WinMx 3.22 Question: Can it simultaneously search WPNP and Open Nap?

[pgs92109]

I just upgraded from WinMx version 2.5 to 3.22 (the latest release). Version 2.5 was capable of searching WPNP and the Open Nap servers simultaneously, yielding one big batch of results. Is v. 3.22 not able to do this? It seems that you have to choose between either a WPNP search OR an Open Nap search. Or am I just using the program incorrectly?

And why is it so unbelievably SLOW to start up?

[alphabeater]

on the list of networks to search, below artist/title on the search screen, you should see winmx peer network (this is wpnp) and all currently connected opennap networks. above this should be another option called 'search all available networks'. picking this should search both wpnp and opennap and give you the results mixed together.

as for slow start up - this could be two things i can think of

- you're sharing loads of files and winmx is scanning them, in which case try sharing fewer files.
- you're connecting to wpnp as a primary peer instead of a secondary one and the connections are taking longer to form, in which case try choosing 'make a secondary connection to the network' when the program starts up.

hope some of that helps.

[Snarkridden]

Originally posted by pgs92109
I just upgraded from WinMx version 2.5 to 3.22 (the latest release). Version 2.5 was capable of searching WPNP and the Open Nap servers simultaneously, yielding one big batch of results. Is v. 3.22 not able to do this? It seems that you have to choose between either a WPNP search OR an Open Nap search. Or am I just using the program incorrectly?

And why is it so unbelievably SLOW to start up?

I'll buy alphabeta's answers on this one, no problem here, a nice mix of results on all searches with 6-10 Opennaps online and WNP too, though I get more uploads from WNP currently, I put this down to the fact that the opennaps I use are the smaller ones, and the WNP network is now developed quite well with may sharers.

Of course there are still the Leeches, especially those that have come over from Galaxy, but not neccessarily just those.

Snark..

[pgs92109]

OK...thanks Snarkridden and Alphabeater for your responses! Alphabeater, I was using 'search all available networks.' WinMX actually WAS searching both WPNP and Open Nap, however I didn't notice the WPNP hits because they were SEVERELY limited in number (6 total WPNP hits when searching for 'Britney Spears' under mp3 files-any bitrate, any connection!!) because of my primary connection to the network. Apparently my Zone Alarm firewall SEVERELY limits WPNP access if I have a primary connection. Shutting down ZA or changing to a secondary connection completely cured the problem (>10,000 WPNP hits for 'Britney Spears'). I guess I don't make a very good supernode. Frankly, I'm insulted.

Seriously though, I am curious why ZA blocks primary WPNP access even when I have checked the boxes within ZA to 'allow WinMX 3.22 to access the internet' and to 'allow my computer (via WinMX 3.22) to act as a server.'

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion to change to secondary, Alphabeater. I was just about ready to go back to WinMX 2.5 with the TrippyMX server list (which still works quite well, BTW). But, problem solved! It still starts up slow (I'm sharing only 84 files), but I can live with it.

BTW, I don't really care that much for dear Britney's music, but I figure she's good for a lot of hits when testing a system!!

[labourinvein]

If you will forgive me using this nom-de-plume..

Glad you got something sorted, maybe as you get familiar with it, things will be better, it was a shock going from 2.6 to 3.0 here but I'd never go back...

BTW, I don't really care that much for dear Britney's music, but I figure she's good for a lot of hits when testing a system!!

Good fellow I know you are serious NOW

Gus ... (alias the other fellow)

[alphabeater]

Originally posted by pgs92109
Seriously though, I am curious why ZA blocks primary WPNP access even when I have checked the boxes within ZA to 'allow WinMX 3.22 to access the internet' and to 'allow my computer (via WinMX 3.22) to act as a server.'

this is because zonealarm blocks all udp protocol access, both inbound and outbound, which wpnp uses for many things. this causes zonealarm to conflict with other programs, notably blubster, and generally causes people to blame blubster instead of zonealarm - after all, they've had zonealarm and its so-called 'hacker protection' for ages, and it's never messed anything up before, so it must just be a flaw in blubster.

i'm now provoked into one of my zonealarm rants.. ah well, i suppose it needed to be said.

zonealarm, even on its highest setting, provides no protection from inbound attacks. sure, it tells you when someone tries to connect to a port that isn't open, but that doesn't help anything.

for example, i could try to connect to your computer's port 12345.

if zonealarm wasn't running, i'd send a request, windows would pick it up, and send a response saying 'go away, there's no program listening on port 12345'.

if zonealarm is running, it reports an 'intrusion attempt' on port 12345, and then doesn't respond at all, causing the requester to wait until the connection times out before knowing that it has failed.

zonealarm breaks the tcp/ip protocol to make it seem to its users that it is protecting them from something, when really it isn't at all.

i used to run zonealarm, until i figured this out - the thing is just snake oil, and wants you to pay to upgrade to the pro version.

yet people queue up to defend zonealarm. they say it's not the meaningless blocking of port accesses which could never be used for something malicious or the insane blocking of entire internet communication protocols that they use it for, it's to make sure that no program they don't want to access the internet can do so behind their backs.

if that's why you use it, you need to get to know what your computer is doing better. in my experience, many zonealarm users click yes to everything it asks them, and then sit back and rejoice in their safeness from these evil people called hackers. as someone once said, 'a false sense of security is worse than no security at all'.

zonealarm asks once if a program can be a client, then a server. it gives no other information, and once permission is given for a session the program can do anything that it wants. on top of that, ie automatically granted permission to always access the internet by zonealarm - you can send someone a program which runs 'explorer http://[your ip]:[a port you're listening on]/[passwords, installed programs or whatever else someone might care to know]' in a hidden window, and the data has just escaped from their computer without zonealarm doing a thing.

if you want to be properly secure:

- use msconfig (or whatever) to take unwanted programs from your startup, and check it after you install something new.
- use something like prcview to see all the programs running on your computer when you want to.
- run netstat -an at a dos prompt or its windows equivalent, tcpview, to see which ports your computer is listening or sending data on.

it might be a little controversial, but i'd recommend everyone does the same as i have - that is, uninstall zonealarm completely.

knowing what your computer is doing is the only way to ever be truly secure - using some 'magic', badly programmed software firewall is only going to fix very little (if anything) and break a lot more.

end of excessively long rant.

[JackSpratts]

sounds like maybe you had an ex who loved za... kidding. listen i agree completely when it comes to p2ps. using za or tpf while acting as a host/server/client is like taking a shower - with your clothes on. it can done, but not well and why bother?

for other internet applications a firewall can be a good idea. maybe a great idea. that it never has for me probably means nothing more than i’m not using the net the way most people do, i don't know. i'm always connected to too many things at once, in both directions, to be able to successfully employ a firewall. by the time i configure one to allow all the needed inbound and outbound connections i have to have running, i've got a sieve on my hands not an impermeable barrier, and really it’s just in the way.

- js.

[alphabeater]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
using za or tpf while acting as a host/server/client is like taking a shower - with your clothes on. it can done, but not well and why bother?

hehe.. thanks for the analogy, i like it.

trust me jack, you're not missing anything... software firewalls don't form any kind of 'impermeable barrier' anyway, they just take occasionally useful internet background noise and report on how they've blocked it, and how this has somehow 'protected' you from something, 'hackers' or 'internet intruders' being the kind of phrases used to scare people, with the ultimate aim of making you pay for a non-free version of the firewall.

complete waste of time in any situation, if you ask me.

[pgs92109]

Hmmm...interesting. Thanks for the explanation. I have to admit I am one of the naive people who thought he was protected from hacking by Zone Alarm. But, this brings up a few questions.

1) Alphabeater and Jack, do you have cable modems or other internet access such that you are always online and succeptible to hacking? I thought the main benefit of my firewall is when I am online, but not using my computer for anything.

2) Quote by Alphabeater: "zonealarm, even on its highest setting, provides no protection from inbound attacks." Could you elaborate on this? By not responding, isn't ZA protecting you? I do try to shut down when possible to avoid hacking, but thought ZA protects me the rest of the time.

3) Quote by Alphabeater: "if zonealarm is running, it reports an 'intrusion attempt' on port 12345, and then doesn't respond at all, causing the requester to wait until the connection times out before knowing that it has failed."

By not responding, isn't one of the benefits of ZA that the hacker doesn't know you are there, whereas when Windows tells the hacker to 'go away' the hacker knows there is a port or computer there and can keep trying to hack in?

4) Are there others out there who have "always online" ISP connections who have given up on firewalls?

[alphabeater]

Originally posted by pgs92109
do you have cable modems or other internet access such that you are always online and succeptible to hacking?

yes, i have an cable modem.

Could you elaborate on this? By not responding, isn't ZA protecting you?.. By not responding, isn't one of the benefits of ZA that the hacker doesn't know you are there, whereas when Windows tells the hacker to 'go away' the hacker knows there is a port or computer there and can keep trying to hack in?

if they've found your ip address on a p2p (for example), then they can be pretty sure you are there, and unresponsive ports just indicate that you're using zonealarm (you're fooling no-one with this 'stealth' thing). what's more, if you're running anything on any port, including p2p programs, instant messengers and so on, then a port scan will find the open port (which zonealarm has allowed to be opened) and indicate that there is a computer there.

when you say 'keep trying to hack in'.. what do you think they're going to do? unless a program that is listening on one of your ports is either vulnerable to an attack such as a buffer overflow (which are usually fixed quickly, if you have the latest versions of programs, and are hard to exploit anyway, plus zonealarm again offers no protection from this), or you're running a trojan (in which case you more than likely accepted a file from a dodgy friend or an email, antivirus software provides far more reliable protection against this).

you are not vulnerable to hacking if you do not run zonealarm.

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by pgs92109
Hmmm...interesting.
1) Alphabeater and Jack, do you have cable modems or other internet access such that you are always online and succeptible to hacking? I thought the main benefit of my firewall is when I am online, but not using my computer for anything.

i have an adsl line pgs92109, had it for almost two years.

my choice of firewalls isn't optional. i'm not sure i could do what i do and have one. i could stop doing this but i don't want to. i pay for the bandwidth so that i can fully exploit all the net has to offer and i'm resigned to doing a full restore if i'm compromised. by not running a wall (skinny dipping ) i can do anything with any program that's net connected and do it immediately. i don't need push requests for files or any other trick that tries to work around barriers. i just load it and go. having said that i realize i may be more vulnerable than i'd be if i had a firewall, how much more vulnerable is a matter of opinion, but i accept that i am to some degree or another. there has even been the rare time when it "felt like" someone was inside my machine...who knows? i won't keep personal records on my pc by any means (phone and credit card numbers etc) and there are other precautions one can take as alluded to by alphabeater, even simple ones like disconnecting when there’s no reason to be online. in any event i haven't done a restore since i purchased this machine i'm using at the moment. i bought it in jan 2001, a year and a half ago, and that's not bad.

- js.

[pgs92109]

Alphabeater, from the Zone Labs/Zone Alarm website:

World-Class Protection Against Hackers

Any personal computer connected to the Internet is a potential target. Hackers randomly barrage Internet connected PCs with "pings" or "port scans", probing to find unprotected PCs. Once found, a hacker can compromise your PC with a dangerous Internet threat - Trojan horse, spyware or malicious worm.

ZoneAlarm Pro's TrueVector® technology combines a personal firewall with Program Control to protect your PC from intrusions and hostile attacks. ZoneAlarm Pro's firewall barricades your PC with immediate and complete port blocking. And, then runs in Stealth Mode to make your PC invisible on the Internet - if you can't be seen, you can't be attacked.


So, basically you are saying that you can't be hacked into unless you are accessing the internet through certain programs. By exempting the ports these programs use from Zone Alarm's protection (so that you can use the program), you expose yourself to hacking through those ports. You are also saying that Zone Alarm "protects" ports that can't be hacked into anyway, because they are closed. Is that right?


JS: it sounds like there are disadvantages to firewalls I didn't know about, and that you've done fine without one (due probably to all the reasons Alphabeater lists). It sounds like if you are on the internet and they want to get in, they'll get in regardless of whether you have a firewall or not.

[napho]

I have the Kerio firewall but know it can't offer total protection. Sometimes a bunch of small programs can be very effective. For example this startup monitor which won't allow anything to register in your system startup without your permission.

http://www.mlin.net/StartupMonitor.shtml