B.I.S.S. Forums > why block corporations ?

A_Dude

Feb 23 2006, 07:32 PM

QUOTE

The level 2 Corp blocklist includes banks , financial institutions , Corporations etc.

Why block those ?

I understand blocking specific organizations that attack P2P, but it seems to me that lots of people actually do P2P from work and they work at Corporations.

Some of those workplaces have very high bandwidth upload that is a big help to P2P.

Also, the same question about:

QUOTE

This list contains all known Educational institutions / University IP ranges.

I thought that quite a bit of file sharing originates at Universities.

Perhaps these are not explained very well in the FAQ ?

Thanks for your help.

Hagenvontron

Feb 23 2006, 11:08 PM

Hey,

I could answer all your questions with new questions, but I'll try not to do that....

Don't think of the lists as "protection" only on p2p networks (hey, even the main blocklist isn't called antip2p anymore...), but think of em in this way: Whom do you want to connect to your computer?!? I certainly don't want that all the corps can connect to me, do you?!? That thing with the high bandwith might be true, but do you know if it is only an employee or sb else?!?

As for the edu ranges. A lot of the educational institutions (looks weird...

) are monitored, meaning the traffic and the users are monitored. Just look at the riaa cases in the us, who got letters....

True, that many of the stuff might originate at unis - but you can always decide not to use the edu list...

Damn, that thing not answering with questions didn't work that well.... lol well, its late...

I hope that answers some of your questions.

HvT

firstaid

Feb 24 2006, 12:50 AM

http://www.bluetack.co.uk/forums/index.php...t=0&#entry58719

There is a little more info for ya on edu.

The corps we put in the lists are alot of the times related to gov or entertainment or some major financial institutions. Sure, they could have large bw, but they also could be used to contact you and sue you, you wanna take that chance? Its up to you.

firstaid

A_Dude

Feb 24 2006, 01:55 AM

Actually - it IS for P2P only - the corp list is automatically included in the Emule ipfilter.dat file.

I was looking at it and kind of wondering why Cisco Systems, Sun Microsysytems and Intel (just some examples) are blocked - I would say that there isn't one Internet connection that doesn't go through a Cisco Systems router, and clearly most systems have Intel processors. And Sun is considered an opponent of MS.

If can't imagine why someone at Cisco, Sun or Intel would be bothering with anyone's IP addresses.

Frankly, the only possible reasons I can think of for blocking them, is that it is a political thing - they are opposed to corporations in general.

I certainly see some "evil" corporations out there, but most of them are just people making a living. Every piece of equipment used in P2P is made by a "corporation", and probably a majority of people who participate in P2P - including the P2P software developers - work for corporations.

PS Enterntainment is obvious, and gov is who has the power to enforce - but "major financial institutions" ?

Just about every corporation has to have "connections to major financial institutions" - it's required by law!

Basically, it boils down to the fact that it's prudent to block the obvious ones, but it is hopeless to try and block anyone who might possibly be somehow connected. After all, all they have to do is run their detection software by logging into a big consumer ISP which would bypass all your blocks.

So, cutting off a lot of P2P users who want to use the big fat pipe at work, seems to be silly.

firstaid

Feb 24 2006, 02:08 AM

QUOTE

If can't imagine why someone at Cisco, Sun or Intel would be bothering with anyone's IP addresses.

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is not way in hell they are going out of the lists. Have you ever heard of TCPA? Thes people support the idea and will remain blocked. or maybe we should let IBM in to peoples computers? c'mon give us a break , there just one less person you have to worry about not being in your p2ping. Do some homework on who is supporting this digital right crap please before making statements like this, if they want something in p2p they can buy it. I know they use p2p at times, even Microsoft got busted for using pirated software, doesn't mean its a good idea to let the worlds largest antip2p organization into anyones box.

Subject closed, and if this continues the thread will be as well.

firstaid

Guest

Feb 24 2006, 02:19 AM

I'm hardly expecting to change anything by posting a guest message !

I'm trying to find out what the thinking is behind it.

I gather from the defensive response that IS an "all corporations are evil because they are corporations" political thing, yes ?

Believe me - I'm not trying to cheerlead any particular corporations. In fact, I was expecting to hear a response of "Actually ____ Corporation has done [ consumer attacking action ]".

createcoms

Feb 24 2006, 10:52 AM

QUOTE

If can't imagine why someone at Cisco, Sun or Intel would be bothering with anyone's IP addresses.

And that is WHY they are blocked. They have no good reason to connect to your computer, so therefore they shall be blocked with the idea that ANY connection attempt by them is obviously suspect.

You are looking at it from a xxx is blocked because they did yyy and zzz. The problem with this, is that is resembles an ambulance waiting at the bottom of a cliff. They have to be naughty in the first place and someone could go down. It is much better to rate ip ranges/addresses on their legitimacy for access to your computer as things stand now and prevent unauthorised access.

A_Dude

Feb 24 2006, 05:39 PM

Okay, I'm respecting First_Aid "subject is closed" (and I'm going to read more on TCPA - not everyone can know everything about every subject). And thanks for adding more specifics.

I just want to respond on the different subject brought up by createcoms, which was

QUOTE

It is much better to rate ip ranges/addresses on their legitimacy for access to your computer as things stand now

Well, there is no reason for anyone to have incoming access to anyone else's computer at all !

I give some people an email address, a phone number, a snail mail address. Then I let specific organizations handle these contacts if I want to have those contacts - my ISP or an email provider gathers my email, a phone company of my choice handles my phone calls, and the post office handles my snail mail.

So, prior to the file sharing idea, the concept was blocking incoming contacts entirely that there were not initiated from your PC.

It was only with the Napster concept of "I'll show my hard disk if you show me yours" that anyone thought it reasonable to allow unknown people to access my PC.

A_Dude

Feb 24 2006, 06:38 PM

Okay, I did a web search on TCPA and now I remember about that (so many gd acronyms !).

First off, it's interesting that the anti-TCPA web site hasn't been updated since 2003.

Second, every company in the world with more than 2 employees is on that member list. The only exception I could find was Apple Computer.

Third, as a society, we've already given our consent to the TCPA idea in every arena. No one ever protested that if you want to tell your friend with asthma that they should try fish oil capsules, you have to add in your email "But ask you doctor first" lest you be sued.

We have this BS thing in society where plumbers, doctors, lawyers, accountants and every thing else has to be licensed and approved by Daddy Government. You say NOTHING about that and now you are upset that they want to license PC hardware and software ?

The whole virus/worm/trojan thing, combined with vast quantities of spam, make the public go along with anything that makes their computing more secure.

BTW, people whine about US Republicans, but every one of these freedom-trampling bills seems to be proposed by a Democrat Senator, like Hollings or Biden.

createcoms

Feb 24 2006, 07:52 PM

QUOTE

Well, there is no reason for anyone to have incoming access to anyone else's computer at all

Please dont be silly, of course there is and you demonstrated it with your filesharing example in the same post. Joe Public Internet Subscriber is whom, as a P2P'er you want to grant access (albeit defined access) to your system.

You are correct that without P2P-style transfers, the security net is tighter in that only requested transfers could be let in. Alas that time has been long gone.....

QUOTE

we've already given our consent to the TCPA idea in every arena

Thats a self-defeating statement. I haven't consented the trusted computing initiative in that i do not accept someone else deciding trust issues for me! And I will go against it, because I believe it can be fought against.....

cycl0n3

Feb 27 2006, 08:57 AM

Personally I think it is a damn good thing these companies are blocked. I have actually encountered torrents in the past that were being flooded with false data by IP addresses that traced back to Cisco. And these IPs just kept hammering my firewall with hundreds of junk packets a minute even after I shut down my torrent client. Here is a small snippet from the log:

CODE

20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.121' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:19 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.160' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:19 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.188' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:19 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.197' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:19 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.235' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:19 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.219' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:19 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.154' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.203' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.126' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.169' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.229' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.209' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.245' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.194' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.109' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.226' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:05:20 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '137.163.18.136' in range 'the city of helsinki' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:06:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.177' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.115' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.174' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.152' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.247' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.108' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.108' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.231' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.169' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.102' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'
20 Sep 05 03:10:07 - IP '128.108.241.118' in range 'cisco systems, inc' has been blocked on 'Tue Sep 20 03:07:06 CDT 2005'

And no, that ain't a router acting up. These came from Cisco's corporate servers. This in and of itself is proof that these supposedly "innocent" companies cannot be trusted when it comes to p2p, as most of them are practically in bed with the entertainment industry and will attack file sharing networks without hesitation at the request of their fat-cat buddies at MPAA/RIAA. I applaud the efforts of the Bluetack team, as I agree with their philosophies whole-heartedly.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.