<?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: Electric Sheep and Bittorrent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624</link>
	<description>Things I think I've thought about</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:45:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624/comment-page-1#comment-4978</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:48:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624#comment-4978</guid>
		<description>And the arms race continues.  =)

NPR had a program last Sunday about Bittorrent, the author, etc.  It was a good program, though it was geared more towards the less-technical, for obvious reasons.

Their take on it is that it is going to revolutionize the Internet and challenge capitalism&#039;s &#039;ownership&#039; paradigm.  I think that&#039;s a bit heady and sensational, but there&#039;s no doubt its been somewhat pivotal in changing the way files are shared.  

Bittorrent&#039;s biggest hurdle in my mind is repudiation.   How do I establish a level of trust for a given chunk received from user X?  Ideally, I would think it&#039;s best to establish trust at a chunk-by-chunk basis, so that an application doesn&#039;t have to assemble all the various chunks before verification can occur, because that would be another attack vector on the system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And the arms race continues.  =)</p>
<p>NPR had a program last Sunday about Bittorrent, the author, etc.  It was a good program, though it was geared more towards the less-technical, for obvious reasons.</p>
<p>Their take on it is that it is going to revolutionize the Internet and challenge capitalism&#8217;s &#8216;ownership&#8217; paradigm.  I think that&#8217;s a bit heady and sensational, but there&#8217;s no doubt its been somewhat pivotal in changing the way files are shared.  </p>
<p>Bittorrent&#8217;s biggest hurdle in my mind is repudiation.   How do I establish a level of trust for a given chunk received from user X?  Ideally, I would think it&#8217;s best to establish trust at a chunk-by-chunk basis, so that an application doesn&#8217;t have to assemble all the various chunks before verification can occur, because that would be another attack vector on the system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kurt wismer</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624/comment-page-1#comment-4977</link>
		<dc:creator>kurt wismer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:14:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624#comment-4977</guid>
		<description>re: the identification bit

this seems like the perennial problem with network-level filters - they can identify the protocol but not the application without some kind of integration with the end-points... that leaves them without a valuable piece of contextual information about the communication that&#039;s being attempted (though the application isn&#039;t the end of the story context-wise)...

the identification bit seems like a kludge to overcome that problem, but that said, conventional bittorrent clients do report their name and version... some clients allow you to see a breakdown of the various types of clients you&#039;re connected to... further, some sites/trackers have in the past banned certain clients for abuse (some special clients were made that leached but didn&#039;t seed)... to highlight how much of a kludge an identification bit is, though, the people making those abusive clients adapted to the banning by making their clients lie about the clients&#039; identification...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>re: the identification bit</p>
<p>this seems like the perennial problem with network-level filters &#8211; they can identify the protocol but not the application without some kind of integration with the end-points&#8230; that leaves them without a valuable piece of contextual information about the communication that&#8217;s being attempted (though the application isn&#8217;t the end of the story context-wise)&#8230;</p>
<p>the identification bit seems like a kludge to overcome that problem, but that said, conventional bittorrent clients do report their name and version&#8230; some clients allow you to see a breakdown of the various types of clients you&#8217;re connected to&#8230; further, some sites/trackers have in the past banned certain clients for abuse (some special clients were made that leached but didn&#8217;t seed)&#8230; to highlight how much of a kludge an identification bit is, though, the people making those abusive clients adapted to the banning by making their clients lie about the clients&#8217; identification&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624/comment-page-1#comment-4976</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:21:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624#comment-4976</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m with you.  The only reason I know about them is because I see my security infrastructure sniping them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m with you.  The only reason I know about them is because I see my security infrastructure sniping them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cji</title>
		<link>http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624/comment-page-1#comment-4975</link>
		<dc:creator>cji</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:28:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcwresearch.com/archives/624#comment-4975</guid>
		<description>While I guess these BT uses aren&#039;t the illegal p2p sharing that we would have originally intended to block, WoW game updates and fancy screen savers still don&#039;t seem like legitimate business needs that should be allowed. Or maybe I&#039;m just being a curmudgeon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I guess these BT uses aren&#8217;t the illegal p2p sharing that we would have originally intended to block, WoW game updates and fancy screen savers still don&#8217;t seem like legitimate business needs that should be allowed. Or maybe I&#8217;m just being a curmudgeon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

