<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: This can only mean one Thing! Injection!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/</link>
	<description>running an open bittorrent tracker</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2011 14:48:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bloommupe</title>
		<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/comment-page-1/#comment-4667</link>
		<dc:creator>Bloommupe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:01:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/?p=19#comment-4667</guid>
		<description>Salam 
What do your think about remove downloader ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Salam<br />
What do your think about remove downloader ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kalief</title>
		<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/comment-page-1/#comment-1840</link>
		<dc:creator>Kalief</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:54:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/?p=19#comment-1840</guid>
		<description>&quot;Since THEIR filter only sniffs the first data packet of a connection [...]&quot;

Would it be possible to send a dummy &#039;first packet&#039;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Since THEIR filter only sniffs the first data packet of a connection [...]&#8221;</p>
<p>Would it be possible to send a dummy &#8216;first packet&#8217;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Crest</title>
		<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/comment-page-1/#comment-1801</link>
		<dc:creator>Crest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/?p=19#comment-1801</guid>
		<description>Using HTTPS with RC4 or what ever bad but fast crypto is available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Using HTTPS with RC4 or what ever bad but fast crypto is available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tobias</title>
		<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/comment-page-1/#comment-61</link>
		<dc:creator>Tobias</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:46:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/?p=19#comment-61</guid>
		<description>Hmm,

just a thought: Instead of dropping RST packets, maybe just hold them back? This ensures that legitimate RST packets get to the kernel and can properly close connections and injected packets (hopfully) arrive after the original packet. You&#039;re out of luck if the ISP drops the original packet, which they probably will if the filter vendor notices this &quot;delay&quot; trick in wide use...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm,</p>
<p>just a thought: Instead of dropping RST packets, maybe just hold them back? This ensures that legitimate RST packets get to the kernel and can properly close connections and injected packets (hopfully) arrive after the original packet. You&#8217;re out of luck if the ISP drops the original packet, which they probably will if the filter vendor notices this &#8220;delay&#8221; trick in wide use&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: erdgeist</title>
		<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>erdgeist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:47:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/?p=19#comment-11</guid>
		<description>Well, some problems DO occur.

• First, only a fraction, a really tiny fraction, of torrents do include https-URLs for their trackers.
• Second, to circumvent omnipotent firewalls you would have to include your tracker&#039;s fingerprint in those torrents or buy a signature for your certificate.
• Third, clients will need to talk https (the most recent ones, using their OS&#039;s http-engine do).
• Fourth, handling thousands of connections per second suddenly becomes a problem when bignum arithmetics get involved. One would use an ssl proxy to do that, anyway and with an appropriate amount of money you can use crypto accelerators. Until now no open tracker seems to be willing to spend that amount of money or cpu ressources.

However, thanks for pointing out that option.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, some problems DO occur.</p>
<p>• First, only a fraction, a really tiny fraction, of torrents do include https-URLs for their trackers.<br />
• Second, to circumvent omnipotent firewalls you would have to include your tracker&#8217;s fingerprint in those torrents or buy a signature for your certificate.<br />
• Third, clients will need to talk https (the most recent ones, using their OS&#8217;s http-engine do).<br />
• Fourth, handling thousands of connections per second suddenly becomes a problem when bignum arithmetics get involved. One would use an ssl proxy to do that, anyway and with an appropriate amount of money you can use crypto accelerators. Until now no open tracker seems to be willing to spend that amount of money or cpu ressources.</p>
<p>However, thanks for pointing out that option.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ths</title>
		<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>ths</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/?p=19#comment-10</guid>
		<description>HTTPS - 

http://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecification#Tracker_HTTP.2FHTTPS_Protocol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HTTPS &#8211; </p>
<p><a href="http://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecification#Tracker_HTTP.2FHTTPS_Protocol" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecification#Tracker_HTTP.2FHTTPS_Protocol</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christian Vogel</title>
		<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>Christian Vogel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/?p=19#comment-9</guid>
		<description>You might want to look here: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/ for the firewall-of-china paper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might want to look here: <a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/</a> for the firewall-of-china paper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: taklamakan</title>
		<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>taklamakan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:47:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/?p=19#comment-7</guid>
		<description>But in this case they only sends an RST to the server, not to the client! Otherwise the client wouldn&#039;t try again with another announce 9 seconds after we got the injected RST.

Sending an RST to the client would be useless anyway, because this is easy to filter on the client-side. Sending it to the tracker is much more useful, because most tracker owners don&#039;t care!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But in this case they only sends an RST to the server, not to the client! Otherwise the client wouldn&#8217;t try again with another announce 9 seconds after we got the injected RST.</p>
<p>Sending an RST to the client would be useless anyway, because this is easy to filter on the client-side. Sending it to the tracker is much more useful, because most tracker owners don&#8217;t care!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pascal</title>
		<link>http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/01/30/this-can-only-mean-one-thing-injection/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>pascal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/?p=19#comment-5</guid>
		<description>btw. this is the same technique the &quot;great firewall&quot; of china uses (lost the source but I think fefe posted it once), sending RST to both ends if unwanted traffic occurs...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>btw. this is the same technique the &#8220;great firewall&#8221; of china uses (lost the source but I think fefe posted it once), sending RST to both ends if unwanted traffic occurs&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.059 seconds -->

