Talk:PeerGuardian

message: This article suggests there is a linear progression in the development or PeerGuardian 1, 2 and then PeerBlock, but that is not what is happening really.
The version 2 and PeerBlock can in fact be considered forks which have degraded the features and limited the support to Win32 platforms.
On the other hand the PeerGuardian 1 client keeps cross-platform compatibility and is still maintained (last release is March 2015).
This article needs an overall revision to put upfront the "original" version of peerguardian, which is still well maintained, and frame all other versions as failing forks (which are indeed discontiued). jaromil (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion between versions/forks

message: I split up the different versions into their own sub-sections, added more content there around the new features and new references. I also added a new separate criticisms section based on general blocklist issues, rather than the application itself (ie. critics of the technique). any comments or further info appreciated Cubrilovic (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Housekeeping

message: I removed the suggestions that a binary search was a fast way to check each IP address the block list, since it's not close to being accurate. A few faster options include:
*hash-based quick-lookup table, say 32k entries with a single bit per entry to indicate if an IP address a possible candidate based on the matching "bad" ranges in the list. Since few will be blocked, a single fixed-time lookup eliminates most scans. 32k is probably too large since it takes 4k to store and it's desirable to cache in L1 or L2.
*bin-based short-circuiting of the first few binary search entries. Say 256 bins with the highest byte or the IP addres if the data is in that order.
*hash-based recent IP list with quick yes/no result checking, similar to the quick lookup table but with the actual result for IPs which have been checked. This exploits the comparatively small number of IPs any end user system is likely to encounter.
Jamesday 07:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting idea. I read that Bloom filters were used for early spell checkers (in a C book whose name I have forgotten). IP addresses are easy to hash too - since the ranges are generally linear - i.e. 111.111.012.* to 111.111.013.*. If you only try and get class C plus maybe 1 bit - that would give you 48 million address buckets - say 1% are bad - you'd only need a 600 k bloom filter to get a 1% false positive rate. And an 2400 k filter would give you a 0.001% false positive rate. Megapixie 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary search speed 

message: Seems like the bulk of the "Criticisms" section talks a lot about the basic functionality of the software -- rather than addressing this as a criticism, the information should simply be added to the main body of the article to explain what it does (using a flat, neutral tone). If there is room to criticize what the application does, then that should go in the Criticism section. Additionally, if someone can add details about what information can/can't be retrieved by a peer, with and without using PeerGuardian (so a comparison chart of sorts), that would be very helpful in explaining the function of this program and what benefit it provides to privacy/security. VanishingUser 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring needed 

message: Three edits ago, Leeisl changed the latest version number to 2.0 Beta 6c, instead of 6b. I wonder if this is really an official release, because I can't find it on either Phoenix Labs or their project page on SourceForge...
--Unsound 08:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta 6c is where? 

message: I added a section on privacy since the article does not mention the issue.  Users of PeerGuardian should be aware the software does not offer any guarantee to users that they will operate anonymously.Goodpaster 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, it isn't intended for anonymity as far as I can see, it is designed to try to keep instances like the RIAA out of the door. Of course it can not guarantee anything, nothing is to stop above and other organisations from using different IPs, but on the other hand the blocklists keep getting updated. This section should be expanded. I'll have a closer look at the software and see if I can do something with this. --Wouter de Groot 11:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy 

message: The image description claims that it shows PeerGuardian 2 running in Vista but the PeerGuardian website states that there is currently no Vista support.  Which is correct?  Is it a beta?  What?  98.223.170.167 (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the image is called Pg2rc1vista.png, I would assume the 'rc1' stands for 'release candidate', meaning it is sort of in beta cncplyr (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this there is a proof of concept version that shows limited functionality under Windows Vista. Think outside the box 11:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Is there something like this for linux? Or is there no need for it? 88.68.222.37 (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternative for linux? 

message: This article describes Peerguardian as: "capable of blocking incoming and outgoing connections based on IP blocklists". But it doesn’t explain why anyone would want to do this, or who might use such a program, or how it works, or the basics of how you use it. I came to this article because the official site doesn’t explain what it is, it just says it’s an “ip blocker for Windows” (and according to Wikipedia, the software is cross-platform).
I’ve been using Peerguardian for the past few years now because someone told me it was vital to protect my computer. But I have recently read something about Peerguardian being for P2P software. I don’t use P2P software, so now I’m wondering if I should even have this program installed, and what exactly it’s for? I know for a fact that it has prevented me from accessing several websites that are perfectly safe, but I figured it was doing an important job. But if this program only has something to do with P2P then I will uninstall it, because it’s a nuisance.
Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Peerguardian? 

message: From Peer Block:
:"PeerBlock is a new version (aka a "fork") of the popular Peer Guardian 2 software"
and from About (Peer Block):
:"PeerBlock is actually based on the same code used to create PeerGuardian - specifically, the "PG2 RC1 Test3" Vista beta version. That code had a LOT of bugs in it, and hadn't been updated for about two years. So I started up this PeerBlock project to fix all those things that'd been annoying me for so long. A bunch of other people decided to pitch in and help out, some with development, some with testing, and now we're where we are today."
:"So compared with old PeerGuardian software, PeerBlock is much more stable, doesn't require nearly so many hacks/workarounds to get working on Vista/Win7, and is actually under active development ... so we can (and will!) actually respond to new bug reports of feature requests."
Should this be incorporated into the article? Nitpick: I wish they would decide on the program's spelling — Peer Block or PeerBlock?-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Block