sounds like I proposed Browse Host to be removed, from what I read on the latter posts...

I opened the thread to debate wheter it should be OPTIONAL or not, not if it had to be removed, god no!, it's one hell of a cool feature to sneek through that hole in the wall and see what things people keep in their computer and willing to share.

Sometimes you get "Could not browse host" and it's probably cause of network problems, but if you don't know think that might be the cause, you might think that there's an option in the program to disable Browse Host... and then you have support emails asking "How do I turn off Browse Host?"

I say it should be optional, why not? let me have a little privacy, I want to help, but I don't want to show how I'm helping, I'm helping anyways right? it's worse if then people stop sharing to not be browsed...

LOTR--wtf!? the banning MUST be a mistake! PM me--PLEASE!

gub--I dislike the optional idea--a FALSE sense of security is really the most dangerous option.

Agreed 100%.

The net cumulative effect of people who _start_ sharing once they don't _have_ to be listable by IP address, could well improve transfer rates a bit.

At the least, for every file that becomes shared to QUERIES (but not to BHs) that otherwise would have been UNSHARED is one more source for that file, which would relieve the burden on a BH-able node who DOES have that file. Therefore, the BH-able host would be able to satisfy the TRANSFER DEMAND placed upon it for that file better, by having some of that demand now offloaded onto the node which begins sharing. This appears to be a net benefit to the people who LIKE to find files by BH-ing people, as those nodes will be under less demand. Everyone wins.

;-)


He told one of our development staff that I was "not constructive" (paraphrased, I have the details at work).

I think he intended it, I just don't know why?!?

As far as Optional browsing - Keep in mind that I am not saying "i want to be completely anonymous", merely that "i don't want my IP address to be the only lookup key required to see my shared content."

If someone wants something from me, I (personally) want them to know WHAT they are looking for, before they can find out whether I am satisfying this desire or not.

As a coder, it isn't a huge issue for me (I can simply disable it locally) - merely the principle. But I know i'm not the only one who wants to be able to turn this off locally. At BS it was an option, and people used it often.

As far as "false security", locally not supporting this feature isn't meant to be a fix-all for security. Nor is it meant to make me anonymous. Therefore, any argument that "it doesn't make you secure" or "it doesn't make you anonymous" is more-or-less a strawman.

As I said in my above posts, why shouldn't I be able to close my (p2p) door without locking it, should I so desire? Just because closing it doesn't lock it (aka completely protect) doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to close it.

The biggest problem I forsee was mentioned inhouse by another developer, and that would be the "confusion factor" whereby non-technical users may think that "not browseable" == "not sharing". However, this is addressable in other ways, which don't invalidate the original desire.

For example, the first thing off my head to address that would be a popup box once the "disable BH" option were enabled which simply informed the user of what, exactly, the option did, and notifying them that they were STILL sharing the file to anyone who looked for it,

If that weren't acceptable, there are any number of other ways to address this sub-issue.

Per Schneier, a leading security expert, security measures are a series of compromises between actual security & usability.

Allowing a user to not have files listed based SOLELY upon knowledge of that user's IP address (even if there are other methods to find the shared files) is a _compromise_ designed to address one single channel for information leakage.

Does anyone have a good reason why I shouldn't be able to disable this feature for MY node, _regardless_ of whether YOU YOURSELF would want it disabled on your node?

My (continued) $0.02.....

-dave-

Thanks for the info Dave. I'll give the strawman argument more careful thought. I still can't decide the line between "More" security and False" security Well, that's like the "forced share" argument. It's upfront in Bittorrent, so that's OK. Of course you should not HAVE to share in gnutella---that's been a given for gnutella. Instead, leeches pay at least a social price. I agree that you have the right (and power) to make BH optional.

But, if BH was to be optional, I would like to see some reciprocal option: I want the option to only connect and upload to hosts that allow BH.

Sound fair?

(and best wishes with whatever you are coding to help make LW more secure, stable and responsive. I've been quite eager to see what you have and will come up with. If I'm not mistaken, your work in the past has greatly helped the security and growth of the network)

cheers

I've just found this thread looking for something quite different. I don't know why, but since I upgraded to 4.8.1 I just can't browse other host anymore.
I do it when I find a song I like that's no usually out there, hoping to find something else as interesting. I'm not trying to bother anyone, or spy or intrude... (sorry about my english, not my first language).
The other things that disappeared are the chat and the player. Don't know why either.
Anyone else with this sort of problems?
I have a G3, OS X 10.3.3.
thanks a lot

gripe

I can browse your host without the regular browse host feature with a set of 26 udp queries. Disabling browse host just disables a LimeWire feature, it does not increase your security in any way.

People with the interest, time and knowledge can enter your computer and do way more than browse a host.

I'm just thinking of all the REGULAR Joes that probably conform the majority of the network, who ask things like this.

We get this question every day, I think the users want this option for the next LimeWire. It's not a matter of security, but having a feeling of privacy, and also fairness.

See what the guy says, and this is what I feel when I can't browse a host, I know it's probably cause of network issues that you can browse them, but this guy had no clue about it, the first thing you might think of when you see that message on the screen is... "Am I browsable?" "How do I turn it off?" "Wow, how did he turn it off?" "Dear LimeWire, how do I turn off Browse Host?"

it's just a matter of being able to close your door to regular people, burglars will break in to your house If they really want something.

Anybody running LimeWire can be browsed. How is that not fair?

well my firewall just will block anyone from browsing my files i dont no how i did that but its great for security

If your firewall doesn't block uploads altogether, it won't block browse host requests.