Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BitTorrent and End to End Encryption

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the end-runs-and-other-oddities dept.

An anonymous reader writes "As ISPs like Shaw and Rogers throttle their bandwidth to counter the growth of BitTorrent, BitTorrent developers are fighting back with end to end encryption. Oddly enough, Bram Cohen, the original brains behind BitTorrent, doesn't support this direction. Is there really anything he can do about it?"

7 of 494 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wrong Solution by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Good thinking. Except there are two companies that run the high-speed lines here, Rogers and Bell. Ignoring the fact that Bell Sympatico DSL is quite slower than my tier of cable for a moment, what happens if Bell also filters Bittorrent? Are you suggesting that the appropriate course of action then would be to move?

    On a more practical note, use port 1720 (used by Rogers' own VoIP digital phone service, so they can't and don't deep packet filter it) and if that doesn't work (remember to restart your client and forward ports accordingly) try BitComet with the encrypted header option. Worked fine for me after a bit of fiddling.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  2. Re:Who are "Shaw" and "Rogers"? by loconet · · Score: 5, Informative

    Shaw and Rogers are the two major cable providers in Canada.

    Does it affect a lot of people? You bet.

    --
    [alk]
  3. Opera and BitTorrent by RonnyJ · · Score: 3, Informative

    In semi-related news, BitTorrent Inc. and Opera announced today that Opera 9 will offer BT capabilities. I do remember that a beta of Opera 8 had BitTorrent built in, but that hasn't been present in versions released since (i.e. since it went freeware).

    http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2006/02/06/

  4. Re:Encryption won't work anyhow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Traffic analysis systems are available that detect traffic *patterns*. The determining factor for what defines traffic as being VoIP, or Bittorrent, is the patterns flows follow. For instance, a VoIP connection is a very consistent stream of data to one host, where anything file sharing related will be far from smooth, and will be talking to many hosts.

    Even in the case of changing ports, this is easily detected. I work for a medium sized broadband ISP, and we extensively use the layer7 module for iptable which detects flow type based off of a "fingerprint" of traffic; a fingerprint simply being made up of several unique characteristics of a particular packet type.

  5. Re:I'm a Shaw BT user by mrtroy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am also a Rogers user...

    And I am downloading at 200kb/sec+ on a torrent right now...

    Firstly, check your router to make sure you have the appropriate ports opened/forwarding

    Then, do NOT use the standard port for BT.

    Cheers

    --
    [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  6. Re:Encryption won't work anyhow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Similar discussion has taken place at the gnutella developer forum, and the client gtk-gnutella already has encryption in place for the same purpose.

    This post describes how ISP filters peer to peer gnutella traffic. To quote:

    CableVision, for example, is known to drop incoming Gnutella connections and Gnutella HTTP requests. This has absolutely nothing to do with port filtering. You can easily verify this by modifying your HTTP request. Something like "GET /uri-res/N2R?urn:sha:* HTTP/1.0" will be cause the connection to be dropped

  7. Lots of DSL ISPs (Was: Re:Wrong Solution) by tachyonflow · · Score: 3, Informative
    Most people have only one or two choices for ISPs, and MAYBE three if they're lucky. In my area, I have one cable provider, one telco providing DSL, and I think there's some satellite company that is expensive and has extremely horrid bandwidth.

    Keep in mind that in many areas, there are lots of ISPs that can provide you with DSL service. This service is provided by either 1) using the telco's DSLAMs and ATM networks to connect your home to the ISP (the most common method), or 2) using ISP-owned DSLAM equipment co-located at the central office (Speakeasy/Covad, various local ISPs). If you're just using the telco to move your bits across town to the ISP, I doubt the telco is going to bother traffic shaping your data.

    I mention this because I think a lot of people don't realize there are more DSL options than just the local telco's internet service. When you go to the telco's home page, they certainly don't go out of their way to let you know about this. There are lots of small and regional ISPs that would love to have your business.

    The biggest problem you might encounter with DSL is that many telcos require you to subscribe to phone service before they'll allow you to subscribe to DSL. I know this is definitely the case in BellSouth territory. I've heard that you used to be able to get a "dry copper" (i.e. "alarm circuit") DSL line to an ISP in BellSouth territory (a friend of mine used to have this sort of hookup in Oxford, Miss.), but they've since put an end to that. Where I live (Denver, Colorado), the telco (Qwest) does offer "Naked DSL" so you don't have to bother with a landline if you don't want one.

    I have DSL with a local ISP who runs their own DSLAMs in my neighborhood, and it works out well.

    David