New app claims to mask your identity on P2P for $ 5.95 a month

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article New app claims to mask your identity on P2P for $ 5.95 a month.

Since the RIAA goes after P2P  users, there are always new applications that promise to hide your identity on P2P networks  safely. AnonX is the newest attempt.AnonX is the first...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7728-New-app-claims-to-mask-your-identity-on-P2P-for--5_95-a-month.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7728-New-app-claims-to-mask-your-identity-on-P2P-for--5_95-a-month.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

There’s one mug born everyday


#3

Nice, but: To what extend can we trust them? Can I be sure they are not related to some law enforcing organization willing to spy and trap people? What would prevent RIAA, MPAA, BPI, BSA or even FBI or NSA from setting up such a service?


#4

I think the only protocol I would trust is two proxies. The first is used for a key exchange between you and your destination. But the proxy hides both IPs. Then you disconnect and connect through the second proxy which is only used for data transfer. So the second proxy could not attempt a man in the middle attack for you key. Meaning it can’t read the data. The proxy hides your ip from your destination and your destination IP from you. This would be possible because the proxies would also operate as super nodes and maintain a virtual ip address table. Matching up fake ip addresses to the actual ones. In the end what you have is a system where you know what your sending but don’t know who you’re sending it to. They know what they’re getting but they don’t know where they’re getting it from. And the proxy knows where it’s coming from and where it’s going but doesn’t know what it is. Still not a perfect system though if one or both of the proxies is compromised. Or flawed who knows what would happen.
[edited by chsbiking on 11.02.2004 18:42]


#5

If “those who would use his service for downloading an unusual amount of copyrighted material will also be banned from his service”, then why should anyone want to use his service anyway?


#6

This thing reeks of a scam


#7

NHJ BV- I agree with you. But take it a step further or two. 1. What is an “unusual amount”. 2. How do they keep track? If they do then Sharman will have a problem explaining why they can’t filter or police their network when this other outfit can. That is what they are claiming in court. It is impossible so someone is lying. RIAA will ask Sharman to go down the street and ask AnonX to show them how. Lol. :r


#8

Not Much Sense paying, only To be censed by a Third Party. No thank…I will pass:(
[edited by megod on 13.02.2004 01:39]


#9

“unusual amount”? heh-heh, this is sooo stoooopid. furthermore, this “special filter” is really easy to get running, but takes a long time to get updated with all hashes known as representing “child porn”.