Big Muscle

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    702

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Big Muscle

  4. Posted

    As I said, SO_REUSEADDR is set for DHT socket so there shouldn't be any problem with reusing port which hasn't been closed properly before. It must be some problem with your configuration. What ports do you have set in your settings?

  7. Posted

    Blocking those ports is only temporary solution until something better is developed. One man did some exploration and he discovered that those ports are the main interest of DDoS attacks and that my workaround solved the problem. And it's logical to me because most webservers run on port 80 (and 2501 is used by hublists). This workaround seems to be better than blocking connections to certain websites only like DC++ does, because it prevents DDoS to all sites (of course, except those running on different ports).

    There are also other DDoS prevention mechanisms in StrongDC++. For example:

    - allowing only so many incoming connections how many CTMs your client sent

    - allowing maximally 5 connections from same IP:port

    - allowing certain amount of incoming connections per time (this is taken from DC++ but code is in "false" branch there, so it does nothing)

    - thread stack size is decreased so it allows creating much more threads on 32-bit build which prevents remote crash by initiating DDoS attack (64bit build doesn't suffer from this issue)

    This is solution made in older RevConnect - http://reverseconnect.cvs.sf.net/viewvc/reverseconnect/RevConnect/client/FloodTrigger.h?view=markup (when more than 10 connections in last 2 seconds is detected, IP will be blocked for some time)

    Although all that things need improving, I think they are much more useful than blocking reconnect on protocol error or increasing reconnect time on timeout (done in DC++) which can't prevent DDoS attacks in any way.

  8. Posted

    Neither rev2159 nor rev2163 really does something against DDoS attacks. Rev2159 only increases reconnect interval after timeout and stops reconnecting after procotol error (which is very rare case), almost no change in the reality. Rev2163 is controlling UPnP interface to automatically forward ports in your FW/router.

  10. Posted

    The only possibility is to change the protocol. Current NMDC protocol is old and it lacks any kind of user identification (identification by nick is nothing correct and usable). Proper solution would be visiting ADC hubs only. Everything which can be done for NMDC would only be a workaround which could be easily exploited by malicious users. However, I have one solution in my mind but I don't know if I ever implement it, because it has no sense to develop for such old protocol and people should finally realize that there alternates which could fix their problems.

  13. Posted

    What's wrong with this memory usage? It is very small when you have it below 50 MB. Today's application reaches memory usage of hundreds of megabytes ;)

  14. Posted

    Loool, you're funny. Yes, I didn't make segmented downloading, I copied it from RevConnect (ReverseConnect before) - and I improved TTH verification in it. Then I copied it from DC++ and replaced old code? Why? Because I wanted - the same reason why I removed that old NMDC filelist - I just wanted to be updated with DC++ code. What does it mean? The you lie again - StrongDC++ has segmented downloading (although I copied it (and improved it) from another client).

    Also, if you want to argue whether my code is common or you made complex copyrighted code, everyone can check for example here:

    Pause function: http://www.home.karneval.cz/01027053/tmp/PPK_large_complex_code.txt // comparing StrongDC++ SVN from 25th November 2004 (the first StrongDC++ with this function) and CzDC (the oldest code I have is from the beginning of 2005) and both clients have different way of readding paused item. You changed your code to my way in 0.666K - so how it could be possible that I stole this function from you?

    TypedTreeListViewCtrl: http://www.home.karneval.cz/01027053/tmp/BM_small_code.txt // + it contains many changes in SearchFrame

    You quibble between GNU GPL and FSF GPL? You're funny - you probably should study website of license you use. Communication has been made with Karl Berry [licensing@fsf.org] (www.gnu.org directs to this mail - you will find it if you read GNU website correctly) half year ago and the current form of exception statement is valid according to him. To your links, there's nothing that it MUST be done in such way. You should read it properly and you will see word EXAMPLE (czech: PŘÍKLADY).

    Below are two example license notices that you can use to do that

    Now I'm stopping the discussion, because you weren't still able to provide any evidence of which code in my screenshots you hold copyright. So the discussion has no sense.

  15. Posted

    About time, I was waiting for one of you to bring that up :stuart:

    I don't want to discuss to beginning, I just want to show how PPK isn't able to stand for his opinion and change it due to such banality.

    Also PPK should study the law before playing with the copyright - there's explicit statement that the person who makes a complain should provide evidence that the complain is right. But PPK isn't able to do it - he lost arguments so he at least tries to say that GPL exception statement is invalid (although it's not - FSF mail has higher priority than some PPK's fantasy). It's interesting that GPL exception was OK when he was using it in his client. He also says that I falsified his license - but again he is the person who makes a complain, so he must provide evidence that such version never existed. So no evidence (list of changelog entries is not evidence) => his complain has no sense.

    Anyway, I'm taking master exams on Monday. If I pass we can start discussing the wxWidgets port.

  16. Posted

    I don't understand you people trying to proof something completely irrelevant to eachother. What I'm trying to say is that all of you are more or less great developers and contributors. Just think what you could approach by working together instead of working against eachother. Think about changing your tactics to something better like solution to my ever question

    Even funnies is how everything started. Reading logs from old Frizhub (PPK knows what there), I can find there facts like "PPK says he doesn't want to segmented downloading in CZDC but says it is done very well in StrongDC", "PPK says my TypedTreeListView is very good so he's telling me that he will use it in CzDC" and many other things. Then I removed support of old NMDC filelists and what happens? PPK wants to ban StrongDC++ in hubs, he tells my client is ****, he complains that StrongDC segmented downloading is stupid (said in one Czech hub), he removes copyright statement in my TypedTreeListView and he violates copyright by this, he complains that I'm stealing his code and using it against license. And many other things.

    A making something better? I already did, e.g. encryption in NMDC hubs (made by Flow84 idea in his FlowLib client). And what happens? PPK starts complaining that I stole his idea (in that nighthawk forum) and I made it incompatible with his code (although there never was any encryption in his code).

    It's funny how he can change behaviour/thinking only due to removed compatibility with old NMDC lists. :stuart:

  17. Posted

    You looked on yourself ? Because that is exactly what you do.

    Ah, this is what we did in maternity school. Interesting that you still do it now. "I wasn't me, buuu, it was him, buuuu". Just say what of your parts I ignored?

    When you wanted to have openssl exception for CZDC+ you upload source with that exception to your own website. You totally ignore one line in license is not correct way to give that exception, because from that is not visible where it apply (remember that CzDC source contains code under other licenses than GNU GPL), you don't even noticed that CzDC can't allow openssl simply because use DC++ code that don't have that exception and adding OpenSSL exception to CzDC will result in GNU GPL violation.

    Yeah, yeah. I manually modified that site. Interesting that you again ignored and didn't answer the question why there is so many sites which have your binary with another license? Yes, of couse, all of them modified it... interesting that all modified it with same license and with same date. You say, that you aren't responsible for it. So don't be! It's just evidence that such version exists - and it was downloaded from your website.

    You reduce any feature that you copy/pasted from CZDC++ to one or two lines of code, it is easy to check that you are wrong in search for alternates reporting and more wrong in Pause/Resume search button.

    Yes, you are right that I reduce features to one or two lines. Why? Because the rest is just not important => e.g. search for alternates - ONE function line = LogManager::get...etc.. + the rest is only ONE string in StringDefs.h + ONE added constant into SettingManager and added checkbox into Settings dialog. This checkbox code is again only a copy of another checkboxes + changed constants names in it. So you say that you own copyright that for checkbox in settings? Or you own copyright for one string in StringDefs.h? Or that you own copyright for "if(BOOLSETTING(xxx))" ? You're funny. Similar applies to Pause button - a few functional lines which is just pure adding an item to vector + iterating over this vector. Common methods, so you can't hold copyright for that. I should also mention that I had to modify this code so it works correctly with my TreeListView structure. And you use this my patch in your client too, so don't complain. Back to MagnetDialog - you said you have added size and adding file to queue.. so explain why adding to queue is in RevConnect too - although code is comment, but it's there? Or again, you just want to hold copyright for simple QueueManager::getInstance()->add (where part of this method was copied from RevConnect), or you want to hold copyright for changing "0" (or whatever was there before) to "size"? You're funny again.

    I understand that you want to find something which I STOLE you. But I advise you to select some normal code which can be copyrighted, and not features which consists of few lines and the majority of them is just copy of another DC++ code with changed variables, constants, maximally added new string or constant.... oh, I nearly forgot - you are able to develop only simple lines and not complex code.

    But when he used that source first time and said that google can find other sites where it is then i'm tried that and google failed and don't found any sites :stuart:

    Where I said that google can find it now? I said here that it's on web and on DC - not that it can be found via google. And one more thing - when YOU aren't able to find anything, it doesn't mean it's not there. Don't be naive.

  18. Posted

    Yes, you are right! I can't change history, but you can by changing files on your website. That "invalid" license existed - evidence is all websites which have archived binary. Yes, source is not on web, but some users in DC still have it. But this is not important - the important is that there is CzDC 0.699[b2] with license which allows compiling with OpenSSL. Not only on one website, but on many website - it is clear evidence that such version ever existed. People also confirmed that this version comes from your website (ask Tatranka for example, it's the person who you asked to remove StrongDC++ from his website). We are not interested that you already deleted this version from your website.

    Then you are right for the second time. I always change things - and that's why you always ignore when someone writes something and try to tell seomthing different. Whole this topic is based on my screenshots where you says you are copyright holder. But you completely changed topic - instead of showing evidence, you talk about different things. Or where the evidence is? Yes, you can't prove nothing, so you completely ignore it :lol:

    Anyway, thanks for the fun, I have to go away for few days, because I have real life (and not like you. PPK's life = searching every word which could be copyrighted) :)

    (btw I'm travelling over Kralupy today, so if you can, you can tell everything to my eyes) :whistling:

  19. Posted

    PPK, you are funny. I am not interested whether I am right or you are right. The most important part is that I posted evidence that "your" work is only a copy of other DC++ code with changed variable names (true, it's not pure copy, but for example RecentsFrame is same as FavoritesFrame and about 2-3 functions - onAdd etc. - taken from PublicHubsFrame, so no new code developed by you). I posted screenshots which show that there is nothing you can copyright. You didn't post anything - you just still repeat "I have copyright for this and this and this", but no evidence. So take my screenshots and mark area which are yours. Just do it! If you do it, I will admit that you are right. But you don't do, because there are no such areas.

    I am not interested whether somebody is against me or against you. Users can create their own point of view from this topic.

    Even though there are some parts copid from CzDC (it doesn't depend whether it is simple Pause button with 2 additional lines to work or something different), you just made mistake. You released CzDC 0.699[b2] with invalid license on 28th February 2008. I'm aware that such release wasn't intended but you made it by mistake. But who cares? Such version existed (and is still downloadable from other websites), so there's no problem to copy from that. Bye.

    P.S. It's also funny that PPK complains about copyright when his filelist is full of copyrighted stuff :whistling:

  20. Posted

    Of course you are right, This things were took from czdc in the past. But again we get to the point what Crise told. Some of them has already been removed or rewritten and what's the rest? Only usual part which you copied from other parts of DC++ code and modified them by changing variables names. There are for example emoticons ("přidáni smajlíci") which you took from CodeProject, improved uploadqueue (again, it's only cologic's code + splitter from queueframe), added more userlist colors (only recopied the other colors), country flags already discussed, Pause button the same (you can't copyright method of creating button), last lines in PM (I guess this feature is in DC++ too), report search alternates (already discussed - only one line copied from other part of code), magnetlink to queue (lol, you took it from RevConnect, remember?), progressbar in queue (copied from TransferView, strongdc++ progressbars are completely different from czdc, probably already rewritten).

    Shall I continue? You only embarrasse yourself by showing us what CzDC contains but wasn't made by you.

    You also forget about other part of changelog:

    removed mess which stayed there from czdc bugs

    removed a lot of buggy code copied from CZDC++

    It is funny that you already ignored the part where you removed copyright lines from my code :whistling:

  21. Posted

    You know... this topic makes me think about this (hypothetical) situation... if I have written code to open windows message box that looks exactly like message box X in application Y in the past can I go and claim that the author for application Y has stolen my copyright by writing the same function call to produce that message box in his application that was released a month later than mine.

    Of course I can't because anyone can write such line of code. Some of the examples given above are exactly like this and they will never hold... because even if some line of code is same as in some other application there is no way to prove whether it was copied from that application or not.

    That's why there is a law which specifies what cannot be copyrighted. The list contains for example titles, names (country names/code here), procedures, methods (here method of creating button in Win32API) etc. Although PPK is still claim I have copied country list/codes from CzDC, there's no problem with this, because he can't own copyright for that - neither in case, he put codes/names into quotation marks and divided by commas. This list of countries is managed by simple for-loop and he can't own copyright for it either, because it is standard instrument of C++ language.

  22. Posted

    Yes it was me because it is only web where is CzDC source with that license, and it is your web.

    It's not my problem that you was able to find only my web (and I guess it's because I sent this link somewhere - in mail to SF maybe)

    Completely ? Where? Big parts are same as they are in CZDC++ and contains original source comments from trpaslik in czech language :lol:

    Probably not completely - yes, idea is same, but code isn't. I just compared in few comparison tools. The code is uncomparatable. Only two functions are same - onRButtonDown and HitNick (only part is same) which are the less important parts in whole chat code and as you said - it was written by trpaslik, not by you. So no problem. But don't afraid, I will rewrite this part soon, because I found some weak places in it.

    You proved that it contains modified parts, parts that are not original DC++ code and these parts are created by me and i am copyright owner.

    No, you are not, because you wasn't able to said which part it is. You said it is those yellow parts but such parts are only a copy of other DC++ code. If you don't believe, I will post winmerge screenshot also of these small parts.

    It is special enough to show that it is my code. ISO have country list sorted in alphabetical order by Country name.

    You are real liar - http://www.iso.org/iso/support/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm

    What's there? Ah, list sorted by codes :)

    No i don't have copyright for few extensions, i have copyright over lines in that code because i'm created that.

    but it's not the code. It's only list of those extensions :whistling:

    Of course they are, and before you added option to have tabs on left or right you used CZDC++ code to show tabs on top or bottom :P

    No, they are not. It's not neither in your SVN, so it's not there. And you also said in bestofall hub that it's not there and it won't be there :)

    Really ? Maybe santa claus created them :)

    Yes, really. Who created them? Probably you know... chat by Trpaslik, search grouping by me, emoticons from codeproject, recentframe just copy of favoriteframe (although it was illegally copyrighted by sickboy in the past), waitinguserframe just code by cologic+splitter from queueframe and we could continue, so there is not so much made by you. You probably made only those c++-string->c-char changes in NMDCHub/UserConnection (maybe it is why NMDCHub is exploitable) and that list of extensions which I believe is just copied from somewhere :P

  23. Posted

    If i apply your logic over that code then it is only modified DC++ code and then "there is nothing with your copyright". You know that you don't have these copyrights here from beginning.

    My logic was applied to code which you took and only changed variable names. You can't apply this logic to code which is written from the sratch and there is no template you could compare to. If is funny that CZDC++ 0.666K (1st version with TypedTreeListViewCtrl), 0.666L and 0.666M contain those copyright lines. Later versions don't contain it, which means it has been removed. And such removal is against licence :) Ah, I nearly forgot, all those versions can be downloaded from your website (e.g. http://czdc.org/czdcplusplus/CZDC-0666[K]-src.7z - don't forget to modify those files now). So you still say that you didn't removed anything? :)

    Men, that package don't even match CzDC releases naming convention. How one can trust you when simple thing like that is different :P

    Probably you're stupid or what. But why do you complain for something what you did? Remember, it was you who send the link to CzDC.7z? Not me, I just send links to versions which filenames have same filename convention as filenames on your website and other people prove that package with another license was from your website :whistling:

    Yes it is, exception must be in every source file where it apply. Same as is license text is in them. More info http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

    No, it's not true. Or is it? Maybe. But I will believe in my conversation with Karl Berry from Free Software Foundation who told me that current form of exception is enough.

    ... the rest ...

    yes, they are similar part in StrongDC++ like in CzDC. Color chat? Made by Trpaslik (and others), not by you! Completely rewritten by me and by Crise. You still talking about recent hubs, waiting frames etc... as I said said and proved, you only took other parts of DC++ code, put them together and renamed variables (favs->recent, queue->waitingusers). Special country codes order? What's special on alphabetical sorting by codes and putting new things at the end? Same for file extensions - you don't hold copyright for few file extensions. Talking about stealing simple lines like "LogManager::getInstance()->message(STRING(ALTERNATES_SEND) + " " + Util::getFileName(qi->getTargetFileName()));" is good joke when similar line is at tens of other places in DC++. Splitter - also, one line which was on other places (one calling SETTING and set), you're funny again. There are no non-bottom tabs in CzDC, so I don't know why you talk about it - it's funny that you admitted in Bestofall hub that it's not easy for you to make this feature :) yes, you can continue with tens and hundreds of other code which is same in CzDC and in StrongDC+ but it will always be lines which you copied from other part of DC++ code and only changed variable names or constant values. CzDC contains some good things but almost nothing was written by you :lol:

  24. Posted

    I don't need to, you already show enough :)

    What? You didn't show anything? Yes, because there is nothing! You are not able to show it! You still kidding "It is there", but you have never shown a line. So case closed, there is nothing with your copyright

    They should be in code, but they are not. Not my fault.

    :lol: your argument doesn't match the original. You probably arguing without reading the thing you arguing for. The page was just an evidence that I didn't take nothing from RevConnect. And you forgot to answer to the rest. How could you copy it from RevConnect when such code isn't in RevConnect? Answer: you copied it from StrongDC++ and then removed copyright notices. Copyright violating!

    Only place where is source of that CzDC version with license you pointing to is http://home.karneval.cz/01027053/tmp/CzDC.7z and that is your own web space (as you show when you linked winmerge screenshots on same web space). If you can spread CzDC source with wrong license who knows, maybe you same with binaries? But i'm not in any way responsible that some sites have binary of my app with incorrect license. And sadly for you that license is not valid, because that exception is not given correctly under terms of GNU GPL version 2 :)

    Yes, it is my webspace, because I uploaded there a package which I downloaded from your website some time ago. It's not our problem you changed the license later.

    On the other side, you are not responsible for sites having your binary. So you can't be responsible for sites having your source. Although with original license. If someone copy it from such source he can use it with OpenSSL/WTL because attached license allows it.

    Maybe, that iglu site is mine. Then following places are mine too (+ it can be found in some smaller DC hubs with source code too):

    http://free.asparuhovo.net/DC++%20Clients/

    http://www.microsofttorrentz.7x.cz/program-o-p2p

    http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/download.sourceforge.net/pub/sourceforge/h/project/hu/hubsupport/

    and others. What an accident that so many sites has CzDC with invalid license. But yes, czdc.org had this invalid license some time ago too.

    EDIT: so I contacted Tatranka, the webmaster of that iglu site. He told me that available CzDC was downloaded from official CzDC website. Just another evidence that 0.699B2 had different licence file in the past.

    And that the exception is incorrectly given? No it's not. It is correct according to Free Software Foundation.

    From description of that exploit it is something that i'm fixed 2 maybe 3 years ago in CzDC :)

    In such case, you mean different thing. I briefly checked your code and it is still there.

    I don't think that any of them exist. And if it exist then it is must be very hard to use, else i'm sure that someone of my users will report it or someone use it against me (as you do that few years ago when you found one exploit).

    Yes, they exist. If they are hard to reproduce? Maybe it is hard, because you need modified client to do that. There is not much CzDC users, so I doubt that someone would report it. :whistling:

    And it has no sense to answer to the rest. You have no arguments to show us that I copied something, so you try to show bugs I did, because I really don't know what does 64bit version have to do with original topic. But thank you that you analyse my source code so much.

  25. Posted

    You know what code it is, it is visible on your screenshots from winmerge. In case that you don't what these colors means, anything that don't have white background is code that is not same in both sides. If one is DC++ code then other must be code created by someone else.. guess who it was ? :P

    Of course, you are right. But... you should read what I wrote properly: "It includes only big parts of code. Simple (few lines) functions can be easily found in other DC++ files." If looking at those yellow/orange areas, then what everyone can see?

    1) changes similar to:

    WinUtil::splitTokens(columnIndexes, SETTING(RECENTFRAME_ORDER), COLUMN_LAST); vs WinUtil::splitTokens(columnIndexes, SETTING(FAVORITEFRAME_ORDER), COLUMN_LAST);

    RecentHubsFrame::onCreate vs FavoriteHubsFrame::onCreate

    - and you can't overtake copyright just by changing variables/constant names!

    2) added some new buttons to frame. If you mean this, then you probably kidding, because again, it's only a copy of another button with changed variable name (e.g. diff1 - ctrlConnect vs ctrlNew)

    3) some "new" procedures/functions as RecentHubsFrame::onEnter, RecentHubsFrame::onAdd, RecentHubsFrame::onClickedConnect. This is only copy from other frames - this is from PublicHubsFrame.

    There's nothing more. If yes, show us!

    And about that joke with removing copyright notices, reverse connect contains original code where is no Big Muscle and no Liny copyright line :) You added them after you sent that as patch for DC++ (and probably give copyright over that code to Jacek Sieka) .So how is possible to remove something that was not here ?

    Of course, copyright notices couldn't be in RevConnect because there is no TypedTreeListViewCtrl class in this client. The RevConnect's grouping is based on my old code (implemented via SearchFrame, credits can be seen here - http://www.revconnect.com/credits.php). So it is funny why you talk about this client. TypedTreeListViewCtrl was made by me and Liny allowed me to use his sorting code (and his wish was to put copyright statement here). Also, this small RevConnect's code is a little bit changed in StrongDC++ (not only variable names, but some changes to work correctly with TypedTreeListViewCtrl) and CzDC code contains this change too! It is also interesting that one of your old versions contained these copyright lines and you removed it some time later.

    So if say that your code doesn't contain copyright lines because you copied it from RevConnect, then you are liar, because there is no such code in RevConnect :)

    Ah and btw where is Country EUROPEAN UNION in ISO 3166-1 ? My code for flag images contains this in that what you call "country list is just copy of ISO 3166-1" :)

    Adding one or two common words into copyrighted list doesn't give you rights to appropriate copyright. Also Crise (or Lee) added some countries to list, I did too. So, yes, probably I copied "EUROPIAN UNION" text from your client. Are you happy that I stole you 2 words?

    And one more thing! CzDC released on 28th February 2008 had following license:

    This program is licensed under GPL-2 with the notable exception

    that you may compile it with WTL (sf.net/projects/wtl) and OpenSSL (www.openssl.org).

    This version can be still found in some internet archives (also one Czech site - http://xpojnt.iglu.cz/download/tklienti/czdc0699b2.7z). Source code downloaded from your website has the license file changed what can be seen by a little bit inconsistent date of license.txt. So what's wrong with copying from this version :whistling:

    You know what funny part is.. that ****ty mod have many of these fixes fixed for years. And many other fixes for bugs that DC++ always have and is exploitable with them :lol:

    Really? I doubt that there is one exploit you would know about. If you know, prove it! Or do you just mean those TTH exploit which is in CzDC, fixed sometime ago in StrongDC++ and now in DC++? Or you just mean that NMDCHub exploit in CzDC which isn't in other DC++ derived clients? Or you just mean that ConnectionManager exploit in CzDC? Or easily crashable PtokaX? You have more places to fix, so return after you fix them all.