News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by anaganisk on Monday May 29, 2023 @10:14AM (#36114205)
Why would this affect torrenting, isn't this only for explicitly added port forwards? Or am I missing something?
Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by armada651 on Monday May 29, 2023 @10:19AM (#36114253)
It wouldn't be very helpful in preventing abuse if you could still forward ports through UPnP.
Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by switch007 on Monday May 29, 2023 @10:18AM (#36114243)
Torrenting requires an open port accessible from peers for good speeds
Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by reisse on Monday May 29, 2023 @10:57AM (#36114618)
For torrenting at least one of the peers has to be accessible for outside world, either by having white IP, by using NAT with port forwarding, or by using IPv6-to-IPv4 shenanigans. If both peers are behind NAT, they cannot download data from each other.

If you're an active seeder, it makes sense to configure your machine so that it is accessible for all the peers, including ones behind NAT. If you're just a leecher though, it makes little difference.

Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by SparkyMcUnicorn on Monday May 29, 2023 @12:14PM (#36115305)
It will affect leeching torrents that don't have a ton of seeders. No forwarding could render a torrent unusable that would otherwise download just fine if you had an open port.
Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by toxik on Monday May 29, 2023 @02:19PM (#36116481)
My experience resonates with this, if you have a torrent that isn't coming home, make sure you're actually reachable.
Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by colinsane on Monday May 29, 2023 @05:53PM (#36118554)
is this an issue only for magnet/DHT transfers? or does it apply to torrents that have an associated tracker too? i would have expected in the latter case that two NAT’d clients could connect to the tracker, and then the tracker could help them hole-punch a direct peer-to-peer connection.
Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by the8472 on Monday May 29, 2023 @06:07PM (#36118683)
Try to extrapolate. If nobody has an open port to which a connection can be established, how will the network work?

Trackers don't enable hole-punching, existing peer connections do[0]. And hole-punching is hardly a reliable measure to base your network on, if NAT or connection-tracking is implemented in an address-/port-dependent manner[1] then hole-punching becomes more complicated or fails, especially for TCP.

[0] http://bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0055.html [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4787.html#page-6

Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by reisse on Monday May 29, 2023 @07:01PM (#36119127)
It does apply to all torrents. As far as I know, by default torrent trackers provide no facilities for hole punching.

However, if you have a tracker in a sense of "community of people dedicated to file sharing", there will be guides on how to do a proper setup even behind carrier-grade NAT. For example, one of the trackers I know suggested using Teredo (IPv6-to-IPv4) tunneling to do the hole punching.

Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by anacrolix on Monday May 29, 2023 @07:36PM (#36119394)
Trackers aren't used for this, but a mutually accessible peer can be used for hole punching.
Re:Mullvad: Removing the Support for Forwarded Ports by anacrolix on Monday May 29, 2023 @07:35PM (#36119387)
This isn't completely correct. At least one peer in the entire swarm needs to be accessible. Holepunching (BEP 55) can assist in the rest (albeit it's not ideal).