeing the fruits of their previous labor spoiled... ...can we all run a program that identifies the garbage-spewers and targets them with noise, denying THEM the ability to deny service to others?

Surely we are as free to do that, as they are to do what they do. I for one would be happy to host an add-on module or program that gives them a dose of their own poison....

Wow, I have never seen a thread as dead as this one brought back to life before. Did I really post here 8 YEARS ago?! Sheesh...

Cnshht, it's been a long time since I fired up Gnucleus, so maybe I'm out of the loop, but why do you assume its "Certain corporate interests are funding a deliberate spoiling of P2P by intercepting search queries, generating matching trash files, and quickly sharing them" with Ukbobboy chiming in about "large companies, major western government organisations all trying to stop their computer users from using P2P apps and facilities by whatever means."

It sounds like you think this is some kind of conspiracy to destroy P2P. But an equally good explanation is that it's just the usual crop of small-time, quasi-crooked spammers up to their usual tricks trying to make a buck. In fact, it seems a lot more likely to me.

Perhaps both sorts of spoilers are "out there." But my experience is that the "trash files" are tiny in size, and when I have attempted out of curiosity to download them, they don't move. When I said "quickly sharing them," I was maybe a bit unclear. I meant their scripts/programs/bots broadcast the files as "shared" search results. Not that they are actually "sharing", i.e. that P2P users are actually downloading the sham files in all their multiples. The hosts do not at all seem to be trying to get P2P users to download a spam/advert in any form. I have yet to see any spam-like adverts, messages or commercial content at all behind the mechanism I've observed, where search queries are used to generate fake results. So how does anyone "make a buck" doing it? They're just jamming the protocol so it can't be used. It seems specifically designed as a denial-of-service activity. Therefore it seems most likely to me that the sponsors of this activity are those who feel they are losing profits because of file sharing. i.e. large recording/media companies and their industry associations.
Cloudwatcher, have you downloaded a search result that mimics your query turns out to be a file trying to sell you ******? Or to sell you anything? Or direct you to a website that does try to? I haven't. There's nothing there. It's just electronic jamming of search activity. High volume. Many many hosts. Has the appearance of an organized, targeted effort.