Luigi Auriemma

utorrent is homo because it basically is only a web application, thats why it's such a small program... it needs like 50% of ur internet just to have it open not downloading ^_^

bitorrent seems to work better for me.

i dont know how to "configure max connections"... im not very good with the whole networking subject

i assume "banload" is bandwidth load or something

seth, either way bitorrent will use less internet than utorrent...

Wrong, it's an executable like any other program. It has a webui though where the program can be controlled via another computer. It's so small because they wrote their own custom libraries, and they compact the executable using upx.


If you configure it properly, it won't use up all of your connection -- period. If you are noticing a slowdown, then you may also be running into TCP Event 4226 where Windows itself is limiting your connections (not uTorrent). There are fixes for this online for this.


Bittorent recently aquired uTorrent, if I'm not mistaken. So you're using similar code:
On December 7, 2006, ??Torrent developer Ludvig Strigeus and BitTorrent, Inc. CEO Bram Cohen announced that BitTorrent, Inc. had acquired ??Torrent. BitTorrent, Inc. has employed the code as the basis of version 6.0 of the BitTorrent client which makes it a re-branded version of ??Torrent.

evan, as also Soma stated, I can confirm that uTorrent and BitTorrent are the same thing... not similar, they have just the exact core which is that of uTorrent 8-)

Zonealarm anti-virus detects:
recvtest.exe as Exploit.Win32.Aluigi.hl
and
sendtest.exe as Exploit.Win32.Aluigi.fi

Risk level - HIGH

ah ah ah this is hilarious 8-)
for who doesn't know it, sendtest and recvtest are 2 micro tools to know how much time is needed to send a certain amount of data from a PC to another... I hope for Zonealarm that this is only a false positive otherwise means that who has added the signature (which can be Zonealarm or one of the AV companies from which they have bougth the signatures) is really an idiot even unable to do the job for which he is paid 8-)

thanx a lot Sethioz, this is really interesting. well done.

It's good the fact that it was a false positive (one of the 2 possible hypotesis to which I thought) but it's very strange that a signature has taken in also some "normal" and simple tools like recvtest and sendtest.

Instead I have still received no reply from kaspersky for that thing of the "adv" I reported to them some months ago.

LOL

this is something too funny which I casually noticed yesterday when (casually) visited that stupid siteadvisor website of McAfee:

http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=3398
http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/sear ... ser&u=3398

ah ah ah seems that this bot (hard/boring for a human to do a similar huge job) is classifying as spamming any domain/website listed on the siteadvisor website and McAfee doesn't seem to have noticed it yet :)

oh, and watch also this link about another case of ineptitude from McAfee: http://www.autopatcher.com/2008/11/fake ... e-advisor/

ZoneAlarm (kaspersky):
tcpfp detected as Exploit.Win32.Kreedcrash.b

kreedcrash??? some years ago I found some vulnerabilities in a game called Kreed but tcpfp had nothing to do with the testing (proof-of-concept) of those bugs.
so the "exploit" tag could be valid (tcpfp is a fake players proof-of-concept and the proof-of-concepts are seen as exploit by the antivirus companies, so following their "philosophy" it's ok), my only doubt was about the kreedcrash subcategory

oh poor recv/sendtest... they were some basic and oooold send() and recv() tools which display how much time elapsed during the sending/receiving of random data between 2 computers (one with sendtest and the other with recvtest running).
that's another proof of how these idiots don't know what they do or just use invalid and generic signatures.

the people at symantec are just complete idiots, that's also why this so called "antivirus" is considered one of the worst heavy bloatware existent able to transform a new PC in a 5 years-old PC.

interesting to notice that symantech owns SecurityFocus (for who doesn't know it, it's mailing-list called Bugtraq is used by people, included myself, in all the world to report security vulnerabilities) so it's really ridiculous that they don't have a proper classification for proof-of-concepts (the others use the "exploit" category)... because a "trojan horse" and a proof-of-concept are exactly the opposite thing.

AntiVirus companies made a reputation in mind of who's starting to use a computer. Its a billion market, its most likely that no one need these useless bloatwared antivirus if they know how to use a computer. Its funny how "expert" advise to use "Antivirus Softwares".

Common Sense 2009 is all you need!

and also paranoia which is ever a good thing (obviously if it's not so exagerated to distort the reality ih ih ih)

The best one about the paranoia is the annoying popup balloon

the popup baloon is not paranoia.
with paranoia I mean using minimalistic clients (like the browser without javascript, referrer, images and so on) and operating system (no active services/processes and nothing at execution) plus using only the virtual machine for the "external stuff", continuous monitoring of processes and resources and tons of other things.
that's the positive paranoia :)

I have a PC running pfSense, and I am comfortable with just having that. Never been a huge fan of software firewalls. Used them many years ago but found myself always allowing whatever prompted me for access because it became too annoying. And when you reach that point, the software becomes useless, so I don't use them :P

For unknown programs and files that need testing I just use a virtual machine, or a computer next to me if need be.