Re: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

From: Randy Saaf <randy_at_mediadefender.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:57:43 -0700

That sounds good. The only difficulty might be if they are running a hardware firewall or something an IT staff needs to configure.
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Saxby
To: Ty Heath; Randy Saaf; qa; Jay Mairs; Ivan Kwok
Sent: Tue Sep 04 06:11:58 2007
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

Randy, Octavio,

I reckon the best way to get this fixed is for me to go into their offices and inspect/adjust the port configuration they are using. All their testing machines are controlled remotely from their office in Kensington so this shouldn't be too much of an issue. Let me know if you agree and I'll try to sort something out with Steff.

Cheers,
Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: Ty Heath
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:15 PM
To: Randy Saaf; Neil Saxby; qa; Jay Mairs; Ivan Kwok
Subject: Re: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

It said their Kad connection was firewalled, which would imply that it is not correctly configured.

But a correctly configured firewall would be okay. And I would argue that most users have a correctly configured firewall because most users just use the windows firewall and xp/vista always asks the user anytime a program tries to open a listening socket.

Also note that its quite possible that they have different clients set to use the same port without understanding that they will interfere with each other and appear firewalled to the outside world, which again is not at all normal for the average user.

Ty


----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Saaf
To: Neil Saxby; qa; Ty Heath; Jay Mairs; Ivan Kwok
Sent: Mon Sep 03 10:39:43 2007
Subject: Re: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

I think we ty and ivan to answer if configing the ports is good enough.


----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Saxby
To: Randy Saaf; qa
Sent: Mon Sep 03 09:35:55 2007
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

Hey,

 

Steff has agreed to send us .met files and details of servers they’ve connected to on a monthly basis… he believes sending this data on a weekly basis would be too resource intensive for EMI, but this should help shed some light.

 

We discussed the firewall issue, but unfortunately the latest contract doesn’t mention that testing machines should not be behind a firewall. Steff also argued that the majority of P2P users would be behind some kind of firewall (windows firewall, zone alarm, firewalls on routers etc) and didn’t perceive removing it to be fair/accurate. He said he has accurately configured the port forwarding for the specific clients. Will this suffice? If it does, I’d be more than happy to go down to their offices to check that this has been done properly.

 

Cheers,

Neil

 

From: Neil Saxby
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:57 PM
To: Randy Saaf; qa
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

 

Gotcha – this was also stated in the last contract I saw.

 

I’ll bring this up with Steff next week. I’ll see if we can get regular .met files and server details too.

 

Cheers,

Neil

 

From: Randy Saaf
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:32 PM
To: Neil Saxby; qa
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

 

Neil:

 

They definitely have to test on unfirewalled computers. There are hundreds of ways to configure firewalls, so for consistency they need to test without a firewall.

 

Cheers,

Randy

 

________________________________

From: Daniel Lee
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:02 AM
To: Neil Saxby; qa
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

 

They ran all of their tests off of three real DonkeyServers. This makes it apparent that they are either not following the proposed methodology or they haven’t updated their server.met files from the site we provided. We should be able to pinpoint the problem if they provide us with their server.met files again.

 

Also, their Kad Network status says “Firewalled.” According to Ty, this doesn’t affect our eMule protection currently, but may in the future. Also, our protection on other networks will definitely be affected if their firewall isn’t configured properly for the Kad network.

 

 

Number of Tests per Server

 

DonkeyServer No2: 2 tests

DonkeyServer No3: 7 tests

DonkeyServer No5: 1 test

 

 

Daniel Lee

 

________________________________

From: Neil Saxby
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 10:22 AM
To: Daniel Lee; qa
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

 

Here are the server details for the eMule tests EMI ran today.

 

Daniel also mentioned that there have been some issues with Soulseek today. They may have tested it already but if they haven’t I’m guessing the earliest they will is at 1am Monday morning PST. That said, they may not test it at all for next week’s result and focus on some of the other networks – it’s hard to see specific patterns in their testing at the moment, but they seem to be consistently testing eMule and supplementing the other networks. Seeing as the recently focused on Soulseek and MP2P – I’m guessing that they’ll now move back to Ares and WinMx (maybe Gnutella too).

 

Cheers,

Neil

 

From: Neil Saxby
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 4:48 PM
To: Daniel Lee; qa
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

 

Hi all,

 

Spoke to Steff today and he’s agreed to send us server names and IP addresses for all of their eMule tests moving fwd.

 

I also pointed out that Soulseek protection been ramped up.

 

Cheers,

Neil

 

From: Neil Saxby
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:16 PM
To: Daniel Lee; qa
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

 

Thanks very much!

 

It was only 5 out 5 tests on Soulseek.

 

According to the testing methodology we agreed to I can see at least 4 questionable fails on eMule. I’ll also talk to Steff about getting server details and get back to you asap.

 

Cheers,

Neil

 

From: Daniel Lee
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:56 PM
To: Neil Saxby; qa
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

 

Hi Neil,

 

We’ve been doing internal tests on the EMI projects you requested. We’ll begin sending you weekly reports on our results. I’ll send a separate email detailing them.

 

For this week’s results, I’ll go through each network they tested below:

 

eMule: 13 fails out of 30 attempts

 

The fails are surprising if they are indeed following the methodology we proposed. We’ll need to know their exact testing methodology to determine why they are getting so many fails on eMule. If they are indeed using the server.met we provided them, then our servers should be at the top of the list (sorted by max users). It would help if they could include which eMule server (name + IP) they tested on for each test so that we could see if they are indeed following the proposed methodology.

 

MP2P (Piolet): 5 fails out of 5 attempts

 

The Piolet fails are the result of this track not being marked as a single in our system. This has been fixed.

 

Soulseek: 23 fails out of 50 attempts

 

We’ve been working with our development team to bring our Soulseek protection up to an SLA level. Based on EMI’s results, it looks like we are close as the max # of pirated files they found for a test was 8. They ran the Soulseek tests last Friday—we have since doubled our Soulseek protection and our results should look much better.

 

 

Daniel Lee

 

________________________________

From: Neil Saxby
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:43 AM
To: qa
Subject: FW: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
Importance: High

 

FYI all – latest results from EMI. They tested on Soulseek, MP2P and eDonkey this time around. Across all tests we’re hitting around 50%. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

Also, have we started any internal testing on EMI tracks yet – would be good to see some results if there are any.

 

Cheers,

Neil

 

From: Hughes, Steffan [mailto:steffan.hughes_at_emimusic.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:36 PM
To: Octavio Herrera; Rick Moreno; Neil Saxby
Cc: Katz, Ruth
Subject: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
Importance: High

 

Dear all,

 

Please find attached the latest monitoring results – apologies for the delay in getting these to you.

 

In general they were still very poor guys. Hanging around 50% passes just isn’t going to cut it. Updating the eDonkey2000 server.met files has also seemingly made little difference to the eDonkey results experienced. Please step up the protection level asap.

 

Any questions, please let me know as usual.

 

Many thanks & best regards,

 

 

Steff

Steffan Hughes EMI Music Anti Piracy

27 Wrights Lane London W8 5SW UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7795 7397 Fax:+44 (0)20 7795 7398

 


- --------------------------------------------------------------------




Music from EMI

This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error please advise the sender immediately by return email and then delete it from your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795 7000.

This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.

Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW

Registered in England No 229231.


- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Fri Sep 14 2007 - 10:55:55 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 16 2007 - 22:19:46 BST