Slashdot Mirror


BitHammer, the BitTorrent Banhammer

michaelcole writes: Its name is BitHammer. It searches out and bans BitTorrent users on your local sub-net.

I'm a digital nomad. That means I travel and work, often using shared Wi-Fi. Over the last year, I've been plagued by rogue BitTorrent users who've crept onto these public hostpots either with a stolen/cracked password, or who lie right to my face (and the Wi-Fi owners) about it.

These users clog up the residential routers' connection tables, and make it impossible to use tools like SSH, or sometimes even web browsing. Stuck for a day, bullied from the Wi-Fi, I wrote BitHammer as a research project. It worked rather well. It's my first Python program. I hope you find it useful.

15 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. Alternative headline by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Vigilante beats up on people in order to get public wifi access that he believes is rightfully his

    That's what it amounts to. He can't get the access he wants, so he just pushes his way in and takes it.

    If access is so important to your work, why aren't you/they paying for it?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Alternative headline by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He can't get the access he wants, so he just pushes his way in and takes it.

      As opposed to the bittorrent user(s) who are pushing everyone else out of the way and preventing their access?

      Assuming that both parties are wrong does not logically lead to the conclusion that their wrong acts are equivalent.
      I'm on the side of preserving the common good, not protecting the random data hog.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Alternative headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assuming that both parties are wrong does not logically lead to the conclusion that their wrong acts are equivalent.
      I'm on the side of preserving the common good, not protecting the random data hog.

      In one case a person can't access Internet as he wants as an unfortunate side effect of the others usage and bad network configuration.
      In the other case the other person can't access Internet as he wants due to actively being suppressed by the first user.
      Yes, clearly the two wrong acts aren't equivalent. The torrent user is just an inconsiderate asshole while this dude is an outright malicious asshole.

    3. Re:Alternative headline by niado · · Score: 5, Informative

      As opposed to the bittorrent user(s) who are pushing everyone else out of the way and preventing their access?

      Its one thing to do so with permission from the network owners .. its another thing to wade in and beat up on people just so you can get what you want.

      Two wrongs do not make a right.

      This is not in the summary, but in his readme on github the submitter states "After talking with the frustrated non-technical people who owned/managed them, I wrote this program to help network users and owners."

      The implication is that this tool is written for use by whomever manages the network. Most networks would have a "no bittorrent" rule, if the network owner was savvy enough to know this. The tool is an interesting enforcement mechanism.

    4. Re:Alternative headline by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      on github the submitter states "After talking with the frustrated non-technical people who owned/managed them, I wrote this program to help network users and owners."

      While the program can be used with the network owner's permission, the fact that it can more easily be used without permission makes it rather dubious.

      I think he's/we're going about this the wrong way. If this is really a widespread problem afflicting non-technical people trying to run a public wi-fi hotspot, what needs to happen is for router configs to limit the number of connections from a single MAC address by default. If you're a gamer or running bittorrent on your own network, it's easy enough to change those configs. But on a public hotspot, they're the ones who'll be forced to contact the network owners, not the people trying to get legit access.

      I'm also a bit skeptical that the submitter really talked with the owner. If you've got access to the router via the owner, the most obvious thing to try first is QoS. Assign torrent traffic to low priority, default everything else to medium (to catch encrypted bittorrent), and give ports 80 and 443 (http and https) high priority to keep web browsing customers happy. You need to be careful about giving ssh high priority because it's possible to run a tunnel over ssh and do your torrenting that way.

  2. Free Wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're using a free public network and selectively booting the users who don't fit into your specified profile.
    Why not just buy your own connection and stop being such a fucking Nazi?

  3. Self-entitled much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This basically boils down to: "My use is more important than your use, under a flimsy excuse that your use could potentially interfere with my use, I will deliberately abuse the network in order to wilfully interfere with your use."

    The computer abuse act and FCC guidelines about wilful interference comes to mind....

  4. an opinion from the self entitled generation by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Over the last year, I've been plagued by rogue BitTorrent users who've crept onto these public hostpots either with a stolen/cracked password, or who lie right to my face (and the Wi-Fi owners) about it.

    Huh? They lie right to your face about it? Wait a minute. Who the hell are you anyway and what do you have to say about it? If it bothers you, buy yourself a mobile hotspot and STFU. At least maybe they are actually buying food/coffee/whatever and aren't just using the cafe as their personal office. What's the next complaint? That their conversations are too loud and you can't hear your conference calls?

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:an opinion from the self entitled generation by omtinez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up. It's the tragedy of the commons, but taking justice into your own hands makes you just as bad if not worse than the BitTorrent users

  5. Re:Traffic Shaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe he should be more angry at the business owners for using cheap routers and/or not implementing traffic shaping, etc.

    Or he could do the correct thing and pay for a portable hotspot of his very own. Once you are paying the bills, you get to dictate the terms.

    If someone else is monopolizing the business owner's bandwidth, that's not your business. You can inform the business owner of the situation, but if they choose to do nothing, that is their choice to make, not yours.

  6. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd be upset if his solution was to poison the food so the people that took it all started vomiting.

  7. The arms race continues by inhuman_4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The BitHammer relies on Local Peer Disocovery which gives priority to peers that are close to the bit torrent client. This is good for ISPs because it tries to keep the bit torrent traffic inside their own network instead of hammering peering connections. This also makes connections faster for the bit torrent client.

    If you want to get around BitHammer you just need to turn off Local Peer Discovery, if BitHammer can't find you it can't block you. But now the ISPs are going to get screwed because Local Peer Discovery is turned off. This will also make the torrents slower for the client.

    Sounds like a loose/loose situation to me.

  8. Re:It's okay when I do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    thats not what this is about, it's about people who don't share some bandwith they payed for, it's about people who just use up all the bandwith anywhere they can no matter if they payed for it or if it's gratis or if they're using it illegitimately

  9. Re:It's okay when I do it... by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course it's more efficient. It's the classic centralization vs. decentralization problem. Centralization is always more efficient overall. However, it has disadvantages: single point of failure, inflexibility, etc. In this case, one big disadvantage is cost: cloud distribution requires signing up for and paying for an account somewhere to store all this data. Peer-to-peer tools don't have this (though they do have the problem of how to distribute the .torrent files, which is semi-centralized but doesn't have to be since anyone can send them around to anyone else directly). Cloud distribution puts the data at the mercy of a single provider; peer-to-peer tools let everyone share data willy-nilly, and as long as one person, anywhere, has the data, it can be replicated to everyone else easily.

    Similarly, it would likely be more efficient if we all gave up our PCs and went back to using mainframes of some sort (or some kind of centralized server infrastructure, not an actual zOS mainframe), with our "PCs" just being thin clients, and us all having user accounts on them. The administration would be much easier and more effective, and the power usage would probably be much less than what we're doing now. However, that would put us at the mercy of a few providers, would likely cost more long-term, at least for those of us who manage our own computers and don't have to regularly call the Geek Squad for personal visits like my dumb neighbor, and would massively limit flexibility since we'd only be able to do things that are pre-approved for the most part.

  10. Re:It's okay when I do it... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Note that I'm NOT talking about using public wi-fi here, just the idea that bittorrent has no place.

    Then you are discussing on the wrong article.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'