Slashdot Mirror


EFF Releases Tool For Testing ISP Interference

Placid notes that the EFF has announced Switzerland, a tool for testing if your ISP is interfering with your Net connection (e.g. by resetting BitTorrent transfers). It's command-line only at this point. Of course the tool is FOSS, and you can contribute to it via its SourceForge project. From the announcement: "Developed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Switzerland is an open source software tool for testing the integrity of data communications over networks, ISPs, and firewalls. It will spot IP packets which are forged or modified between clients, inform you, and give you copies of the modified packets."

15 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Somewhere... by symbolset · · Score: 4, Funny

    A dozen Blackberrys are ringing.

    Look, Tim. I know it's Saturday but I need you to get to the switching center and shut down project ticktock right away. We're about to have some serious liability issues with it.

    After the weekend we can start on a workaround.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  2. Re:Warning to non-tech people by retroStick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But it's from the Electronic Frontier Foundation! If you can't trust them to be non-evil, who can you trust?

  3. Re:Warning to non-tech people by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't trust them to be non-evil, who can you trust?

    Completely? No one. Not even yourself.

    However, it's likely this tool is relatively safe.

    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  4. Re:HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, who let their cat near the keyboard?

  5. What? by gparent · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought Switzerland was a country!

  6. The download link by Exanon · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:The download link by geirt · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is going to change fast so it might be a good idea to download directly from the repository:

      svn co https://switzerland.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/switzerland switzerland

      Enjoy!

      --

      RFC1925
  7. Re:Warning to non-tech people by Adambomb · · Score: 4, Funny

    However, it's likely this tool is relatively safe

    so, working in the insurance industry too eh?

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  8. close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Windows are holes in walls or computers.

  9. From the Install ReadMe by cwtrex · · Score: 4, Informative

    Switzerland is alpha software. Remarkably, it runs on lots of different operating systems (we've seen it work on Linux, OS X, BSD and Windows XP), but because it's alpha software we can't promise that it's easy to install on all of these operating systems. We're looking for volunteers to help with a Windows installer!

    So for those looking for an easy install in Windows, you won't find it yet. Seems like cgywin under Windows XP is indeed the way to go.

  10. Re:Warning to non-tech people by interiot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, all tools that do tcpdump/Wireshark-style packet inspection require root (you don't want normal user programs sniffing everything). It's true that it's alpha quality code that does TCP communications, so it's a good idea to not leave it running all the time, and/or wait until a beta version has been released.

    A bigger issue is that some of your sniffed packets are sent in the clear to EFF, so 1) it's possible that a third party could sniff those few packets (but it's only a handful of packets, but it could still cause problems, and 2) if you use EFF's server, you have to trust EFF with the handful of sniffed packets you send them (but you can run your own server). It's too complicated to summarize in a few sentences, see the README.txt in the package.

    They do say they'll fix the issue that third parties could sniff your packets though (by doing the obvious thing and encrypting them between endpoints), so again, waiting for a later version might be a good idea.

  11. mehh by binarybum · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm working on a much more straightforward app that will be nearly as accurate on a large scale - it just scans your ip address and matches it against a list of known comcast ip classes - a hit means you're being throttled!

    --
    ôó
  12. Along the same lines... by NewbieV · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are a few packages available on the Network Neutrality Squad's website:

    (These were mentioned on Slashdot a little while back)

    --


    "For every right, an equal responsibility..."
  13. Re:EFF not trustworthy by DTemp · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are many errors in perspective/context regarding your arguments, and I'll let someone more eloquent than me list all of them. However, the glaring one I want to point out is your reference to the Comcast ruling this past week.

    As with anything, there are ups and downs to a ruling... sure, Comcast may start charging by the bit and so forth. However, the big reason the EFF went after them was because they were forging packets, including the RST packets, and otherwise impersonating users on the bittorrent protocol.

    The EFF was never saying they can't use traditional QoS on their network... they're saying companies need to reign in "bandwidth hogs" (as you put it) using protocol-agnostic methods, and they certainly shouldn't be forging any traffic.

    Full disclosure: I'm a paid, card-carrying member of the EFF. Just gave them another $15 a week ago.

  14. Re:Behavior is as important as bandwidth by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, this is somewhat of a network techie/geeky thing, but you can hog the network even if your bandwidth is capped. This is due to a flaw in TCP, which does very weak, per-flow congestion avoidance. Suppose one user is running a single download at X bits per second. A second has 100 streams going, each with 1/100th of the bandwidth (or X/100). Which one gets priority if the network gets congested? The second -- by a factor of 100! BitTorrent, which is used for downloads that are not time critical, seizes priority over other traffic such as VoIP, which really needs real time performance. What's more, the streams for which it seizes priority use large packets because they are downloads. The large packets, in turn, create jitter, which really messes up VoIP. The same is true for gaming. So, ISPs are doing the right thing when they throttle BitTorrent and keep it from opening up too many streams. And if they recognize that the thing that's hogging the bandwidth is BitTorrent, they can do so gracefully. They can undo the attempt to seize priority and mete out the bandwidth appropriately. If they are forced to be "protocol agnostic" (the word "agnostic" means "without knowledge;" in other words, their bandwidth limiter is not able to recognize exactly what's causing the problem), they can't use a strategy that's carefully tailored to the problem. So, the networking management can't be as good, and all users suffer. That's what the Sandvine appliance does. It "prunes" the number of streams started by BitTorrent down to a manageable level. It doesn't stop it altogether, but it keeps it from interfering with others by exploiting a vulnerability in the protocol.

    There is a very simple, non-technical argument against all of this. I pay my ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth. This connection is not metered in any way, other than having a limit to the total amount of bandwidth available at any one time. It is an "unlimited" plan. It suited my ISP to offer this deal, and it suited my needs to accept and purchase it. Other users of this ISP have similar if not identitcal arrangements. Whether it's BitTorrent, running an FTP server, real-time video, or whatever, the principle here is that if anything that another unrelated user does can reduce the quality of my connection, then my ISP has failed because they have oversold their capacity. Everything you said about how multiple BitTorrent streams greatly increase the latency of applications like VoIP is quite reasonable, if you are talking about MY bittorrent client causing latency for MY VoIP client, but that is not what we were discussing.

    Now, if ISPs decide they want to meter their connections (say, by the megabyte or gigabyte), or that they won't carry certain types of traffic, then let them announce this to their customers. If their customers decide they want to continue paying for this, great. If they don't, too bad. But what is happening right now, where ISPs want to sell "unlimited" connections and then surreptitiously place limits on them and screw around with my traffic to conceal the fact that they are overselling their capacity (and/or refuse to upgrade their equipment) is unacceptable. This is unacceptable whether TCP fails to manage this type of network congestion, whether BitTorrent really is a bandwidth hog, whether an RST is a good way to deal with that, blah blah -- you're getting caught up in minutia and missing the real point. Saying "you're free to use this connection as you please ... oh, unless you use an application we don't like, then we'll sanction you" is hypocritical the same way that saying "you have the right to free speech ... oh, unless you say something we don't like" is hypocritical.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein