AfterDawn: Tech news

Methlabs site moved

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 19 Sep 2005 20:17 User comments (20)

Methlabs site moved As many of you may already have read, the Methlabs team, which are best known for the development of PeerGuardian, a program which assists in keeping privacy on the Internet by blocking known IP addresses have been forced to move their site temporarily to SourceForge. The reason for the move is the disturbing part however. This is from the new Methlabs homepage...
The majority of the administration and development team have been forced out of their web site following a series of threats and incidents. The member of the group that had been trusted to handle the finances and servers slowly managed to take over each individual part of the web site's assets, eventually claiming control over the entire group and locking out the majority of staff.

The organisation's founders, Tim Leonard and Ken McKelland, as well as the majority of the organisation's staff and developers (including the main developer of the PeerGuardian2 application, Cory Nelson and the staff members responsible for auditing the PeerGuardian Blocklists) have all been forcibly removed from the servers that were funded from donations given to the organisation by happy users, and from text advertising placed on the web sites forum and project pages.

The money, which was to have been used to help fund the development and hosting costs of the group is now unavailable, stolen by the one who was trusted to keep it.

Development of PeerGuardian will resume, and the web site will temporarily move to until a new domain is registered and a new server found. The intention of the group is to register a non-profit organisation to handle the development of Methlabs applications and to promote open source projects that aid both security, privacy and peer-to-peer technologies, in order to prevent a repeat of this incident.

The team wish all their users the best through this difficult time, but promise that development will continue. Please visit for news as we make progress. All other sites, including and, are under control of the rogue member and should not be trusted for safe updates to our applications or lists.

A new build of PeerGuardian will be released soon to reflect these changes. Until then we ask you to continue using Beta 6a but with caution as the list update servers are no longer under our control and may be unsafe. Please read our guide to securing Beta 6a to ensure you are safe.

It is worth mentioning that PeerGuardian 2.0 Beta 6b has been released. Update is recommended by the Methlabs team to ensure your privacy and safety.

PeerGuardian for Windows 2000/XP/2003 v2.0 Beta 6b:

PeerGuardian for Windows 98/ME v2.0 Beta 6b:

Thanks to FuRiOuS1 for sending me the email notifying me several days ago. My apologies again for the delay getting it online.

Also, thanks to venomX05, zdhonda and Alien13 who sent News Submissions also.

New Methlabs Site

Previous Next  

20 user comments

119.9.2005 21:49

Things like this have a way of working themselves out. "stolen by the one who was trusted to keep it. " There are those in the community that will find you. Sleep with one eye open!

219.9.2005 22:25

I dont know why theyd do it though i mean, do they work for the mpaa,RIAA, or something, did he do it just so for that short time he could let the mpaa and RIAA into peoples computers??

319.9.2005 23:15

As I read it....I just couldn't believe it. How sad that this actually happened. Well...all I have to say, is what comes around goes around, so they'll get theirs in the end.

420.9.2005 9:40

hold on i've just been to there site and they say that any emails sent to you, you are told to ignore it as there servers and data have been hacked or used by former staff member as they've gone against p2p file sharing, there's 2 sides to this story so what the hells going on here?

520.9.2005 11:08

The site was hijacked by a member of the staff over at the old methlabs , even the site founders themselves d3f and method have said this, Of course there are 2 sides to evey story. just keep in mind that only 2 staff members remain at the old methlabs site, and the rest of the staff and developers are located at source forge.

620.9.2005 12:16

Switching to ProtoWall temporarily, at least.

720.9.2005 21:26

via con dios, consoledor.

821.9.2005 0:11

just thought i'd let y'all know methlabs has been reborn and now known as pheonixlabs :)

921.9.2005 0:22

Cool and what is your name on the forums, i need to enter a referrer name??

1021.9.2005 0:27

If anyone needs a referrer name when signing up for pheonixlabs just tell em PFCdude sent ya ;)

1121.9.2005 0:31

Cool thanks im now registered, as the same name i am now :)

My Sig.. By ME!

Join us on ad_buddies-
My site -
Mine and DVDback23's Forum -

1221.9.2005 5:58

This is all so sad. Its like a divorce. To sides.. no common sense. None of it makes sense. So I am going to just get my lists from other sources and stay out of it. I like but come on. Its childish. I don't think the website got hijacked. If it was there would be a lawsuit. Sounds like methlabs was just a bunch of friends who ran a little buisness with no legal basis and someone got into a fight with another person and they took the keys to the shop. But if that was the case file a lawsuit? Why would they give up on all that work? And if it was a money issue why wasn't the site just shut down... MAKES NO SENSE.

1323.9.2005 0:24

alot of it didnt make sense to me at first, but later on after talking to the excluded staff members it was appearant what had happend, there are talks of legal action , but i dont have any detail on that i'll leave that too method and the others. sad but true things change but this time i feel for the best, if you know the story of the phoenix then you will understand thats why d3f and method decided on phoenixlabs. like i said before methlabs is reborn and were back :)

1423.9.2005 4:10

I guess at this point its best to stay neutral and download lists from both groups.

1523.9.2005 8:03

This could be a simple squabble amongst the members or worst yet it could be the MPAA and RIAA bribing a member against his fellows members. A bit scary when you’re relying on their lists to keep intruders off your system. It would be nice to compare old lists against the new ones to see if former blocked sites are now allowed. I guess all one can do is cross their fingers and hope for the best. Who do you trust and if you download both lists will one negate the other?

1623.9.2005 8:09

All good questions of which I don't have the answers. I don't think its an MPAA/RIAA attack. They don't need to do something like that. That is what they pay lawyers and mediasentry to do. I would just say get lists from both and there is other sites that have there own blocklists.

1727.9.2005 0:20

Update,Great News, The old domains are now under possession of Phoenix Labs , will have more details later on.

1827.9.2005 13:32

There seems to be a problem with checking for updated lists, links aren't valid. It has been suggested using Beta 6b I have not tried this yet but I know 6a doesn't link to the new lists.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Sep 2005 @ 13:48

1925.4.2007 1:28

I got pg2 from pheonixlabs as my pc crashed ( I had the one from methlabs) and as soon as I installed it Bitdefender popped up saying that there was adware and spyware in the program. I'm not one bit happy with that so I'll be tring the sourceforge version and if thats the same I'll have to try something else. PITY cos it was such a good program

2025.4.2007 4:42

Vendors will spy on you ... fact of life .... and now those brain defect monkies are giving licence to vendors for digital trespass!!

it's becoming legal !!

The following report is taken from InfoWorld

April 24, 2007

Spy Act Only Protects Vendors and Their DRM
Filed under: None

Here we go again. Congress has decided it needs to protect us from spyware, but - surprise, surprise - the bill they are most seriously considering actually offers no help in that regard. What's worse, the bill seems designed to make it harder for you to legally go after those who spy on you, particularly if they are doing so to determine if you're authorized to use a software product.

Last week a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved H.R. 964, the Spy Act, which bans some of the more blatant forms of spyware such as those that hijack computer or log keystrokes. The bill now goes to the full committee for approval, and it's expected to move quickly as it has strong bipartisan support.

But why? There are already plenty of federal and state laws regarding computer fraud, trespass, and deceptive trade practices that make spyware illegal. The existing laws have been sufficient to allow the FTC and/or state attorneys general to even successfully go after some of the nastier adware companies like Direct Revenue and Zango/180 Solutions. So what is the purpose of this law?

A clue can be found in the Limitations section of the Act, which features this rather broad exception:

Exception Relating to Security- Nothing in this Act shall apply to--

(1) any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service, or a protected computer, by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service or interactive computer service, to the extent that such monitoring or interaction is for network or computer security purposes, diagnostics, technical support, or repair, or for the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities; or

(2) a discrete interaction with a protected computer by a provider of computer software solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software, that occurs upon -- (A) initialization of the software; or (B) an affirmative request by the owner or authorized user for an update of, addition to, or technical service for, the software.

In other words, it's perfectly OK for basically any vendor you do business with, or maybe thinks you do business with them for that matter, to use any of the deceptive practices the bill prohibits to load spyware on your computer. The company doesn't have to give you notice and it can collect whatever information it thinks necessary to make sure there's no funny business going on. And by the way, another exception provision specifically protects computer manufacturers from any liability for spyware they load on your computer before they send it to you. Of course, the exception for software companies checking to make sure you're an authorized user is the strongest evidence of what this bill is all about. After all, in terms of function, there's not much difference between spyware and DRM. Too bad for Sony this bill wasn't already the law when its rootkit-infected CDs came to light.

Another disturbing aspect of the bill is its enforcement provisions. The bill very specifically pre-empts all state laws that regulate "unfair or deceptive conduct" similar to that covered by the Spy Act. Now, the state spyware laws are pretty useless anyway, so that may not seem like a big problem. But the bill vests all enforcement power in the FTC and says that "no person other than the Attorney General of a State may bring a civil action" under the law. Private rights of action under state consumer protection laws are eliminated. So if you're victimized by a spyware-like deception and want to sue the perpetrator, you've got to talk the FTC or your state attorney general into taking up your case.

Let's sum up. If the Spy Act become law, hardware, software, and network vendors will be granted carte blanche to use spyware themselves to police their customers' use of their products and services. Incredibly broad exceptions will probably allow even the worst of the adware outfits to operate with legal cover. State attempts to deal with the spyware problem will be pre-empted and enforcement left up almost entirely to the FTC. Gee, what's not to like in that deal?

If Congress' approach on this sounds vaguely familiar, it should. It's basically the same formula Congress adopted four years to deal with spam. As we know, the dreadful Can Spam Act of 2003 proved to be the "Yes, You Can Spam Act." If wiser heads in Congress don't prevail - and who knows if there are any - I fear the Spy Act of 2007 will just prove to be the "Vendors Can Spy Act."

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive