Hey guys im new here and im not sure if this is the right place for this.
Im currently using a belkin router modem and noticed that an unknown pc is connected to my network as i see him on my DHCP Client List, can this be one of the seeders/peers?
No, it’s not. All bitcomet peers reach you via tcp or udp internet connections. If you have someone connecting directly to your LAN, then either you have an unsecured wireless connection (very unwise) or you’ve been hacked.
Assuming your using wireless, setup encryption in your router. If your using encryption, then change your password/keys asap.
An additional security option would be to restrict connections to only the MAC addresses of your computers.
I keep wondering what does this have to do with Feature requests?
Anyway, actually, the only industry-wide accepted security method is setting at least WPA security method on the wireless router (preferably WPA2) with AES encryption. For enterprise environments it would use an external AAA server along with 802.1X security standard implementation, for which the home-user equivalent is more or less the WPA2 security level.
Restricting the list of MAC addresses and disabling SSID broadcast, are recommended complementary measures, but they are not regarded as security measures per se, since it’s trivial to overcome both of them at present time.
Setting the security level to at minimum WPA and setting a hard to guess password that only you know and others couldn’t guess, is the main foundation of wireless security these days.
If you do that, no script kiddie should be able to penetrate your wireless network, unless your have a keylogger, trojan or bot already installed on your system.
I also think that limiting a wireless router to known MAC addresses is much more secure than WEP or WPA.
You don’t have to consider whether a password is secure or not, or whether anybody knows you well enough (or is just shrewd enough) to guess it or crack it. And if somebody DOES manage to connect, you are more likely to notice – because the real authorized computer is getting interfered with.
Because of the nature of wireless, it is entirely possible that this connection is entirely innocent.
Wireless Network Interface Cards are set by default, to latch onto the strongest wireless signal that they can detect. Since WiFi has a range of only about 300 feet or so at best, that signal is USUALLY and PRESUMPTIVELY, the one from your own wireless router. But suppose your router goes down for some reason, and you don’t realize that?
Then, the strongest signal your wireless NIC can find is your neighbor’s wireless router. He has not secured his router either, so your card hops aboard his connection. It’s quite possible for this to happen for a long time without you ever necessarily noticing this. Your own router might be down for hours, or days, or weeks, or months before you happen to notice that it is down. Or, the power goes out, comes back on, this resets your router, and next time you boot up, you connect to your own router again.
You’ve been using your neighbor’s network connection for months, but neither of you ever noticed. You never intended to, you didn’t even know that you were. IF you look at it today, you’re not. So if your neighbor tells you that you have been using his connection all this time, you might not even believe him. But the only evidence of that on your system would be very subtle, if there even is any.
I oppose laws that make this kind of thing illegal, because it can happen by accident and without any intent. If you have not secured your own network, then you haven’t bothered to put up a “No Trespassing” sign, and don’t have any business complaining about trespassers. You shouldn’t be able to either sue them or prosecute them if you haven’t taken the basic steps to secure your network. Not knowing any better isn’t an excuse.
Chances are good that if you simply kick this unknown device off of your network, it won’t come back.
MAC address authorization usually allows not just specifying of permitted MAC addresses, but also allows blocking by MAC address, so you can specifically block this one if it does tend to come back.
Even THAT doesn’t mean it’s intentional – it might just mean that your neighbor still hasn’t noticed that his router is down. Why should he? As far as he can tell, his internet connection has been working. Nothing necessarily tells him that it’s your internet connection, not his, that he’s been using.
There are no easy ways for a regular user to overcome WPA2 (or even WPA for that matter) encryption. For a brute-fore attack, the processing power required is just too great, and it would take a very long time to break it.
Even for a dictionary attack it would take quite a while, since the association process lasts usually at least a second.
WEP is very weak (as a security algorithm, not the encryption method itself) and is susceptible to sniffing, and therefore discommended as a security setting on a wireless router (unless it’s the only option available, in which case you should buy a new router).
OTOH, overcoming MAC address filtering is a real trifle, once you’ve got a hold of the target MAC address. You can even do that in the Windows’ “Properties” interface of the NIC.
You needn’t interfere with the target victim, unless you’re sloppy. You can choose to connect for the first time, at a moment when you know for sure that the victim is not at home (or sleeping or whatever) and then create a new rule allowing a different MAC, that you’ll use to connect further.
You can keep connecting at times when the user’s prone not to be working on his PC, so that he won’t have a chance to check on the router and spot you (unless he’s a security freak who checks the router logs).
Therefore, by the time he realizes that someone else was connected to his router (if ever) all the intended damage can be long done (data theft, sabotage, spying, etc.).
“War-driving” is only the most “innocent” form of breaching security and actually, security measures are intended to also cover you for the more grave effects such as those above.
So, as you can see MAC filtering is far from being (by itself) a reliable security measure. It’s still recommended, but only as a complementary measure.
But of course, everyone is fully entitled to judge what may be a good enough security plan for them depending on the level of threat they estimate to be present. 
I corrected my initial post to more accurately say what I intended to say. I would never recommend using only mac filtering.