Re: KTorrent Protocol Encryption (was Re: Steal this film 2)

["Bill Horne-9" <user=27@nabble.blu.org>]

 Fred wrote: 
> On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 09:39 -0500, Matthew Gillen wrote: 
>   
>> Fred wrote: 
>>     
>>> On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 07:19 -0500, eric c wrote: 
>>> ... 
>>>       
>>>> Sorry to hear about them blocking bittorrent.  Probably won't do much 
>>>> good but I hope that you have complained.  Switch to Speakeasy.  It's 
>>>> way overpriced but no blocked ports or filtering (that I can tell). 
>>>> Anyway... 
>>>>         
>>> KTorrent has an option to use protocol encryption in its General 
>>> Preferences. Does this not work with Crumcast? 
>>>       
>> Encryption of the payload doesn't help, because Comcast isn't discriminating 
>> about what's being sent (as is apparent in the other threads about their "spam 
>> blocking").  They were mucking with the protocol itself. 
>> 
>> It /might/ help to use SSL for everything, since in theory that would prevent 
>> the ISP from detecting what protocols above IP are being used.  But my 
>> understanding is that as a downloader, you don't get to choose whether a 
>> torrent is over SSL or not, it depends on the tracker (and all the other 
>> clients).  So that might work for torrents you create, but if you're 
>> downloading random torrents from the internet, they're likely to not be using SSL. 
>> 
>> Matt 
>>     
> 
> I haven't had a chance to look at the details of the BitTorrent 
> protocol, but perhaps this is high time  to upgrade that protocol to use 
> an ssl tunnel across arbitrary ports to hide the fact that it's even a 
> torrent. 
> 
> Perhaps there is already such a "protocol obfuscator" in existence just 
> for that very purpose? VPN tunnels to your peers? 
>