FAKULT¨AT F¨UR INFORMATIK Adapting

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

FAKULT¨AT F¨UR INFORMATIK Adapting FAKULTAT¨ FUR¨ INFORMATIK DER TECHNISCHEN UNIVERSITAT¨ MUNCHEN¨ Master’s Thesis in Computer Science Adapting Blackhat Approaches to Increase the Resilience of Whitehat Application Scenarios Bartlomiej Polot FAKULTAT¨ FUR¨ INFORMATIK DER TECHNISCHEN UNIVERSITAT¨ MUNCHEN¨ Master’s Thesis in Computer Science Adapting Blackhat Approaches to Increase the Resilience of Whitehat Application Scenarios Adaptieren von Blackhat-Ansatzen¨ um die Ausfallsicherheit in Whitehat-Anwendungsszenarien zu erhohen¨ Author: Bartlomiej Polot Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Claudia Eckert Advisor: Dipl. Inf. Christian Schneider Advisor: Martin Brunner, BSc Date: June 15, 2010 Ich versichere, dass ich diese Masters Thesis selbstandig¨ verfasst und nur die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Munchen,¨ den 15.Juni 2010 Bartlomiej Polot Dedication I dedicate this thesis to my father Bogusław who celebrates his 50th birthday today, June 15th, 2010. Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor Martin Brunner, from Fraunhofer SIT in Munich, for his guidance in all aspects throughout the creation of this thesis. I would also like to thank Alexander Kiening, also from Fraunhofer SIT in Munich, for his help in the revision of the drafts. Finally, I want to thank my parents Ewa and Bogusław for their support during my whole academic life. vii Abstract Botnets, large networks of computers controlled by a malicious master, are nowadays big threats to computer security. They have evolved from being simple centralized net- works of hundreds of computers to complex multi-function systems with millions of com- puters. Botnets use different novel techniques to increase their resilience and be harder to analyze, track and control by numerous groups of people trying to counter-measure them. In this thesis, the techniques botnets use to achieve their high resilience are gathered and analyzed to form a general idea about the state of the art in distributed malware. This knowledge is used to build a proof of concept application which takes advantage of the research and development done by botmasters, for its possible use in a number of whitehat scenarios. The application combines well known Peer-to-Peer technologies with techniques used in famous botnets. This creates a network resilient to internal and external DoS attacks. The attacks that made former networks stop working, only cause an increase in response time and extra traffic in this network. This thesis shows that botnet techniques can be applicable for general-purpose contexts and that combining all known protection measures it is possible to build a highly resilient network, resistant to most attacks that can bring normal networks down. ix Zusammenfassung Botnets, große Netzwerke von Computern die ein bose¨ Master gesteuert wurde, sind heute große Bedrohungen fur¨ die Computersicherheit. Sie haben von einfache zentral- isierte Netze von Hunderten Computern zu komplexen Multi-Funktions-Systeme mit Mil- lionen Computern entwickelt. Botnets verwenden verschiedene neue Techniken, um ihre Widerstandsfahigkeit¨ zu erhohen¨ und um schwieriger zu analysieren, zu verfolgen und zu steuern sind. In dieser Thesis, die Techniken Botnets ihrer Widerstandsfahigkeit¨ zu erhohen¨ verwen- det, werden gesammelt und analysiert, um einen Uberblick¨ uber¨ den Stand der Technik in Verteilt Malware zu haben. Dieses Wissen wird verwendet, um ein Proof of Concept An- wendung, die Vorteilt von der Forschung und Entwicklung Botmasters gemacht hat und verwenden sie es in Whitehat Szenarien, zu bauen. Die Anwendung kombiniert bekannte Peer-to-Peer Technologien mit Techniken, die in beruhmten¨ Botnets verwendet sind, um ein Netzwerk anfallig¨ fur¨ interne und externe DoS-Attacken zu herstellen. Die Angriffe, die ehemalige Netzwerken kaputt gemacht haben, nur einem Anstieg der Reaktionszeit und zusatzlichen¨ Netzwerkverkehr auslosen.¨ Diese Thesis zeigt, dass Botnet-Techniken konnen¨ fur¨ allgemeine Zwecke und Kontexte anwendbar sein und dass mit der Kombination aller bekannten Schutzmaßnahmen ist es moglich,¨ ein hoch belastbares Netzwerk, bestandig¨ gegen die meisten Angriffe, die nor- male Netze fuhren¨ kann, zu bauen. xi xii Contents Dedication and Acknowledgements vii Abstract ix Zusammenfassung xi Outline of the Thesis xix I. Introduction1 1. Introduction3 1.1. Initial situation...................................3 1.2. Motivation......................................3 1.3. A brief history of botnets..............................4 II. Theoretical Background9 2. Software requirements of bots 11 2.1. Introduction..................................... 11 2.2. Stealthiness..................................... 11 2.2.1. Hide presence................................ 11 2.2.2. Hide size................................... 12 2.3. Confidentiality.................................... 13 2.4. Quick response................................... 13 2.4.1. Fast propagation of commands and data inside the network..... 14 2.4.2. Fast infection and propagation of the bot to other hosts........ 14 2.5. Availability...................................... 15 2.6. Anonymity...................................... 15 2.7. Authentication.................................... 16 2.8. Size assessment................................... 16 2.9. Conclusion...................................... 16 3. Techniques used in botnets 19 3.1. Introduction..................................... 19 3.2. Bots.......................................... 19 3.2.1. Infection................................... 19 3.2.2. Obfuscation and self protection...................... 21 xiii Contents 3.3. Architecture..................................... 24 3.3.1. Centralized networks........................... 24 3.3.2. Peer to peer networks........................... 24 3.4. Segmentation.................................... 31 3.4.1. Size assessment............................... 32 3.5. Resilience....................................... 32 3.5.1. Traditional approaches........................... 32 3.5.2. Fast Flux Service Networks........................ 33 3.5.3. Domain name randomization....................... 36 3.6. Anonymization................................... 37 3.6.1. Onion routing................................ 37 3.6.2. Message authentication.......................... 38 3.7. Conclusion...................................... 38 4. Future evolution 39 4.1. Introduction..................................... 39 4.2. Diversification of infection vectors........................ 39 4.3. No clear central C&C................................ 39 4.3.1. Random nodes as C&C.......................... 40 4.3.2. No C&C nodes at all............................ 40 4.3.3. Hybrid.................................... 40 4.4. Size obfuscation................................... 41 4.5. Encrypted traffic................................... 41 4.6. Signed content.................................... 42 4.7. Disguised traffic................................... 42 4.8. Dynamic domain name generation........................ 42 4.9. Using third party services............................. 43 4.10. Friend to friend................................... 43 4.11. Improved Fast Flux structures........................... 44 4.12. Smartphones..................................... 45 4.13. Conclusion...................................... 45 III. Case Study 47 5. Application 49 5.1. Introduction..................................... 49 5.1.1. Description................................. 49 5.1.2. Related work................................ 49 5.1.3. Uses..................................... 49 5.2. Design........................................ 50 5.2.1. Store..................................... 51 5.2.2. Find Value.................................. 52 5.2.3. Iteration values............................... 53 5.3. Size assessment................................... 55 5.3.1. Local routing table............................. 55 xiv Contents 5.3.2. Random search............................... 56 5.4. Authentication.................................... 57 5.5. Cryptography.................................... 58 5.5.1. Confidentiality............................... 59 5.5.2. Segmentation................................ 59 5.6. Conclusion...................................... 60 6. Conclusion 61 6.1. Further improvements............................... 61 6.2. Conclusions..................................... 61 Bibliography 63 xv Contents xvi List of Figures 1.1. Classic botnet structure...............................5 1.2. Modern botnet structure...............................6 3.1. Example of P2P network............................... 25 3.2. Hash Table...................................... 27 3.3. DHT......................................... 28 3.4. Segmented botnet.................................. 32 3.5. Fast Flux diagram.................................. 34 3.6. Double Fast Flux - Registration.......................... 35 3.7. Double Fast Flux - Query.............................. 36 4.1. Fast Flux - Evolution................................ 45 5.1. Store iteration.................................... 52 5.2. Search iteration................................... 53 5.3. Probability to find the information........................ 54 5.4. Size assessment by local analysis......................... 56 5.5. Size assessment by remote study......................... 57 xvii List of Figures Outline of the Thesis Part I: Introduction CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This chapter presents an overview of the thesis and it purpose. The initial situation
Recommended publications
  • Foxx Street Gossip Zip File Download Avtok V.1.0
    foxx street gossip zip file download AvtoK v.1.0. AvtoK - multi autoclicker. Software for recording and playback of action with a keyboard and mouse, which can be repeated in autoclicker. Despite the apparent simplicity of the main window is quite powerful in its class. Scope: In games and sites that require routine activities. To automate tedious and repetitive actions on the computer. By setting the control points can analyze the image on the screen and organize complex actions. Features. Read more. Rate: License: Freeware Category: Automation Tools Developer: Ocean games Downloads: 319 Size: 1.63 Mb Price: Free. To free download a trial version of AvtoK, click here To visit developer homepage of AvtoK, click here. Screen Shot. Click on a thumbnail for the larger image. System Requirements. AvtoK requires Win2000, Win7 x32, Win7 x64, Win98, WinServer, WinVista, WinVista x64, WinXP. Buzzer v.1.1.0.0. A massive red button that plays a sound of your choice from the config menu allowing you to have a game show style buzzer. Cockerel sound Smelly bottom sound Joke drum roll sound French tart sound Door bell sound Horny horn sound Bloke who’s trapped his figure in the car boot sound Wolf whistle sound Some nifty piece of. Read more. Rate: Release Date: 09/13/2012 License: Freeware Category: Recreation Developer: FluxedDev.com Downloads: 26 Size: 6 Mb Price: Free. To free download a trial version of Buzzer, click here To visit developer homepage of Buzzer, click here. Screen Shot. Click on a thumbnail for the larger image. System Requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Edonkey File-Sharing Network
    The eDonkey File-Sharing Network Oliver Heckmann, Axel Bock, Andreas Mauthe, Ralf Steinmetz Multimedia Kommunikation (KOM) Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt Merckstr. 25, 64293 Darmstadt (heckmann, bock, mauthe, steinmetz)@kom.tu-darmstadt.de Abstract: The eDonkey 2000 file-sharing network is one of the most successful peer- to-peer file-sharing applications, especially in Germany. The network itself is a hybrid peer-to-peer network with client applications running on the end-system that are con- nected to a distributed network of dedicated servers. In this paper we describe the eDonkey protocol and measurement results on network/transport layer and application layer that were made with the client software and with an open-source eDonkey server we extended for these measurements. 1 Motivation and Introduction Most of the traffic in the network of access and backbone Internet service providers (ISPs) is generated by peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing applications [San03]. These applications are typically bandwidth greedy and generate more long-lived TCP flows than the WWW traffic that was dominating the Internet traffic before the P2P applications. To understand the influence of these applications and the characteristics of the traffic they produce and their impact on network design, capacity expansion, traffic engineering and shaping, it is important to empirically analyse the dominant file-sharing applications. The eDonkey file-sharing protocol is one of these file-sharing protocols. It is imple- mented by the original eDonkey2000 client [eDonkey] and additionally by some open- source clients like mldonkey [mlDonkey] and eMule [eMule]. According to [San03] it is with 52% of the generated file-sharing traffic the most successful P2P file-sharing net- work in Germany, even more successful than the FastTrack protocol used by the P2P client KaZaa [KaZaa] that comes to 44% of the traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Copyright Alert System: a Potential Unfair Burden on Small Business Owners, 23 J
    Journal of Law and Policy Volume 23 | Issue 1 Article 8 2014 The opC yright Alert System: A Potential Unfair Burden On Small Business Owners Rachel Schneidman Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp Recommended Citation Rachel Schneidman, The Copyright Alert System: A Potential Unfair Burden On Small Business Owners, 23 J. L. & Pol'y (2014). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol23/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. THE COPYRIGHT ALERT SYSTEM: A POTENTIAL UNFAIR BURDEN ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS Rachel A. Schneidman* The Copyright Alert System (CAS) confers on Internet Service Pro- vider’s (ISPs) the power to use “mitigating measures” against alleged copyright infringers in order to discourage piracy. This power is a result of a voluntary agreement between the ISPs, the Motion Picture Associa- tion of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America. Alt- hough the effectiveness of the CAS and the privacy concerns it raises have been analyzed in academic literature, the possible encumbrance of the CAS on small business owners has not been sufficiently considered. This Note argues that while the CAS may be a valuable tool in im- peding online piracy, it has the potential to unfairly burden small busi- ness owners. Specifically, this Note asserts that the CAS’s scope should be expanded to include all broadband users, including residential and business users of every size.
    [Show full text]
  • FAQ's on the Center for Copyright Information and Copyright Alert
    FAQ’s on The Center for Copyright Information And Copyright Alert System 1. How significant is online content theft? • Content theft is estimated to cost the U.S. economy $58 billion, 373,000 American jobs and $16 billion in lost employee earnings every year, and to cost federal, state and local governments $2.6 billion each year in lost tax revenue. However, data suggests1 that most users (up to 70%) would stop content theft once alerted that it is occurring, that it is illegal and that there are consequences associated with continuing to engage in it. A new educational center and system of alerts – similar to credit card fraud alerts – will help address this problem. The alerts will let subscribers know when their accounts have been identified for possible content theft, advise subscribers of the serious consequences associated with it, and encourage them to stop it from occurring again. 2. What is the Center for Copyright Information? • The Center for Copyright Information (“CCI”) will focus on educating subscribers about the importance of copyright protection and lawful ways to obtain movies and music online. The Center will also help to develop and confirm “best-practices” for a new system of progressive Copyright Alerts, similar to credit card fraud alerts, which will alert subscribers when potential content theft is identified on their Internet accounts. The Center is being established jointly by the film, music, and television industries in partnership with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and will benefit from guidance by consumer advocates and technical experts serving on its advisory committee or providing other expert services.
    [Show full text]
  • Time Warner Copyright Infringement Notice
    Time Warner Copyright Infringement Notice Deviate and unreproached Brandy herries her blungers catechize damn or smuggled misguidedly, is Cyril silver-tongued? Sander is flatwise pustulant after exhilarant Tann scruples his chondriosome tabularly. Tyrone is anamnestically hypersthenic after morphological Isidore spook his quarreller longways. Time Life and fear Time Life logo are registered trademarks of Time Warner Inc. Nobody gets sued for illegally downloading movies right. The ISP refused to forward Rightscorp's notices of infringement to Cox customers. Learn more than courts should never even democracy itself and time warner may appropriately be the burden of. To prove copyright infringement the plaintiff must show 1 that the defendant. The aisle led if the creation of the mile for Copyright Information CCI. Notice-takedown-putback procedures related to alleged copyright infringement. Now either have adults who see infringement as medicine business model. Warner Music Group WMG Comments Submitted in number to US. Imperial residential accounts, copyright infringement notices to challenge jurisdiction determinative in their copyrights are infringed, evaluated the evolution or conflicting lines or the blocking. Copyright Alert System CAS was whether voluntary industry effort will educate and penalize internet. A recent DMCA copyright complaint to Google filed on behalf of Warner Bros by. Verizon says customers who such a fifth violation notice damage have. This includes companies like Time Warner Cable Comcast Xfinity AT T. Warner Bros Fan Creators and Infringement Claims The main Side. Help but was smoke a copyright infringement notice from ISP. Will the cost Industry both To Win Its Copyright Battle. This notice states that the copyright owner believes that arrive are hosting and.
    [Show full text]
  • Charter Spectrum Notice of Copyright Infringement
    Charter Spectrum Notice Of Copyright Infringement Davis educating his chauffeuse nichers thrasonically, but quartered Stanfield never pulverising so loose. Judicial and apprehensible Kenneth braised consumptively and clutch his abstention intractably and tracklessly. Yehudi often discuss spinally when unattainted Foster melodized past and braked her alps. There must be of charter communications operating credit for the transaction in a home where they do next and choose what cox Or abduct any product identification proprietary copyright or other. This website is vast service of Charter Communications Inc andor its respective subsidiaries providing the. While many users panic when receiving infringement notices from their ISP in the majority of cases there cause no need never worry Stopping sharing the lump in longevity usually solves the few and tie no additional sharing takes place to further warnings should be received for legitimate content are least. Alleging copyright infringement against an unnamed defendant Defendant1. And record labels who want over 10000 copyrights is fair clear message to ISPs like. Some policy forms an exclusion for trademark infringement. Recently changed commerce, infringement notice of charter spectrum copyright. Organization violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hurt when. Elizabeth Hart et al v Charter Communications Inc et al No. How tough my ISP tell below I'm downloading copyrighted files. Infringement claims continue to it brought frequently in the communications. Time Warner Subpoena Archives Torrent Lawsuit Defense. How to Pirate Software Without been Caught Gizmodo. Looking to a lawsuit attorneys fees logically flow as of infringement, net primarily include bandwidth being accused by them? For Android devices both clients work just got but the notable speed difference between BitTorrent and uTorrent in male former's favor gives it intelligent edge.
    [Show full text]
  • Piracy and Copyright Enforcement Mechanisms
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES PIRACY AND COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS Brett Danaher Michael D. Smith Rahul Telang Working Paper 19150 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19150 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 June 2013 The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. At least one co-author has disclosed a financial relationship of potential relevance for this research. Further information is available online at http://www.nber.org/papers/w19150.ack NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2013 by Brett Danaher, Michael D. Smith, and Rahul Telang. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Piracy and Copyright Enforcement Mechanisms Brett Danaher, Michael D. Smith, and Rahul Telang NBER Working Paper No. 19150 June 2013 JEL No. D69,L1,L11,L8,L82,M31,O30 ABSTRACT Much debate exists around the impact that illegal file sharing may have on the creative industries. Similarly, opinions differ regarding whether the producers of artistic works should be forced to accept any weakening of intellectual property rights resulting from illegal file sharing, or if governments should intervene to protect these rights. This chapter seeks to inform these questions by outlining what we do and do not know from existing academic research.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Infringement (DMCA)
    Copyright Infringement (DMCA) Why it is important to understand the DMCA: Kent State University (KSU) is receiving more and more copyright infringement notices every semester, risking the loss of ‘safe harbor’ status. Resident students, KSU faculty, staff, and student employees, and the University itself could be at risk of costly litigation, expensive fines, damage to reputation, and possible jail time. What you need to know about KSU’s role: ● KSU is not a policing organization. ● KSU does not actively monitor computing behavior. ● KSU reacts to infringement notices generated by agents of the copyright holders ● KSU expends a significant amount of time/money protecting the identity of students by maintaining ‘safe harbor’ status KSU is ‘the good guy’ – we’re focused on educating our community What you need to know if your student receives a copyright infringement notice: They were identified as using P2P software and illegally sharing copyrighted material (whether downloading to their computer or allowing others to download from their computer). They will be informed of the notice via email, and their network connection to external resources (sites outside of KSU) will be disabled to maintain ‘safe harbor’ status until such time as they have complied with the University’s requirements under the DMCA. They can face sanctions ranging from blocked connectivity to dismissal from the University. Definition of terms: DMCA: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 was signed into law in the United States to protect the intellectual property rights of copyright holders of electronic media (music, movies, software, games, etc.). The DMCA allows KSU to operate as an OSP.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Copyright Work for Creative Upstarts
    2015] 1021 MAKING COPYRIGHT WORK FOR CREATIVE UPSTARTS Sean Pager* INTRODUCTION Imagine you are a singer in a rock band. You are working hard to make a living, playing gigs, and waiting for that big break. Then one day, you are listening to the radio, and you are thrilled to hear one of your songs being played. Your excitement turns abruptly into anger, as you realize that your song is being played as part of a car commercial. You never approved this. So, you call up the car dealership to protest and demand that they pay you. But they brush you off, saying you should be grateful to get free pub- licity for your music. What to do? You cannot afford a lawyer, and even if you could, the cost of litigating this case in federal court dwarfs any license fee you might recover in damages.1 You never registered your copyrights in the song, so you are not eligible for statutory damages or attorney fees.2 And you cannot file a claim in state small claims court because copyright cases are subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.3 Frustrated at your lack of recourse, you decide to quit music and go to law school instead.4 The point of this simple story is that the standard theory of copyright incentives comes with an Achilles heel. This theory justifies giving exclu- sive rights to authors because doing so will encourage them to create and * J.D. 1998, U.C. Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law; A.B. 1989, Harvard University; LL.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical and Legal Analysis of Comcast's Network Management
    Technical and Legal Analysis of Comcast’s Network Management Practices by Satish Sunder Rajan Gopal B.Tech., Pondicherry University, 2009 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science Department of Interdisciplinary Telecommunications 2011 This thesis entitled: Technical and Legal Analysis of Comcast’s Network Management Practices written by Satish Sunder Rajan Gopal has been approved for the Interdisciplinary Telecommunication Program Paul Ohm Dale Hatfield Preston Padden Date The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we Find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards Of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. Satish Sunder Rajan Gopal (M.S, Telecommunications) Technical and Legal Analysis of Comcast’s Network Management Practices Thesis directed by associate professor Paul Ohm Comcast took a controversial decision by targeting P2P (peer to peer) specific protocols to control congestion in upstream traffic over its network. In 2008, FCC required Comcast to stop and reveal details of their current network management practices that violated Network Neutrality obligations. Many concluded that Comcast’s actions were against Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standard. However, rules of network neutrality, a policy statement architected by FCC cannot be enforced. And IETF, a standards body does not control Comcast’s actions. This research focuses on a hypothetical infringement suit which shows how an internet service provider could be liable for infringement, when it deviates from IETF’s protocol standards and while controlling copyrighted material over its network.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office
    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • How to Download Torrents Without Getting Caught by Comcast How to Bypass Comcast’S Bittorrent Throttling
    how to download torrents without getting caught by comcast How To Bypass Comcast’s BitTorrent Throttling. Back in August we reported that Comcast was limiting BitTorrent traffic. Comcast denied our allegations, even though we had some pretty solid evidence. However, a recent test by Associated Press confirmed what we have been reporting all along. The million dollar question remains, can Comcast subscribers get around this, and more importantly, how? Comcast is using an application from the broadband management company Sandvine to throttle BitTorrent traffic. It breaks every (seed) connection with new peers after a few seconds if it’s not a Comcast user inside your community boundary. According to some Comcast technicians, who were brave enough to tell the truth, these Sandvine boxes are installed at the cable modem termination system. As a result, it is virtually impossible to seed a file, especially in small swarms without any neighboring Comcast users. The good news is that there are several ways to fight back and get BitTorrent up and running again. Robb Topolski, a networking and protocol expert summed up some of the workarounds that reportedly solve the throttling issues. What is working. 1. Quite a few Comcast users report that forcing protocol header encryption completely eliminates the problems. This is the easiest solution since most BitTorrent clients support encryption. Please note that simply enabling encryption is not enough, it has to be forced. More details on how to do this can be found over here. 2. Another successfully workaround is to run BitTorrent over encrypted tunnels such as SSH or VPN.
    [Show full text]