Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
#2Sounds like a very restrictive tracker... but I guess the more restrictive, the more likely it has good stuff. Seems kind of strange though because most trackers I have seen just completely ban any sort of proxy or VPN.
Re: Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
#3Stuff like this is why I usually go for network namespaces + (wireguard / socks / iptables) when I need to isolate traffic.
> The tracker in question that I wanted to get this working for explicitly forbids running development builds of approved BitTorrent clients.
Also didn't realize trackers were that strict about clients. I've seen some ban buggy versions / sketchy clients (usually cloud-based or for mobile), but that's usually a for-your-own-good type thing. Major names like QBT are usually fine regardless of version.
Re: Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
#4Sounds like a very restrictive tracker... but I guess the more restrictive, the more likely it has good stuff. Seems kind of strange though because most trackers I have seen just completely ban any sort of proxy or VPN.
why ban VPN? what about seedboxes?
Re: Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
#5Sounds like a very restrictive tracker... but I guess the more restrictive, the more likely it has good stuff. Seems kind of strange though because most trackers I have seen just completely ban any sort of proxy or VPN.
Is it because of some game theoretic information exposure? Or is this more about that you can't trust any of the VPN providers.
Re: Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
#6Sounds like a very restrictive tracker... but I guess the more restrictive, the more likely it has good stuff. Seems kind of strange though because most trackers I have seen just completely ban any sort of proxy or VPN.
why ban VPN? what about seedboxes?
>why ban VPN?
It's harder to ban people if you allow using VPNs.
Re: Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
#7Stuff like this is why I usually go for network namespaces + (wireguard / socks / iptables) when I need to isolate traffic. > The tracker in question that I wanted to get this working for explicitly forbids running development builds of approved BitTorrent clients. Also didn't realize trackers were that strict about clients. I've seen some ban buggy versions / sketchy clients (usually cloud-based or for mobile), but…
The private torrent site crowd are very restrictive on which clients are allowed and even big names like qBit aren't safe enough to assume the version is allowed.
Re: Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
#8Stuff like this is why I usually go for network namespaces + (wireguard / socks / iptables) when I need to isolate traffic. > The tracker in question that I wanted to get this working for explicitly forbids running development builds of approved BitTorrent clients. Also didn't realize trackers were that strict about clients. I've seen some ban buggy versions / sketchy clients (usually cloud-based or for mobile), but…
The private torrent site crowd are very restrictive on which clients are allowed and even big names like qBit aren't safe enough to assume the version is allowed.
Although the identification is literally just a string you send when connecting, easy to spoof.
Re: Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
#9Re: Rejected announces from libtorrent clients proxying through SOCKS
#10All that and he didn't even test it with the tracker in the end? What an anticlimax.