@RN_
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
%acetone
%snex
+FreefallHeavens_
+Onn4l7h
+Onn4|7h
+Over
+altec_lansing
+nyaa2pguy
+poriori
+profetikla
+qend-irc2p
+r00tobo
+uop23ip
Arch
Danny
Holmes
Irc2PGuest28384
Irc2PGuest47578
Irc2PGuest78874
Irc2PGuest84270
Irc2PGuest90536
Irc2PGuest94591
Meow
NiceBoat_
OfficialCIA
SilentWave
U1F642
Wikk_0
ahiru
anontor
cims
dr|z3d
eyedeekay_
floatyfloatilla
leopold_
mahlay
makoto
mesh
n2
nilbog
not_bob_afk
r00tobo[2]
red
sektorchef
thetia
user_
utp
vivid_reader56
uop23ip
Regarding the bot-net addition to i2p. Are they identifiable and blocking possible or prevent building tunnels with them? Does i2p-java block them, with the 2.11 update? i2pd probably not, i assume.
RN_
Canon does Plus does not have 2.11 yet
Onn4l7h
RN_, per topic it appears so
RN_
oh
RN_
I'll have to try that out
RN_
but technically it has had a broken 2.11
RN_
topic is from Feb 10, so... if anyone knows if it is stable yet or not it is likely T3s|4
T3s|4_
Onn4l7h and RN: I have not the current, latest i2p+ dev because several of my recent update efforts failed. I am waiting for dr|z3d to tell me and/or announce to everyone here that he believes his latest build has resolved all of the tunnel building issues.
T3s|4_
I have not *tested the current,...
T3s|4_
I continue run this ancient, but known to work correctly build:
T3s|4_
I2P: 2.10.0-5+ API: 0.9.67 Wrapper: 3.5.51 Built by: dr|z3d
T3s|4_
Revision: 8fd38e00 (Build date: 2025-10-04 22:46:26 UTC)
Onn4l7h
Thanks T3s|4_ I'll continue to wait, hope things change for him soon enough.
T3s|4
Onn4l7h: np, and agreed :D
orignal
what's wrong with botnet itself?
orignal
as long as they participate
not_bob
orignal: I agree.
uop23ip
orignal, If they wouldn't participate as transit routers it wouldn't be a problem. But if they are a certain percent of transit and controlled by one, the probability getting/creating tunnel all controlled by it gets higher. Let's say 20 percent of transit are are controlled by it. That's 1/5. The prob to get three (hops-peer) in a row is 1/125. idk a which at percentage it is getting critical in practice,
uop23ip
but 1/125 is far away from the "ideal", meaning 1 router controlled per 1 entity. With the participation of the botnet i do not gain anything, the anonymity has decreased, questionable if it gets faster or handle more traffic. Net was fine without them, that's why i am asking to block/avoid them. I've read that you can identify some of them, (even if they do nothing wrong) by country/ip-range, but this
uop23ip
wouldn't avoid building tunnels with them? Honestly it would rather kick those infected countries (saudi, mex etc) than having the probability mentioned above. If my math is a approx. correct ofc.
T3s|4
uop23ip: Saw your ~13:50 comments, but missed everything since then. If orignal replied to you, please paste his input(s)...thanks!
RN
so uop23ip you would deny people in those "infected" contries access to I2P?
RN
people there need I2P as much as anywhere else if not more
RN
orignal, the botnet made up of amazon fire-tv sticks does not have the capability to participate
RN
or at the very lest, they advertize much more than they can deliver
uop23ip
if they don't participate there is no problem. it gets one if they do and if they have a percentage of those.
orignal
RN then sthey must be banned
orignal
maybe not banned to not let them build tunnels often
RN
yes, the botnet routers not blanket country bans
orignal
I have better idea
orignal
if our profiles says that a router doesn't participate
orignal
we must limit amount of TBM coming from them
dr|z3d
no, there is a problem. just because they don't host participating tunnels, doesn't mean they don't *want* tunnels.
orignal
say to 1 per minutes
orignal
дрозды получили пизды ))
dr|z3d
if they did host tunnels, there would be less of a problem.
orignal
dr|z3d so my idea is to reject thier tunnels
orignal
if they want too many
orignal
2 tunnels per minute shoudl be enough for "G" routers
orignal
if they don't publich G and don't participate we might ban them completely
orignal
based on our profiles
uop23ip
i've read that those android tv boxes get captured by an internet exposed adb debug port. so i guess they are capable of open ports and of transit. It is not a problem if they got a certain percentage of transit routers?
RN
but they are not capable of delivering what they promise if they actually handle any transit at all
dr|z3d
are we still talking about G routers? they promise nothing, G is "we don't do transit".
RN
talking about the kim botnet firetv routers
dr|z3d
right, which are all G.
dr|z3d
G == no transit. so they're not even offering to host transit.
RN
maybe I misunderstood the disruption they caused
dr|z3d
there are so many of them that they were overwhelming your router, just dealing with their requests, even when throttled, was causing massive issues.
zzz
no. the first huge group, attributed to kimwolf by Krebs, was L. The second group a few days later, not addressed by Krebs, was XfG.
dr|z3d
a few hundred routers we can handle. 20K plus, not so much.
dr|z3d
oh, I thought the XG routers were kimwolf.
zzz
probably true, but a distinct batch
zzz
but "all are G" is not true
dr|z3d
sure, what I meant was the all G routers were the ones causing the issues, at least they were the major cause of issues.
dr|z3d
of course we also have the 0.9.57 Of routers which are likely entirely separate.
dr|z3d
not really so much of an issue, either, fairly small group, comparatively.
zzz
also not true. The initial wave of L routers caused all the issues
zzz
the G routers were 5 days later
dr|z3d
didn't see much of anything with L class routers, probably because they were already blocked.
zzz
lol you went down hard like everybody else, let's not rewrite history ))
dr|z3d
not on account of L tier routers.
dr|z3d
XG routers, sure, L, no.
zzz
you had ~150 checkins and ~10K lines of diff from Feb. 3 when the L routers appeared to Feb. 8 when the XfG routers appeared. What was all that thrashing trying to fix if you didn't have an issue? Not trying to prove a point just lets understand what happened
uop23ip
glad to see that my concerns got hypothetically. But what about those routers now, are they still L or XfG? Are the bot-nets additional routers mostly no transit?
zzz
there's at least some out there, or maybe thousands, hard to tell without ripping out the banning code that hides most of them for me
uop23ip
"maybe thousands" - participating?
zzz
you'll have to do your own research on that
dr|z3d
t-shirt material, zzz.
dr|z3d
"You'll have to do your own research"
dr|z3d
*** grins. ***