Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile


"Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"

Posted by Anonymous User 
Anonymous User
"Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
July 29, 2011 06:38PM

Please tell me this is @#$%& or any good news or I will have to get rid of Peerblock. : (
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
July 29, 2011 07:28PM
Could you paste the text here? It requires registration to view.
Anonymous User
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
July 29, 2011 08:31PM
Quote from: GreatWizard on August 30, 2008, 12:46:30 PM
PG2 is a placebo. Of course, you see some addresses blocked. The @#$%& thing blocks ONE-THIRD of the Internet address space, by its own claim.

What you do NOT know is whether the addresses this piece of @#$%& blocked were, in fact, the very peers who had the pieces you were downloading.

By inducing and then reinforcing paranoia, PG2 does more harm to torrenting than the RIAA, the MPAA and the FBI combined. I've said it before - if PG2 didn't exist, the MPAA would have invented it. Smiley

Here's just a small selection of the problems with this overhyped garbage:


The Media Defender internal email leak offered plenty of information for the taking. MediaDefender-Defenders said that they hoped that the email leak will prove to be a viable tool to protect against anti-P2P efforts. This is something BlueTack has been trying to do. After the email leak, a text file that compiles the complete IP (Internet Protocol) list Media Defender used while dropping fake files onto various P2P sites and networks was posted. While judging the effectiveness of these lists had proven to be an impossible task before the major leak, the effectiveness can now be tested.

Slyck began the investigation when BlueTack's 'Paranoid' IP filter blocked one of TVUnderground's new eDonkey2000 servers. A request for comment or information on the matter to BlueTack's team went unanswered. To this day, why BlueTack has blocked only one of TVUnderground's servers is unknown. In the meantime, Slyck is currently in the possession of a copy of BlueTack's IP filter lists, and further investigation into related matters appeared warranted.

According to the BlueTack website, "B.I.S.S. is a site dedicated to improving the safety and awareness of all our members and guests, providing News, Security articles, Software Reviews, Technical Support, Guides, IP Research and Free Software needed to help us keep our connections to the net and each other safe, secure, and free from unwelcome intruders."

Among the things offered are the blocklists, which have been met with either acceptance by the file-sharing community or complete rejection. Some say that the blocklists allow users to simply block any anti-filesharing company and allow users to connect with non-industry IPs. Others say that there is no way to get the right IPs before the IPs are changed to different addresses, thereby rendering the filters ineffective. It's been the subject of debate for quite some time amongst many experts with no real way to test the lists, at least until the Media Defender email leak.

The 'Paranoid' eMule IP filter was retrieved on September 27, 2007. The Level1 IP blacklist, which is supposed to block all known anti-p2p IPs, was retrieved on September 30, 2007. The idea behind getting these lists now is to offer ample time for Media Defender's now public IPs to be added to the lists for a much more effective blocklist for PeerGuardian users.

Slyck then obtained a copy of the publicly available 14.3MB compressed text file which lists all of the Media Defender's IP addresses. At this point, it became obvious that testing such a large volume of IPs would prove to be an overly time-consuming challenge, at least by hand. In order to alleviate this problem, it was best to test one particular IP range. Conveniently enough, the first range started with 116. Slyck then decided to test all of the IPs that started with the number 116.

The total number of IPs used by Media Defender starting with 116 was 1,474. Obviously, BlueTack did block all IPs that started with 116, but how many Media Defender IPs were successfully blocked? When Slyck investigated, there was a common theme that blocklists seemingly jumped over several ranges used by Media Defender. After some extensive study using the Level1 list for anti-p2p companies and the 'Paranoid' list, BlueTack would have successfully blocked 16 IPs. Thus, this sample test offered 1.09% protection against Media Defender in that range.

The IPs that were successfully blocked were:,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, The remaining 1,458 IPs would still be allowed through even with these two filters being used today.

While BlueTack may still perpetuate the idea that their filters are 99% effective, these latest findings will only fuel criticisms towards BlueTack's actual effectiveness. A complete test might not be possible short of creating a simple program to test every single number or spending weeks hand-testing every single Media Defender IP address. In the mean ime, it seems very apparent that BlueTack's filters have a few holes.

And that was tested against known and published addresses!! In order to catch those 16 addresses (probably by dumb luck and the law of large numbers), BlueTack also blocked more than 4 million INNOCENT addresses in the same range.


I am convinced that it is not authentic. I did a reverse lookup on 500 or so somewhat randomly picked addresses from the 5.3 million addresses in that list. Look at the results -- it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the items in the list are residential dynamic IP addresses from all over the world.



Not Much Anonymity for Unprotected File-Sharers: Researchers Examine P2P Networks
The same technology that allows easy sharing of music, movies and other content across a network also allows government and media companies easy access to who is illegally downloading that content.

"Note that it is not our intention here to examine how accurate and comprehensive these lists are, though this would be interesting and challenging future work."

"after a quick look through the document, found elsewhere (PDF) (thanks again guys), all their stats are based on a couple of assumptions: that the blocklist contains no false positives, and more importantly, that it fails to contain no address that should be included. i will leave it to others to comment on the likelyhood of these assumptions being correct."
FROM PG;s ow website:

Well, it is accurate in the sense that it blocks everything on your blocklist.
It is impossible to know _all_ the addresses to block

PeerGuardian is known to be incompatible with McAfee and BlackICE firewalls. Outpost is also known to cause a problem if you shut down PG2 while it is running. There is currently no way around this, so we recommend you try switching to another firewall

PeerGuardian blocked someone, should I be worried?
Well, it was blocked, so why would you worry?

PeerGuardian is slowing down my connection!
This occurs because of the way PeerGuardian blocks packets, not connections.

PeerGuardian is blocking an IP like crazy, should I worry?
PeerGuardian will constantly block IPs. Many times you will see IPs get blocked three or more times before giving up - this is due to the way most computers handle reliable connecting. After a period of time, people may retry to see if you are responding yet. This does not mean people are spying on you.

A block list is a list of bad IP ranges that are know to spy on people’s computers.

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

Total of IP's being blocked right now:

* 2,377,645,666

first things first, if the government was and/or are spying on you right now, it will be on a IP range that is not on our blocklists and is a secret range of IPs, second thing is, if the government was and/or are spying on you right now, they would be doing it on a whole diffrent level.


I have more. Lots more. Smiley

Just felt that this will make explanations a bit easier. Smiley

In summary:
Peerguardian does not work at all and actually damages bittorrent by blocking millions of good peers. I mean they blocked their own update servers...come on.... Roll Eyes

Changed the title to be more descriptive...added summary for the lazy/bad readers...
Anonymous User
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
May 07, 2012 12:59AM
In its Help file, BitTorrent 7.6.1 advises not to use PeerBlock/PeerGuardian because the program also blocks your much needed DHT connections. So keep that in mind.
Anonymous User
May 20, 2012 04:45PM
Don't believe one bit of the above FUD. It's all inaccurate at and some of it is a downright malicious attempt to make you vulnerable.
Slyck failed miserably because they assumed the MediaDefender list they were comparing Level 1 to was actual IP addresses, not decoys.
They also failed to check their data against real-world IP allocations, failing to recognize the "4 million" nonexistant residential addresses.
Every aspect of their so-called "research" was sloppy, doomed to fail by their well-known prejudice and hostility against the people at Bluetack.

In fact, we detected and blocked all of MediaDefender's actual IP addresses long before the leak confirmed they were responsible.
It was this fact which quickly led to their temporary loss of a lot of business as customers realized how easily we found them and lost confidence.
Eventually they managed to cover this weakness with disinformation seeded through places like Slyck and extensive astroturfing on P2P sites.
You can get your antidote to all those lies and propaganda from us right here ==> IP Block Lists Myths Misconceptions
PsyOrg's article does not mention that we used the same research to sharpen our techniques. They also misinterpreted the results of that research,
but this is understandable because the paper was written for an audience which would not have made such a simple mistake. In fact, what Banerjee
and his professors had identified was a combination of millions of fake IP addresses being transmitted by a small number of powerful servers which
all together amounted to approximately 15% of the total traffic on the whole network including the illusionary inflation of those fake addresses.
It's a complicated mess of factors that only those having experience with the dynamic and rapidly growing P2P networks could read correctly.

This combination of factors is why PeerBlock appears to be blocking as much as 15% of the traffic at all times and is also why P2P filters in
P2P apps are blocking far less at the same time. The blocklists have grown to work so well over the years that P2P apps see a major drop in
noise if you use any sort of defense involving these lists and that translates directly into less wasted bandwidth and lower resource usage.
In plain english it means your downloads run a little faster and your PC runs a little cooler even though P2P traffic is way up from 2007-08.
It also means the number of complaints against PeerBlock users has gone way down as the MAFIAA complaint mills ramped up production.
Bittorrent/µTorrent's advice against blocklists is driven by the FUD that MediaDefender and the MAFIAA pump constantly into their forums.
I personally found the DHT seeds years ago and made sure they would never be blocked. We do block their testing PCs and they are OK with that.
They just never removed that false statement from their site because they guy that runs their site and forums is one of those who has a prejudice
against blocklists and a particularly stubborn and contemptuous attitude towards anyone who chooses to disagree with him or criticize his actions. :

I also watch open trackers for changes in IP addresses and keep them unblocked. Private trackers are instantly cleared or blocked on request.
I just threw this in before some boob tries to spread FUD about that too. We do not and never will block P2P infrastructure. We know how P2P works.
All of those bogus complaints were made years ago and were quickly discredited at that time. Since then not one of those guys has tried it again,
partly because they learned about the subject and regret making fools of themselves and partly because they know I'm ready with the facts.
Anonymous User
June 12, 2012 12:19AM
Aaron.Walkhouse Wrote:
> You can get your antidote to all those lies and
> propaganda from us right here ==> IP Block Lists
> Myths Misconceptions

Dude, Aaron. I just wanted to say thank you for enlightening me. I clicked your link, (a year later than you posted but thats alright!) and it taught me a lot. Some of it was common sense and my mind told me "You should have known better" but it reaffirmed what I suspected, and taught me a lot after that.

You should be a crusader or something dude.
I made an account just to say thank you for giving me the (Nothing short of) AWESOME lesson on Blocking IP addresses etc.
Anonymous User
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
September 06, 2012 11:47AM
Is there any program to protect yourself.
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
November 09, 2012 07:10PM
Its called a VPN it provides the best protection from copyright predators. Know this I was pulled over 2 days ago and the police went through my car and even my iPod looking for reasons to arrest me. I was cuffed and set onto the sidewalk to wait while all of my privacy was obliterated by the worst criminals in the nation that have no law to dictate them yet all the law to manipulate every citizen who goes out of their house to get groceries. My brother in law a military vet was just pulled over and had his car searched an entire 4 states away in South Dakota. I hope this wakes people up to the fact that we live in Hitlers (Obama's) police state and all things are public not only our facebook pages but everything we do, say, and are. This brings new light to the fact that because of the ever changing internet static lists are good but not an internet condom. VPN's which you can trust not to log your every move and report you are the best bet. They encrypt all communications and also dump log files so law enforcement can not obtain record of ip's with time and date stamps.

There are a few in my signature that I have used for about 2 years and they work flawlessly.
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
December 07, 2012 05:35AM
DarC Wrote:
> VPN's which you can trust not to log your every
> move and report you are the best bet.



Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
December 27, 2012 06:18PM
I can't take anyone seriously who compares his president to Hitler; unless you lived in Germany from 1933-1945.

Those who do not remember the pasta are doomed to reheat it.
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
December 28, 2012 02:19AM
Sorry Bro. Adolf is Adolf.
Anonymous User
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
February 12, 2013 09:32AM
Just the swearing and the anger put me on guard immediately. Once one's shock is worn off by proper checking and rational thought, there may still remain some doubt to trigger an investigation, Mostly; however; the response would be reasoned even if aggressively questioning. So, yes, that's put paid to Slyck for me. Thanks. Actually, never heard of them before, but now that I know . . .

I logged on to find your e-mail address since Thunderbird "lost" the one from the diagnostic on Adobe. That was some days ago. How's about a better contact interface directly out of the app? I wanted to get a new address, but even on you site there is only tinyurl's. This is a bit too unfriendly and I am too lazy to go through all of that.

You beat only one other firewall, namely filseclab. That one; however; uses the xpacket.sys which regularly crashed my XP. It is not compatible with 7. PB is transparent and usable. You get my One Wire Pliers Award.

To come back to Adobe. Anything 11+ crashes my Firefox. I use 10.3 or thereabouts and will not update. Please refer to the attached file. Otherwise PB runs so well I only see it on bootup when it updates. To my mind this crash is related to Adobe Flash or Shockwave.

Then again, so much for 100% infallibility. I thought we live on Earth. Combined with Avast! and SpyBlock, I rarely see a trojan or two.
open | download - SmallPeer.bmp (415 KB)
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
February 13, 2013 08:30AM
Carome Wrote:
> To come back to Adobe. Anything 11+ crashes my
> Firefox. I use 10.3 or thereabouts and will not
> update.

It was the same with me. My sandbox caused the crash (11+). I added AcroRd32.exe to sandbox configuration 'restrictions, allowed internet access'. Now it works.
Anonymous User
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
February 19, 2013 09:17AM
Ta Whitehat,

Will keep it in mind. At the moment I'm so p'd off with FF anything they send me sounds decidedly hollow. Anyway, I'm enjoying Orca Browser now that I got the hang of most of the earning curve. Check out Avant for that matter too.

Both Adobe and FF displayed very up yours attitudes and just keep on punting their stuff. What gets my goat is the fact that every Tom,Dick and Harry insists on the the use of Flash or Shock. Worse than Bill Gates' copyrighting. Check out Media Player Classic.
Anonymous User
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
February 19, 2013 09:21AM
Sorry guys, that's actually well off topic. Will keep it sane in future.
Anonymous User
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
May 22, 2013 09:19PM
I wouldn't believe this cr-p ..for all we know it could be the very enemy peerblock protects us from, posting hate all over the net. I registered just to respond to this. For over 6 yrs I've been using either peerblock or peer guardian and never received a letter from Comcast "until" my smart a-- thought a measly two wks w/out either one should be safe. My daughter gave me a new pc but before I could get around to installing my usual security software on it, I seen a super good movie that I had been waiting on and went ahead w/ downloading and seeding. Then another and another. Well, within two wks and after 7 yrs I finally received 2 warning letters sad smiley "together" ..on the same day!! Omg I could really kick myself in the behind. I'll never go w/out that layer of protection peerblock and peer guardian provides again >sad smiley Today I'm back w/ Peerblock tho winking smiley Either one, gotta love the amazing folks behind BOTH as well as the blocklist creators. Respect and show love! They deserve it.

Lastly, I say its better to be safe then sorry. Just think of me and the many others that were caught. For whatever reason, I bet those caught didn't have peer block or peer guardian installed

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2013 11:48AM by bluepeas.
Anonymous User
Re: "Why to Avoid PeerGuardian/PeerBlock"
June 27, 2013 02:55AM
After the email leak, a text file that compiles the complete IP (Internet Protocol) list Media Defender used while dropping fake files onto various P2P sites and networks was posted. While judging the effectiveness of these lists had proven to be an impossible task before the major leak, the effectiveness can now be tested.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 09:06PM by DarC.
December 29, 2013 07:46AM
As aaron said alot of the anti-peerblock stuff you hear is by these companies that want to catch you out by making you vulnerable, or the rare misinformed and hater idiot. Peerblock and blocklisting is infact awesome and to others doubting, have no fear, but do be aware that it isnt 100%.

Peerblock for the win
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login