Slashdot Log In
BitTorrent and End to End Encryption
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Feb 06, 2006 05:18 PM
from the end-runs-and-other-oddities dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Encryption isn't the solution we need, or want.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Encryption isn't the solution we need, or want. (Score:5, Insightful)
ISPs are happy to lose those customers.
Parent
Re:Encryption isn't the solution we need, or want. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Encryption isn't the solution we need, or want. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Encryption isn't the solution we need, or want. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, except that in this case, you're not paying the ISP for the water but for the capacity of the pipes. The water is coming from sources outside of the ISP and thus isn't a scarce resource. In fact, when you signed up for your pipe-service, you understood that you were paying for the maintenance and capacity of the pipes, which is often claimed to be "unlimited", but upon having them installed, you notice that the same pipe is feeding both your home and your neighbor's home, and their neighbor's home.
you were the first type of customer, wouldn't you be annoyed if you found out you were paying the same as the second type? Wouldn't you expect them to pay more, or perhpas face some restrictions?
If the first type of customer gets upset at the second type of customer, then they should also get upset at buffets that charge the same amount of money to every customer regardless of the amount that they intend to eat. But then, that is the whole concept of a buffet, isn't it? You enter into an agreement with the provider knowing that you are getting a service that you value appropriately enough to pay for. If you think you should be getting a better deal because some people consume more per unit price than you do, then nothing stops you from trying to make your own arrangements, but if the business is not willing to enter into such an agreement with you, then you are free to find another who will. This is the market place at work, and how other people choose to spend their money has no impact on how you should choose to spend yours.
Parent
Your buffet example reminds me of a story... (Score:5, Insightful)
Needless to say, the poor restaurant owners were not real prepared for a dozen 250+lb college students to come in and eat many platefuls of food, and the owners were not very happy. They asked them to leave, and when they said "no, it's a buffet, we are just eating 'all-we-can-eat'", the owners called the cops on them.
Well, the cops showed up, and listened to the complaint, and talked to them. And decided against the owner! "If the sign says 'all-you-can-eat', you can't kick them out just because they can eat more than you want them to eat."
Not really applicable to the topic, but just seemed an appropriate anecdote. Not only internet companies want to cut off people who use over the average!
Parent
Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:5, Insightful)
My connection is severly throttled by my pathetic aDSL upload speed, but that's another bitch entirely.
Parent
Re:Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:5, Insightful)
And how is the ISP supposed to be able to detect the difference between encrypted and non-encrypted binary data? What detection routine do you use to detect between, say, encrypted BitTorrent data, unencrypted VOIP data, an FTP file transfer, and random data?
Traditionally, you can filter the ports -- but nothing prevents software from changing what ports it uses, and there are several applications which can handle a dynamic port exchange. How barring just blocking or filtering on specific ports, how do you detect that data is encrypted, when the purpose of encryption is to make the data appear to be random to an outside adversary?
Yaz.
Parent
Re:Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:5, Insightful)
As TFA notes: encrypted or not, you're still pushing a massive amount of upload and download traffic. That in itself is enough to get noticed.
Second, the more data there is to analyze, the easier it becomes to distinguish noise from data.
Third, Again as TFA notes, if a lot of connections are being made, they can analyze the first chunk of data sent by both sides. If it's an unencrypted connection, you'll see a roughly consistent set of data being sent across at the beginning. If even the headers are encrypted, and you use BitTorrent a lot, eventually it will be pretty obvious.
Parent
Re:Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:3)
Bzzt! nice try! you get to leave with the home game!
Bittorrent is not a massive upload but a tiny upload typically throttled pretty good with a massive download.
That looks like itunes use, Streaming video use, etc.. Those services that they like to toute are the reasaon to buy your broadband!
Granted they can look at source IP's and only allow high speed from "blesse
Re:Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:3, Informative)
This post [yahoo.com] 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
Re:Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:3, Insightful)
There's MUCH more to bandwidth management than just blocking ports. Modern bandwidth management solutions go past layer 3 and detect which applications are running across a network flow.
Even if a system can't understand the data being transmitted, there's a good chance that the system can understand either what type of encryption is being used, what application is sending the data, or even both.
In order for applications to communicate they need a well-documented set of rules for communications. Open Sou
Re:Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:4, Interesting)
Bit torrent has the problem of opening a lot of connections (the larger the torrent storm, the more connections). While each of these connections to other seeders/leechers may only be passing small amounts of information, they tend to take up a lot of the routers memory (especially for very slow connections that stay open even though they don't pass much if not any information). This kills a router. You might not ever notice it at your own home but having a lot of people on torrents can take drop a router, and make the internet slow for all of the other users using your ISP.
While I don't agree with the actions of these ISPs I thought others might want to know other reasons for throttling this type of bandwidth. As for breaking this throttling your options is very limited. Most ISPs use a layer2 packet shaper, which has the ability to determine the actual content of a packet regardless of port. This is quite common these days.
As far as I know the only real option to get around it requires that you have a server outside of your ISP's network. If you have such a server or a friend somewhere with a nice fast connection (up and down), you would need to set up a tunnel. On top of that you would most likely need to setup a secure tunnel to avoid the packet shaper from understanding the packet data. You can do this using an SSH tunnel, or you can try to setup a site to site VPN tunnel (both of which you would want encrypted). Doing these things is not easy tasks and requires a fair amount of knowledge concerning the way networks works. There are several how-to's discussing how to setup a VPN tunnel and/or SSH tunnel.
Like I said these are not for the novice. It would however be a great opportunity to learn quite a bit more about networks than even the more network savvy people. Chances are most people are just going to have to live without torrent, or switch to a provider that doesn't throttle torrent activity.
Parent
Re:Encryption won't work anyhow (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrong Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
One or two? Try none. (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in an area where the best I've got is dial-up (and 28.8k at that). Once an ISP gets out here, I'll be the first to switch to them. ON ONE CONDITION: They allow bittorrent traffic.
Seriously, everyone I know who has gotten broadband has done so for P2P. Warez kiddies ^W^WLinux distro hunters are the cable companies biggest subscribers.
They are shootin
Lots of DSL ISPs (Was: Re:Wrong Solution) (Score:4, Informative)
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
Parent
Re:Wrong Solution (Score:4, Informative)
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 [bitcomet.com] with the encrypted header option. Worked fine for me after a bit of fiddling.
Parent
Also because (Score:5, Interesting)
Like here on campus, we would prefer not to tell people what they can and can't do, however bandwidth is finite. We cannot afford to buy gigs and gigs of bandwidth just to allow people to P2P all the time, at least not without a tuition hike. The solution is to use a packet shaper, which puts P2P at a lower priority than other traffic. Usually, the line isn't maxed so P2P works as normal, however if the connection is slammed, non P2P traffic gets prefernce.
Works very well, P2P works and is generally very fast, and other traffic doesn't get bogged.
However, if it starts hiding from the packet shaper, things may be made a bit more compulsory like "You will make no use of Bittorrent unless it is for an approved research project. Failure to comply will result in a referal to the dean of students and possibly expulsion." Now I'd hate to see it go that way, but it will if it there's no reasonable way to keep P2P from clogging the network.
Parent
WRONG assumptions. (Score:4, Interesting)
They are well within their rights to ensure that everyone paying a certain price is given the same level of service. They're rolling out FIOS here. It can handle 622Mb/s and at $50/month, you get, basically, 1% of that. To not have to implement some kind of QoS throttling on your bandwidth-hogging butt, they'd have to run a separate backbone to every 100 houses and, guess what, that would cost a ton of money. So, voila, tiered pricing.
Deal with it.
Parent
Re:Faster than dial-up? Oh no it's not. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Goodness of Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this what Open Source is about? The ability to make changes to a software to suit one's need? And if there are enough users, followers, developers and contributors (see Ubuntu from Debian), the new branch because a thing of its own.
So the day Bram opened his code, BT is subject to the same kind of treatment and only users can decide which way it will go.
Aren't there cases where someone compiled a BT client to act like a seeder with high ratio but is an ultimate leecher?
"Is there really anything he can do about it?" (Score:4, Funny)
Sniffing shape-able streams (Score:5, Interesting)
"...a wire protocol which transfers a lot of data bidirectionally and consistently looks like line noise with no header is only marginally more difficult to identify then one which uses fixed ports."
Sounds like a call to camoflage the traffic as several pipes between peers. Not just one tcp/ip connection, but several, with a jitter function to pick which pipe is used at the moment so it does not look consistant
Re:Sniffing shape-able streams (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming that by "pipes" you mean "seperate TCP/IP connections established over severa
Here's my take on the whole Bram Cohen thingy... (Score:5, Insightful)
BitTorrent and Who? (Score:5, Funny)
Who is "End", and why are they partnering with BitTorrent to end encryption?
What are ISPs selling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone should sue [insert favorite ISP here] for bait and switch. If what they're providing is 4mb/256K burst speed, with lower rates for continuous, then that's what they should say in their advertising. This is hardly a far cry from the shady camera outfits online (i.e. PriceRitePhoto). You pay every month for a service, and the service you're actually provided differs greatly from what you thought you purchased.
Of course he can't do anything...directly. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, also like LT and most other major project figureheads, he holds a certain amount of political sway. His disapproval may be enough to keep some developers from pursuing certain paths. Of course, not everyone will care about what he thinks, but he does have SOME power.
As a Rogers customer... (Score:5, Interesting)
I appriciate that Bitorrent constitutes a gargantuan proportion of network traffic. I appriciate this is a problem.
However, the reason that I feel this is unfair, which nobody seems to have mentioned yet, is that Rogers customers are limited to 60 GB of transfer total, both ways, each month. (Unless, of course, you upgrade to the $50 account + modem rental which is 100 GB). If you exceed this limit, it's not just a matter of waiting until next month -- it is a matter of having your account shut down.
I think it is fair to do one or the other, but not both. I once wasted three days trying to figure out why Bittorrent wasn't working, only to find out it was thanks to Rogers. This was just as they had started shaping network traffic so I had no furious posts on message boards to turn to for the origin of the problem.
Sadly, there is no alternative to Rogers for high speed access in my area. It's Rogers or dial up.
Opera and BitTorrent (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2006/02/06/ [opera.com]
I'm a Shaw BT user (Score:5, Interesting)
With cable you still share a certain ammount of bandwidth with the people on your trunk, espescially on the upstream. Unfortunately some people are bandwith hogs. I see this as protecting me from the guy down the street with the warez fetish more than anything else.
Has anyone found themselves unable to use BT because of this?
Re:I'm a Shaw BT user (Score:3, Insightful)
However, nothing personal, I REALLY REALLY wish that people who wanted to download TV shows, movies, apps, music, warez, etc. would use USENET.
USENET is a bit more difficult to use at first but it is fast as fast can be if you get the right server, and you are far less likely to run into trouble with anyone. I could (if I wanted) grab an entire season to a TV show in less than two hours. Probably more like 45 minutes even... (seriously...
Re:I'm a Shaw BT user (Score:3, Informative)
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
Encryption or obfuscation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Encryption here is just a mean, they don't care if the ISP sees WHAT they're sharing, they only care that the ISP recognizes that they ARE sharing (and throttling their connection accordingly).
I find the argument agains the tracker taking care of it quite silly. The guy from uTorrent says that the ISP would simpy find or modify the packet saying that obfuscation is wanted.
I would guess the ISP would just throttle all encrypted traffic going to random ports before it starts identfiying specific packets. They're as justified to limit it to BT as they are to do it with all unrecognized traffic.
BT is costing them a large amount of money so they start to throttle it. That means that they're not going to sit idly and not respond if it becomes obfuscated/encrypted.
I don't think it's an arms race that BT can win at all. If the ISP wants to limit the amount of bandwidth you're using, they will limit it, one way or another. For example, the ISP might throttle everything after a threshold per month is exceeded.
That's the main point that Bram is making, and I find it difficult to disagree with him.
I remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's right, 1, as in uno.
Now people are whining about 60-100?
How much warez are you fools downloading anyway?
The fact is that at the end of the day ISPs pay for bandwidtch per byte. I say charge people that 'need' >100gb per byte more then the rest of us.
This isn't a new problem. As long there's been broadband there's been people that absolutely, positively, MUST saturate their entire bandwidth 24/7/365, and these people cry bloody murder when someone tells them they can't.
Bittorrent just happens to be the way that warez junkies do this today. Think about it. If you're shaw/rogers, and you see that 90% of your bandwidth usage is bitttorrent packets being sent by 1% of your customers, what would you do?
Re:I remember... (Score:4, Insightful)
They can't have it both ways. If they advertise it as a flat rate / unlimited, people are going to use it that way. If some people are using more bandwidth than others, then have your price reflect that. Then people will be a little more frugal in their downloading.
Just keeping the flat rate and prohibiting people from using their connection for what they want just makes people angry and is just stupid.
Parent
Not the first time... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if this will turn out the same.
Supplier of the infamous traffic shaper (Score:4, Interesting)
FWIW, for those who aren't traffic shaped yet, don't be surprised if you are next if you are on a cable ISP -- the nature of the shared network means that the throughput gets choked for everyone when the upstream traffic gets too high (and ACKs get delayed). DSL providers don't really care about upstream as much, they worry more about total traffic which they can throttle in other, cheaper, ways.
BitComet (Score:4, Interesting)
Transfer limits per month? (Score:4, Interesting)
It sure seems like all you folks in North America are getting a seriousl wallet raping by the telcos/cablecos.
Here in Japan (and I'm sure it's the same in S. Korea), we don't have any such tranfer caps. Bandwidth is also a non-issue here with 50MB ADSL and 100MB (up and down) FTTH. Also, the pricing is quite reasonable and ususally comes bundled with VOIP services. Some providers even offer TV over IP (Softbank BB).
Japan and S.Korea are living the broadband pipedream that North America had dangled in front of it but never got (until GoogleNet shows up, seeing as they are buying all the remnants of that pipe dream - unused dark fiber).
Re:Who are "Shaw" and "Rogers"? (Score:5, Informative)
Does it affect a lot of people? You bet.
Parent
Re:Asymmetric connections (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BitTorrent's image (Score:5, Insightful)
--LWM
Parent
Re:What does this even mean? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:North Continent (Score:4, Insightful)
I work at an ISP. We pay $50 per meg per month measured at the 95th-percentile of our monthly usage. We can use our bandwidth in essentially any legal way, and we get a pretty rock-solid SLA for our money.On the flipside, our providers should not go bankrupt supporting the service we buy.
I buy cable broadband at home. I pay $40/month flat rate and I agreed to a pretty restrictive AUP that allows no servers or P2P applications on my end of the connection. I could violate the AUP, like I'm sure many do. But if I did, I would not whine and complain when my ISP addresses the issue. Oh yeah, if I paid at home what I pay at work, I would be paying about $120/month for internet access. But then I could use P2P...whoop-dee-do!
Networks are very, very expensive. If my broadband provider doesn't stay in business, I won't be able to use P2P--or any other 'net application.
Parent