Iron Sky

[Overmind One]

It's actually quite simple to create a peer-to-peer sharing system with encrypted streams and even going as far as distributing a public key to decrypt downloaded content. Going anonymous would involve bouncing the streams through relay peers that only act as relays without any logging, hosting no content and not directly assembling the content themselves. This is layman but you get the idea of how elaborately elegant this sort of system can be and would confuse the shit out of anyone trying to follow such a labyrinth. Even if they intercept the content stream and happen to decrypt the stream, the content itself is further encrypted using public key encryption and partially intercepted content would be useless.

EXACTLY. I was having this conversation with another geek buddy of mine who is working on such a system. But he wants to monetize it which for me is a dealbreaker. He is wanting to start a streaming service which streams unlicensed content...and charge for it. I think he is setting himself up for legal action, but the concept is sound and as you said, VERY simple to do. The public key could be sold, which could provide the revenue. But then again, that key would have to be periodically updated. The browser gods could revoke the keys with updates easily, so that means a client needs to be developed. You get the drill...but if Netflix is attacked by these studios, then there will be war and the geeks WILL win.

If the prices go up unfairly compared to the rest of the market and is shown to be a concerted effort by the studios to squeeze out Netflix, then it's conspiracy and clear-cut price fixing. The studios can sell for whatever to whomever, there's no standard. However, if you suddenly double the cost to Netflix, a distributor with whom you've been doing business for nearly a decade, and practically give content away to Amazon, the new kid on the block, it does not look favorable. Do this in concert with several studios and you're really hanging your balls out on the chopping board.

There are people whose sole source of entertainment is Netflix. People who have it on their phones and tablets, and who gladly pay the $7.99 despite the fact that more than half of the original Netflix content (including DVDs) has been taken away.

I would pay for individual studio stream services if they were more like a buck or two. But $10 for a single studio's content? Just LOL!

Just LOL is right! Im not willing to do that for just one studio's content. Maybe as much as $4.99, and that is pushing it. If they also have commercials, then no amount of money would make it appealing to me.

 

[Bluce Ree]

EXACTLY. I was having this conversation with another geek buddy of mine who is working on such a system. But he wants to monetize it which for me is a dealbreaker. He is wanting to start a streaming service which streams unlicensed content...and charge for it. I think he is setting himself up for legal action, but the concept is sound and as you said, VERY simple to do. The public key could be sold, which could provide the revenue. But then again, that key would have to be periodically updated. The browser gods could revoke the keys with updates easily, so that means a client needs to be developed. You get the drill...but if Netflix is attacked by these studios, then there will be war and the geeks WILL win.

Does he really wanna become the next Kim Dotcom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom

I think you're mixing concepts. Public key encryption has nothing to do with the browser world. They have SSL certificates which use public key encryption.

Public key encryption is a method of encryption that uses two keys. A public key, which one freely distributes and publishes for anyone to download, and a private key, which the original user keeps secret. For example, if you send me content encrypted with MY public key, I am the only one who can decrypt it with MY private key. You can't decrypt the same content using the public key.

Although this has been broken, it's not trivial to break as you increase the key size. A 2048-bit key would take, roughly, 6.4 quadrillion years to break via brute force using current technology. Throwing more hardware in the mix reduces the time but do you honestly see the RIAA andr MPAA convincing the entire western world to commit their entire combined IT infrastructure to hopefully, one day, maybe a few hundred years from now, prove that you illegally downloaded Tank Girl?

So, upon registering with this new P2P network, your PC would generate a key-pair and upload the public one. Your stream would be encrypted from beginning to end using your public key that is shared on the network and tied to your profile.

 

[Overmind One]

Does he really wanna become the next Kim Dotcom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom

I think you're mixing concepts. Public key encryption has nothing to do with the browser world. They have SSL certificates which use public key encryption.

Public key encryption is a method of encryption that uses two keys. A public key, which one freely distributes and publishes for anyone to download, and a private key, which the original user keeps secret. For example, if you send me content encrypted with MY public key, I am the only one who can decrypt it with MY private key. You can't decrypt the same content using the public key.

Although this has been broken, it's not trivial to break as you increase the key size. A 2048-bit key would take, roughly, 6.4 quadrillion years to break via brute force using current technology. Throwing more hardware in the mix reduces the time but do you honestly see the RIAA andr MPAA convincing the entire western world to commit their entire combined IT infrastructure to hopefully, one day, maybe a few hundred years from now, prove that you illegally downloaded Tank Girl?

So, upon registering with this new P2P network, your PC would generate a key-pair and upload the public one. Your stream would be encrypted from beginning to end using your public key that is shared on the network and tied to your profile.

Yes, I understand this. But he wants to have his service use standard browsers which means that the key needs to be imported into the browser like any other key for SSH web browsing. I use keys like this for PGP and a couple of others we use. I think a he should go with a client which has the ability to import the keys automatically and change them with updates as necessary. But this dude is a gray hat and I dont like associating with him because he is a bit too "out front" with his hacking activities. He is half my age.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Yes, I understand this. But he wants to have his service use standard browsers which means that the key needs to be imported into the browser like any other key for SSH web browsing. I use keys like this for PGP and a couple of others we use. I think a he should go with a client which has the ability to import the keys automatically and change them with updates as necessary. But this dude is a gray hat and I dont like associating with him because he is a bit too "out front" with his hacking activities. He is half my age.

You're talking about SSL certificates. That will neither protect nor disguise anything because the stream is end-to-end, not a collaborative P2P cloud. That means any clown with a PC can get on this "network" and act as a honey pot for some idiot who thinks they're being clever. He needs to put a lot more thought into this, bro.

 

[Overmind One]

You're talking about SSL certificates. That will neither protect nor disguise anything because the stream is end-to-end, not a collaborative P2P cloud. That means any clown with a PC can get on this "network" and act as a honey pot for some idiot who thinks they're being clever. He needs to put a lot more thought into this, bro.

Nope, Im talking about web browsing over SSH. SSL certificates are for https. We use it for several programs at our company. It can access websites the same way you would use putty for SSH. It requires a key pair.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Nope, Im talking about web browsing over SSH. SSL certificates are for https. We use it for several programs at our company. It can access websites the same way you would use putty for SSH. It requires a key pair.

Sorry, misunderstood you but that's even more benign. Browsing through an SSH tunnel is the equivalent of browsing over a VPN. In any case, neither one involves the browser in key exchanges and both methods present an IP sitting at the remote server. I don't see any innovation here. All he's doing is reinventing the wheel by duplicating what's existed in the Unix world since the 90's, bro.

 

[Overmind One]

Sorry, misunderstood you but that's even more benign. Browsing through an SSH tunnel is the equivalent of browsing over a VPN. In any case, neither one involves the browser in key exchanges and both methods present an IP sitting at the remote server. I don't see any innovation here. All he's doing is reinventing the wheel by duplicating what's existed in the Unix world since the 90's, bro.

Yes, but he wants to use the tracker/peer to reassemble a media stream. That is innovative, although right now you can stream a torrent media file while it is downloading using Utorrent or Vuze. It is not a feed though. It is essentially doing what Netflix and Amazon is doing except that the media stream is a set of multiple peers as opposed to a single media streaming server. VPNs access a single endpoint, not several.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Yes, but he wants to use the tracker/peer to reassemble a media stream. That is innovative, although right now you can stream a torrent media file while it is downloading using Utorrent or Vuze. It is not a feed though. It is essentially doing what Netflix and Amazon is doing except that the media stream is a set of multiple peers as opposed to a single media streaming server. VPNs access a single endpoint, not several.

Perhaps I'm not understanding you but a VPN is the equivalent of you sitting right behind your own Internet connection. You can access multiple endpoints just fine. When you tunnel into a remote server via SSH, the IP that shows up on your outbound connections is the server's IP. A VPN is exactly the same except it traps your entire protocol stack and forces everything in your OS environment out the VPN tunnel whereas individual applications have to be configured to use an SSH tunnel (i.e. setting a SOCKS port in your browser config).

I don't see any innovation here. All I see is using an existing tool over an SSH tunnel, which you can do right now without having to install some random hacker's toolbar. You can configure your torrent client to go over an SSH tunnel. However, using SSH or VPN is safer if the other end is in a foreign country that has no copyright treaties with the US.

 

[Overmind One]

Perhaps I'm not understanding you but a VPN is the equivalent of you sitting right behind your own Internet connection. You can access multiple endpoints just fine. When you tunnel into a remote server via SSH, the IP that shows up on your outbound connections is the server's IP. A VPN is exactly the same except it traps your entire protocol stack and forces everything in your OS environment out the VPN tunnel whereas individual applications have to be configured to use an SSH tunnel (i.e. setting a SOCKS port in your browser config).

Yes. The innovation here is using a swarm as the sources as opposed to a true SSH tunnel:

VPNs tunnel to a single source and not a swarm of peers/sources. This allows the bits of the file being streamed to be sourced from thousands or millions of sources instead of one. Unless I am mistaken, I do not see anything doing that except torrents. But true streaming cannot be done like that right now as far as I know. I dont know the particulars, and I refuse to get involved with his project.

I don't see any innovation here. All I see is using an existing tool over an SSH tunnel, which you can do right now without having to install some random hacker's toolbar. You can configure your torrent client to go over an SSH tunnel. However, using SSH or VPN is safer if the other end is in a foreign country that has no copyright treaties with the US.

Not the same. This is a VPN:

VPNs merely allow a tunneling connection to a specific endpoint, whereas torrents use multiple sources, and feed to multiple endpoints. The individual parts are not streams.

 

[Bluce Ree]

See? There are even providers offering SSH services cheaper than VPN.

https://www.tunnelr.com/

The advantage to using an SSH tunnel is that, if the VPN goes down, your browser will quietly keep browsing via your Internet connection, inadvertently exposing your IP without the user's knowledge.

With an SSH tunnel, if it goes down, the programs you've configured to go through the tunnel will have no fallback path and simply stop working, which protects the average user.

 

[Overmind One]

See? There are even providers offering SSH services cheaper than VPN.

https://www.tunnelr.com/

The advantage to using an SSH tunnel is that, if the VPN goes down, your browser will quietly keep browsing via your Internet connection, inadvertently exposing your IP without the user's knowledge.

With an SSH tunnel, if it goes down, the programs you've configured to go through the tunnel will have no fallback path and simply stop working, which protects the average user.

Like I said, it will require some work, but the tech and tools are already available. This guy is gonna get busted IMO. He is working with several other hackers, including a few black hats.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Yes. The innovation here is using a swarm as the sources as opposed to a true SSH tunnel:

View attachment 28162

What you're showing here is how Bitorrent works, not SSH. If the "innovation" you're suggesting is the SSH client connects to multiple SSH servers (your "swarm" of servers), you're exposing your IP to multiple servers to which you're tunneling. This is pure shit and offers no protection to the user's identity. All it does is let you download the same way you're doing now except the stream is encrypted. Big whoop. This is useless if one of the peers is an RIAA/MPAA honeypot.

VPNs tunnel to a single source and not a swarm of peers/sources. This allows the bits of the file being streamed to be sourced from thousands or millions of sources instead of one. Unless I am mistaken, I do not see anything doing that except torrents. But true streaming cannot be done like that right now as far as I know. I dont know the particulars, and I refuse to get involved with his project.

Of course it can. Torrents and P2P networks work exactly that way. Adding an SSH tunnel just encrypts the stream but it doesn't hide your IP from the server serving the SSH tunnel. Pirates are caught not because their streams are sniffed but because one of the peers on the network happens to be an RIAA/MPAA honeypot. Then you're screwed.

Not the same. This is a VPN:

View attachment 28163

VPNs merely allow a tunneling connection to a specific endpoint, whereas torrents use multiple sources, and feed to multiple endpoints. The individual parts are not streams.

Bro, SSH tunnels to a single server are just like a VPN. What you're suggesting is multiple SSH tunnels to different servers, which can also be done with VPN.

Yes, Virginia, you can have multiple VPN connections up at the same time. In Windows, it's just like being connected to multiple Wifi or wired networks.

Although they both have the capability, it's much simpler with SSH. With multiple VPNs up, you'd have to configure each client software/connection to bind specifically to each VPN IP.

Your SSH thing can still be done right now. You can run multiple instances of PuTTY or something more clever like SuperPuTTY, which allows you to open multiple SSH connections at once to different servers.

https://code.google.com/p/superputty/

Your buddy's solution is basically multiplexing SSH tunnels. I still see no innovation here.
--- merged: May 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM ---

Like I said, it will require some work, but the tech and tools are already available. This guy is gonna get busted IMO. He is working with several other hackers, including a few black hats.

Brother, on this we are in 100% agreement. With such a shit idea that obfuscates nothing, I give it all of 5 minutes into him testing his own creation before he gets caught.

 

[Overmind One]

What you're showing here is how Bitorrent works, not SSH. If the "innovation" you're suggesting is the SSH client connects to multiple SSH servers (your "swarm" of servers), you're exposing your IP to multiple servers to which you're tunneling. This is pure shit and offers no protection to the user's identity. All it does is let you download the same way you're doing now except the stream is encrypted. Big whoop. This is useless if one of the peers is an RIAA/MPAA honeypot.



Of course it can. Torrents and P2P networks work exactly that way. Adding an SSH tunnel just encrypts the stream but it doesn't hide your IP from the server serving the SSH tunnel. Pirates are caught not because their streams are sniffed but because one of the peers on the network happens to be an RIAA/MPAA honeypot. Then you're screwed.





Bro, SSH tunnels to a single server are just like a VPN. What you're suggesting is multiple SSH tunnels to different servers, which can also be done with VPN.

Yes, Virginia, you can have multiple VPN connections up at the same time. In Windows, it's just like being connected to multiple Wifi or wired networks.

Although they both have the capability, it's much simpler with SSH. With multiple VPNs up, you'd have to configure each client software/connection to bind specifically to each VPN IP.

Your SSH thing can still be done right now. You can run multiple instances of PuTTY or something more clever like SuperPuTTY, which allows you to open multiple SSH connections at once to different servers.

https://code.google.com/p/superputty/

Your buddy's solution is basically multiplexing SSH tunnels. I still see no innovation here.
--- merged: May 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM ---


Brother, on this we are in 100% agreement. With such a shit idea that obfuscates nothing, I give it all of 5 minutes into him testing his own creation before he gets caught.

Like I said, Im not totally in the know about what he is doing and I dont want to be. But the way he described it seems like this little gem:

http://www.bitlet.org/video

 

[YJ02]

Meh...not worth $10.00/month...sorry Warner!

yeah,exactly

i get a kick out of some of these obscure streamers on ROKU, they want you to pay (more then NETFLIX) to get access to totally bad "b" movies and stuff from the 40's and 50's

also, after cruising through NETFLIX last night I see where all of CONTINUUM S1 is on now as well as FRINGE S1-4 (prob have S5 after dvd comes out)..seems like a lot of other content is on now as well along with more foreign and indie stuff

i have to take a closer look later

maybe now i will watch continuum S1 with less snark and more openness as I can now be in "control" (another part of my issue with syfy is their f'ing commercials--there are comm then there are syfy commercials)

 

[Overmind One]

I watched this again...GREAT MOVIE! Fun to watch and funny throughout. Im so glad I watched it finally.
--- merged: May 6, 2013 at 12:38 PM ---

yeah,exactly

i get a kick out of some of these obscure streamers on ROKU, they want you to pay (more then NETFLIX) to get access to totally bad "b" movies and stuff from the 40's and 50's

also, after cruising through NETFLIX last night I see where all of CONTINUUM S1 is on now as well as FRINGE S1-4 (prob have S5 after dvd comes out)..seems like a lot of other content is on now as well along with more foreign and indie stuff

i have to take a closer look later

maybe now i will watch continuum S1 with less snark and more openness as I can now be in "control" (another part of my issue with syfy is their f'ing commercials--there are comm then there are syfy commercials)

I love Netflix!

 

[Tropicana]

Glad I'm not the only one that enjoyed Iron Sky. I loved that movie, my exBF didn't however, thought it was a pile of horse manure. We even had an argument over it, lol.

 

[Overmind One]

Glad I'm not the only one that enjoyed Iron Sky. I loved that movie, my exBF didn't however, thought it was a pile of horse manure. We even had an argument over it, lol.

I went in expecting to hate it and I loved it. I have watched it a couple of times now.

 

[EvilSpaceAlien]

So apparently this is a thing now?

 

[Overmind One]

So apparently this is a thing now?

Meh....perhaps the whole thing will thrill me?

 

[Bluce Ree]

I'll give them this much, they're really good with CGI for a group that started as amateur film students using commodity hardware.

They started here with this using desktop hardware and a small green screen in an apartment.

http://www.starwreck.com/