×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hanging Out at Sun Studio, Where Rock and Roll Was Born (Video)

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the five-for-the-money-six-for-the-show dept.

Music 102

Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, and other greats recorded at Sun Studio in Memphis, TN. It's still there (after a spotty history, including resale and re-opening in the late '80s) -- and it's still analog. Mostly analog, at least; a Pro Tools system is there for people who don't want to pay for an all-analog production. Thousands of tourists (I met a family from Norway who'd come to visit Graceland and Sun) descend on the old building each year just to see the place, and others come to record in the legendary space and what has become a boutique recording studio. I got to chat for a while with Sun recording engineer Matt Ross-Spang about working with the studio's lovingly gathered and restored recording gear, some of it nearly three times as old as he is. (An unexpected bonus: hanging out for a few hours in the Sun control room is a good way to bump into Fluke Holland, former drummer for Carl Perkins and Johnny Cash, who stopped in just after we stopped shooting.) Be warned: there are some bursts of rock-and-roll to listen through.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

102 comments

Culture-product (1, Interesting)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#39672195)

When I look back over rock 'n' roll, I'm embarrassed by how much of my life I spent liking what our society (read: big media) tells us is "culture." It's not culture, it's culture product. That's all Elvis ever was: a cheap, safe way to make "black" music that white people liked.

Find a reputable indie band and stick with it. Listen to indie radio, if you can still find it [savektru.org].

Re:Culture-product (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672215)

Don't you ever get tired of being that asshole that shits all over everything?

Re:Culture-product (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672251)

Snob.

Re:Culture-product (1)

Slalomsk8er (976575) | about 2 years ago | (#39672311)

jup I just got me a magnatune.com lifetime membership the other day for a virtually endless stream of indie music ;)

Shitty bands. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672337)

Find a reputable indie band and stick with it. Listen to indie radio, if you can still find it [savektru.org].

Reputable? You mean there are disreputable indie bands? So, like Pearl Jam or some band would rename themselves a pretend to be indie? Or do they all create a co-op of bands - like farmers do with their farms - and sell their music under their co-op and therefore are indie anymore?

I don't know. Everytime I've went to an indie band show, I was bored, the music sucked mostly, and the people there just looked at me like ... like the way they look at me when I go play tennis at the local country club for big shots - as a guest - pulling up in my beat up Chevy.

Of course, when these "indie" bands get good or are good they then get picked up major lables and become mainstream; which I guess makes them a sell-out or something.

So the only way for an indie band to be reputable is to suck.

Therefore Ladies and gentlemen! Keep indie music alive and only listen to shitty bands!

Re:Shitty bands. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672593)

Of course, when these "indie" bands get good or are good they then get picked up major lables and become mainstream; which I guess makes them a sell-out or something.

So the only way for an indie band to be reputable is to suck.

Therefore Ladies and gentlemen! Keep indie music alive and only listen to shitty bands!

Plenty of bands have done this. A prime example is the flaming lips [wikipedia.org], probably one of the best bands out there on a "mainstream" label.

Re:Culture-product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672431)

It ain't a sin to like 'culture product', anymore than to like cotton candy, but with music, you can enjoy the taste all you want without incurring any of the harm... Fight the powah, pirating all their product for free.

Re:Culture-product (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#39672471)

yeah so you turned into a pussy "I don't know what I like without checking how unpopular it is first" ahole? just listen to it, you should know if you like it or not from that. fuck the establishment and fuck the counter-establishment hipsters. that's a revolution.

you know what's really fucking indie? crack intro chiptunes, yo!

Re:Culture-product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39674455)

My playlist is 40% Rock (Of various types from Queen, to Iron Maiden, to Yes, Dragonforce and Dreamtheater), 20% new music (like Florence and the Machine, Mumford and Sons etc) and 40% 90s Video Game Music. Rock on Star Light Zone.

Re:Culture-product (1)

pszilard (1681120) | about 2 years ago | (#39672565)

As soon as a band becomes really reputable it inherently looses its "indie" nature. Unless you have an (ehmm) modern view what constitutes as "indie" the your definition has nothing to do with "independent" anymore.

I'd say a really reputable "indie" band is just as much of a culture product targeted at the new hipsters generation (or whatever you call it) as Elvis was at his time.

Re:Culture-product (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39673711)

An indie band is a band that's independant of the RIAA labels. Reel Big Fish was once a reputable indie band and made some really good CDs (I love the song "Maggie Mae"). Sadly, they sold out to Britney Spear's label. I only heard the first of their non-indies CDs, and it really sucked. The life was gone from the music. Under the label, the artistry was sucked out of it, the humanity was sucked out of it, it was bland, uninspired, formulaic.

As soon as a band becomes really reputable it inherently looses [sic?] its "indie" nature.

It only loses its indie nature when it signs an RIAA label contract and is no longer independant. Although it does loose its indie nature when it becomes popular, because it's freer to do what it wants.

Re:Culture-product (1)

pszilard (1681120) | about 2 years ago | (#39704679)

I wish I could agree with that, but I can't. I'm a bit lazy so I'll just use an article I read a looon-long time ago. What I think is pretty much summarized in the following two sentences:

"[The term] has also, for years, been sort of the de facto label for an entire subculture of idealistic artists and music fans who place a lot of stock in the idea of making music for yourself or your friends, rather than for profit or popularity,"

"indie is now nothing more than a branding tool: a highly commercial and money-driven movement, more concerned with marketing a particular image instead of culture with a truly independent nature and passion for its art."
(source: http://articles.cnn.com/2006-09-19/entertainment/indie.overview [cnn.com]).

Want examples? Just check out recent Ytube "indie" stars like Gotye. Ar they really making music for themselves and their friends? Not really...

Re:Culture-product (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39673001)

When I look back over rock 'n' roll, I'm embarrassed by how much of my life I spent liking what our society (read: big media) tells us is "culture." It's not culture, it's culture product.

Yes, for 90% of it. But just because the evil bastards at the RIAA labels bankrolled it doesn't mean it's worthless. I will agree that almost all "pop" music is crap, and I, too, prefer indie offerings. But before CD burners, cheap electronics, and the internet, nobody could record music well without a huge pile of cash.

TFS isn't entirely correct. Rock and Roll wasn't started at Sun Studios, it was a gradual merging of black music (the blues) and white music (country and pop). It didn't just spring into being with Elvis and Chuck Berry. The late '50s rock song "Shake, Rattle, and Roll" was a direct ripoff of John Lee Hooker's blues song Shake, Holler, and Run; same tune, most of the same words. George Thorogood's One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer was a cover of two Hooker tunes played together, House Rent Boogie and the song One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer (which Hooker covered from an earlier Blues guy).

Rock and Roll was born in Cleveland in 1952 (the same year I was born) when Alan Freed coined the term. From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]

Albert James "Alan" Freed (December 15, 1921 â" January 20, 1965), also known as Moondog, was an American disc jockey.[1] He became internationally known for promoting the mix of blues, country and rhythm and blues music on the radio in the United States and Europe under the name of rock and roll. His career was destroyed by the payola scandal that hit the broadcasting industry in the early 1960s.

Re:Culture-product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39674081)

And the name "Moondog" came from a blind man who dressed like a cartoon Viking and busked on the streets of New York. Alan Freed had to stop using the name after Moondog sued him and won, supported by the testimony of Benny Goodman.

Re:Culture-product (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#39676121)

It is widely considered that the first rock and roll song was "Delta 88", recorded by Ike Turner at Sun Studios, in 1951.

Re:Culture-product (1)

intok (2605693) | about 2 years ago | (#39690259)

It's also considered to be the earliest recorded uses of a distorted electric guitar. Legend goes that Willie Kizart was taking his gear out of the car and set the amp on the car, it fell off and punched a hole in the speaker cone, when they got inside they stuffed it with newspaper and the sound was born.

Re:Culture-product (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39699343)

Interesting story, but I've heard some old blues from the '40s with distorted guitars. Almost all of John Lee Hooker's songs sound like the amp is cranked up all the way.

Re:Culture-product (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39699283)

I'll have to find the song, but how could it be rock and roll when the term had yet to be coined?

Re:Culture-product (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#39699465)

Alan Freed did not invent rock and roll, he named it. The songs already existed. It wasn't called a rock and roll song when it was recorded, but you can certainly look back and say 'that is the first song that sounds like what I call rock and roll'.

Re:Culture-product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39673201)

Ellis Cashmore, is that you!?

Re:Culture-product (1)

Diss Champ (934796) | about 2 years ago | (#39673927)

"what's the point in not conforming
if it changes you"
- Five Iron Frenzy, "Marty"

I was listening to that this morning, and I think it is apropos.

Listen to what you like. Don't listen to what you don't like. Support the folks you listen to.

audio is a piece of shit (-1, Offtopic)

pszilard (1681120) | about 2 years ago | (#39672259)

Seriously, the audio quality sucks so much that I'd rather listen to Rebecca Black than that!

You mean... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672367)

Oracle Studio?

It's worth the trip (2)

abrotman (323016) | about 2 years ago | (#39672377)

I went to Memphis for Blues and the food, and decided to go over to Sun Studios (Stax Records is also in town and pretty interesting as well). They have a fair amount of memorabilia and they tell you a lot of interesting facts, though if you're a huge fan of that music, you probably already know those facts. If you're stuck in Memphis for 24hrs, it's not near Beale St, but it's close enough, and worth the effort.

Re:It's worth the trip (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672591)

Agreed. I go to Memphis once or twice a year, dependent on my vacation time, and love Sun Studio. I've recorded a bit there (demo stuff, mostly to say that I did), and the folks that work there are pretty awesome. Last time I went there was a REALLY cute girl giving the tour, but she refuses to give out her phone number.

Luxury (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672389)

Analog is a luxury. Like most luxuries, it's not expensive because of quality. It's expensive because it's more laborious and cumbersome. It's like "hand-made", which is marketing-speak for "defects are to be expected and don't justify a warranty claim, despite the high price".

Re:Luxury (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39672711)

Exactly right.

I find it amusing how there's a double standard for quality when it comes to A/V... In a home theater system, marketing a device as "all-digital" implies that it offers uncompromising quality. On the recording side, saying something's digital is seen to imply that it's losing some extra part of the sound that can apparently only be captured in an analog system. This is a debate that's been raging on for all of digital audio's life [maximumpc.com], and it doesn't look like the madness will stop anytime soon.

I can appreciate that an old audiophile wants things to sound exactly how he expects them, which means keeping his old analog system with all its defects, noise, and nostalgia, but let's not force this analog nonsense on future generations under the guise of "better quality".

Re:Luxury (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672855)

it all boils down to emulation versus actually happening. There are a lot of similarities between photography's own analog vs digital issues. such as taking pictures at night. the best digital technology still has problems. anything created by man with an instrument is can either be recorded and processed using vibrations, as it was created with, or you can sample it, 24 thousand times, or 44 thousand times, but it's still only a sampling, and what makes a track awesome could just be lost because in those samples it didn't capture the part of the vibration that makes that sound so cool. that's the analog vs digital dilemma. it's not just nostalgia, it's hoping your nerdy buddy over at the software company has a complete knowledge of how the universe works. which, last I checked, isn't exactly figured out yet.

Re:Luxury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39673071)

There are people who drink water and believe that it's medicine because it once was in contact with something that can cause their symptoms. "Infinite precision analog audio" is exactly as bogus as Homeopathy, and as much of a rip-off. Believe what you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously by educated people if you pay for either of those.

Re:Luxury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39673433)

I don't think you understand what you're saying, or don't know enough about digital audio vs analog audio to even put out what you want to say in the correct context.

Your first statement could even be true, as that's how vaccines are created. Homeopathic medicine can be extremely outrageous, but I find myself with less allergy symptoms by eating a spoonful of locally-made honey once a week during allergy season. I don't inject myself with parts of my body where ever an illness is however. Speak in context.

analog audio is not infinitely precise, you're using microphones so it will never be as precise, as will hearing something through one person's ears who are damaged more than another's. you're now comparing apples to oranges. you can clean up the tape and the heads on an analog machine, but the magnetic resonance is still the same as the vibration. you can record lower quality versions much easier by using lower sampling rates digitally, or higher. get past the pops and crackles, and a record made in the 70's, such as an ELO record, is an actual representation of those players, whereas a cd of the same thing is not the players, but what an algorithm has deemed to be similar to what the players would sound like. It's very very close, but it simply isn't the same. Newer material is recorded from the start in the digital realm, so a new record will never have the same feel as an older record that never had any DA/AD conversion. Now go take your SAT's again.

Re:Luxury (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39673431)

or you can sample it, 24 thousand times, or 44 thousand times, but it's still only a sampling, and what makes a track awesome could just be lost because in those samples it didn't capture the part of the vibration that makes that sound so cool.

Nyquist theorem. Check it out.

Re:Luxury (2)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#39672945)

What is wrong with that? The goal of the playback system is to accurately play the music, as it was recorded. Everything that happens up until the final product is produced is part of the sound of that product. There are very few cases where perfect reproduction of the sound of the instruments is desirable. If you are recording a symphony, are you going to do it in an anechoic chamber, or in a great concert hall? The hall is adding it's own sound to the recording, and the recording is better for it. Why is the decision to record at Sun Studios, with it's analog equipment, any different than the decision to record at Carnegie Hall? Both are adding something to the recording that otherwise wouldn't be there - it is part of the desired sound.

Re:Luxury (4, Insightful)

edremy (36408) | about 2 years ago | (#39673057)

Analog is "better" quality in this case. In the case of recording music using amplified instruments, you don't want perfect sound reproduction. You want the distortion from the amps, you want the reverb from the space, you want the oddities of the tape. Those things are critical to create the proper sound.

If you want to discuss sound reproduction later, yes, analog is a stupid idea compared to (good enough) digital, but there's a reason why guitarists still use tube amps.

Re:Luxury (1)

subreality (157447) | about 2 years ago | (#39676135)

There's a good reason why guitars need tube amps, but what's the point of staying analog after picking it up with the mic? If you need the tape compression sound you can always feed that track through a deck later.

Re:Luxury (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#39676339)

There's a good reason why guitars need tube amps, but what's the point of staying analog after picking it up with the mic? If you need the tape compression sound you can always feed that track through a deck later.

Because during the A/D and then D/A processes, the harmonics generated in tube amp distortion and other natural analog effects and acoustic artifacts including the dynamic range are lost/altered. Once lost, there's no "putting it back in", as you suggest with your "feed that track through a deck later" portion of your comment.

Strat

Re:Luxury (1)

subreality (157447) | about 2 years ago | (#39676575)

Tube distortion isn't lost in a later A/D/A. The harmonics are quite well and alive. Bad A/D is its own problem, but studio quality A/D at high frequencies and bit depths will preserve it much better than tape will. Do you think that the Marshall sound suddenly reverts back to clean when people play it back from a CD?

The "feed it through a deck later" isn't about tube distortion. That's about the "tape compression" sound that drummers and some guitarists love. Why do you think you can't get it by feeding a good digital recording into a deck and then playing it back?

ANY kind of distortion can always be applied later if you have a clean recording, and 24/96 or 24/192 is a much cleaner recording than you'll ever get in the analog world.

Whoosh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39677297)

BlueStrat is obviously making a parody of "audiophiles" who tend to believe these sorts of things. No one in real life could be that stupid.

Re:Luxury (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#39677325)

Tube distortion isn't lost in a later A/D/A. The harmonics are quite well and alive. Bad A/D is its own problem, but studio quality A/D at high frequencies and bit depths will preserve it much better than tape will. Do you think that the Marshall sound suddenly reverts back to clean when people play it back from a CD?

The "feed it through a deck later" isn't about tube distortion. That's about the "tape compression" sound that drummers and some guitarists love. Why do you think you can't get it by feeding a good digital recording into a deck and then playing it back?

ANY kind of distortion can always be applied later if you have a clean recording, and 24/96 or 24/192 is a much cleaner recording than you'll ever get in the analog world.

But they don't *sound* the same for all their digital accuracy. That's the problem with these discussions. It's all subjective and dependent on how individuals hear things.

I used to think much as you did. "What does it matter if the tape compression (or distortion) is added afterwards?"...but for some reason, it *does* matter and *does* make a difference. I've learned this through decades of experience and from some of the very best professional recording and production engineers in the business.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to change what sounds best for them. Again, that's subjective. I'm just saying that other opinions are just as valid, and that it's up to the individual to choose for themselves what sounds best to them. It's like other things in music, like what is the "best" sounding guitar or pickup, or what is the "best" sounding loudspeaker. There is no absolute "right" answer.

Strat

Re:Luxury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39677629)

what's the point of staying analog after picking it up with the mic?

Is this a trick question? If you have a decent multitrack tape machine and can justify the cost of tape... why the fuck would you record digitally?

Re:Luxury (1)

subreality (157447) | about 2 years ago | (#39680831)

Flip it around: if you have a decent multitrack 24/192 ADC, why bother blowing money and effort on tape? The digital setup has dynamic range and response that the tape won't touch, and it's much more convenient to master.

Re:Luxury (1)

Jay L (74152) | about 2 years ago | (#39682545)

If nothing else, because the sounds you (the musician) hear on overdubs will affect the sounds you sing and play. Late binding and lazy evaluation is not always a feature in music production.

Re:Luxury (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39678079)

You're absolutely correct, except for "you want the oddities of the tape". No, you do NOT want the oddities of the tape. You want it to sound as much like a live performance as possible, including the tube amp's clipping distortion and the hall's acoustics.

The anechoic chamber is for listening in, not recording in.

Re:Luxury (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#39673301)

I can appreciate that an old audiophile wants things to sound exactly how he expects them, which means keeping his old analog system with all its defects, noise, and nostalgia, but let's not force this analog nonsense on future generations under the guise of "better quality".

What I find hilarious about people who look down their noses at "old analog systems" and only own digitally-recorded music and digital/solid-state playback equipment is that the majority of what is being recorded is analog to start with.

Take electric guitar amplifiers. The most-desired (and most-recorded) guitar amplifiers (and the flagship models of the largest current makers) are all analog vacuum-tube technology. Musical equipment makers have been trying to push solid-state equipment since the '70s and digital audio equipment since the '80s and it's fallen flat, with the exception of a handful of digital audio equipment (like some delay-based digital effects pedals) that reduced size/cost so much that the advantages outweighed the less-pleasant sound. Even then, those pieces of digital audio equipment are receiving input from, and are sending their output to, analog equipment (and much of it vacuum-tube based).

What many miss is that human ears and the brains that interpret what those ears hear are analog. Digital recordings are great if you want your computer to listen to music as opposed to human ears. Human ears generally find analog recordings, and the sound produced by vacuum tubes, to be a more pleasant listening experience than digital/solid-state.

Analog and vacuum tubes are not going anywhere. If anything, they're trending up, as there is a resurgence in vacuum tube manufacturing and analog recording.

Note: I'm an electronics technician and electric guitarist with ~40 years in both fields. I design & build vacuum tube guitar amplifiers and play semi-professionally (by choice), going on tour when the mood & opportunity strikes.

Strat

Re:Luxury (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39678653)

Note: I'm an electronics technician and electric guitarist with ~40 years in both fields.

Then you understand and should have added that the reason guitarists want tube amps is because of the clipping distortion. If you look at an overdriven tube amp's output on an oscilloscope, the sine wave is distorted into a square wave with rounded corners, while an overdriven solid state amp's clipping distortion clips the signal sharply, giving it a completely different sound.

A lot of guitarists (again, as you know but many here probably don't) will have a small tube amp cranked to 10, with a microphone directly in front of it feeding a solid state, non-overdriven amp. It doesn't sound quite as good but it's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to transport than a single huge tube amp.

The reason analog sounds better than digital is digital's alias distortion. A 15 kHz tone has only three samples at a 44k sample rate, and there's no way to discern the difference between the number of different waveforms with only three samples per crest. If they doubled the bit rate and increased the sampling rate by a factor of 10x, I'm pretty sure digital would blow analog away when it came to fidelity. A saxophone should sound like the saxiphonist wants it to sound, with no distortion that he doesn't deliberately introduce.

Re:Luxury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39679693)

the difference between the number of different waveforms with only three samples per crest

The math and the biology, learn it! There is no need to distinguish more than what these three samples can represent because what makes other waveforms different is too high in the frequency domain for you to hear. You don't have bat ears! A 20kHz sine represented by a 1 -1 1 -1 pattern sounds exactly like a 20kHz square wave, which is therefore rightfully represented by the same 1 -1 1 -1 pattern. The difference between these two analog signals exists, but it isn't audible, because your ears don't register wave forms. The "sensor" in your ear already physically splits the signal into different frequencies, and frequency components above 20kHz simply don't register. (BTW, unless you're still a teen, the cut off is actually much much lower than 20kHz and both signals sound exactly like silence). You can increase the sample rate all you want, it only allows you to record more inaudible stuff that doesn't change the perceptible audio at all. I swear, this is like talking to someone who believes in Homeopathy: The whole concept is bogus and you really want to open their eyes because they'll continue funding frauds, but they know "from experience" that it works and will not let go of their superstitions.

I dusted ur wannabe experts @ SANS, Sarten-X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39675341)

Re:I dusted ur wannabe experts @ SANS, Sarten-X (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39677097)

Woohoo! My very own apk stalker! I win at Slashdot now, right?

U trolled him 1st & he blew u away (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39677201)

apk definitely got the best of U & ur experts here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39677101 [slashdot.org] for ur trollin him 1st here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243 [slashdot.org] so playin victim here only makes u appear the fool + a liar about being a software engineer in ur profile also.

Re:U trolled him 1st & he blew u away (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39677515)

I'll take that as a "yes, you win, Sarten-X! Good job!"

Re:U trolled him 1st & he blew u away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39677665)

Postin ac (don't want Sarten-X trollin me). U FAILED badly http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783135&cid=39677201 [slashdot.org]

Re:U trolled him 1st & he blew u away (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39677785)

Is that you, AlecStaar [slashdot.org]?

This IS (u done more, better, & EARLIER?) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39678165)

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

From only a SMALL PARTIAL LIST of my favorites over time (done before you were BORN possibly, and I'd like to see you produce a better list, and before it too).

Go for it.

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]

It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html [sourceforge.net] or here http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2993462&group_id=199532&atid=969873 [sourceforge.net]

AND lastly: http://g-off.net/software/a-python-repeatable-threadingtimer-class [g-off.net] where I got other programmer's work WORKING RIGHT (in PyThon no less, which I just started learning only 2 week ago no less) by showing them how to use a "Dummy Proxy Function" as I call it, to make a RepeatTimer class (Thread sub-class really) to take PARAMETERIZED FUNCTIONS, ala:

def apkthreadlaunch():
                                      getnortonsafeweb(sAPKFileName = "APK_1_NortonSafeWeb360Extracted.txt".rstrip())

a = RepeatTimer(900, apkthreadlaunch) # 900 is 15 minutes... apk

Where it was NOT working for many folks there, before (submitted to the maker of the RepeatTimer class no less, & yes, it WORKS!)

----

What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10

(And, because I got LUCKY to have been exposed to some really GREAT classmates, professors, & colleagues on the job over time as well)

====

As to some favs. of mine from here on /. & thus, others' opinion of my posts? Ok:

---

Roughly 180++ of them & I post as AC (hard to get even +1, as /. hides our posts & we "AC"'s start @ ZERO/0 points, unlike registered "lusers", lol!):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (6):

HOSTS & BGP:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
FIREFOX IN DANGER: 2011 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2559120&cid=38268580 [slashdot.org]
TESLA:2010 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1872982&cid=34264190 [slashdot.org]
TESLA:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1806946&cid=33777976 [slashdot.org]
NVIDIA 2d:2006 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175774&cid=14610147 [slashdot.org]
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES BUSTED FOR ACCOUNTING FRAUD:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884922&cid=34350102 [slashdot.org]

----

+4 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (4):

APK SECURITY GUIDE:2005 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167071&cid=13931198 [slashdot.org]
INFO. SYSTEMS WORK:2005 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161862&cid=13531817 [slashdot.org]
WINDOWS @ NASDAQ 7++ YRS. NOW:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315 [slashdot.org]
CARMACK'S ARMADILLO AEROSPACE:2005 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158310&cid=13263898 [slashdot.org]

----

+3 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (6):

APK MICROSOFT INTERVIEW:2005 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155172&cid=13007974 [slashdot.org]
APK MS SYMBOLIC DIRECTORY LINKS:2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166850&cid=13914137 [slashdot.org]
APK FOOLS IE7 INSTALL IN BETA HOW TO:2006 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175857&cid=14615222 [slashdot.org]
PROOFS ON OPERA SPEED & SECURITY:2007 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273931&cid=20291847 [slashdot.org]
HBGary POST in Fake Names On Social Networks, a Fake Problem:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2375110&cid=37056304 [slashdot.org]
APK RC STOP ROOKIT TECHNIQUES:2008 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1021873&cid=25681261 [slashdot.org]

----

+2 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (17):

CODING FOR DEFCON (my compressed/packed exe + sizecheck @ startup technique): 2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158231&cid=13257227 [slashdot.org]
HOW DLL API CALL LOADS WORK:2008 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1001489&cid=25441395 [slashdot.org]
WERNER VON BRAUN - A Nazi Scientist used by U.S.A. for rocketry: 2011 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1957608&cid=34933062 [slashdot.org]
APK TRICK TO STOP A MALWARE:2008 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1010923&cid=25549351 [slashdot.org]
DOING SHAREWARE 1995-2004:2007 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233779&cid=19020329 [slashdot.org]
MHTML SECURITY BUG FIX IE:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1973914&cid=35056454 [slashdot.org]
EXCEL SECURITY FIX:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139485&cid=26974507 [slashdot.org]
CODING JOBS OFFSHORING:2007 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=245971&cid=19760473 [slashdot.org]
WE SHOULD PENALIZE & TAX JOB OUTSOURCERS/OFFSHORERS: 2008 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=978035&cid=25176841 [slashdot.org]
BOGUS POLITICIAN PERFORMANCE: 2008 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=978035&cid=25176955 [slashdot.org]
MS PUTS YOU TO WORK:2006 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174759&cid=14538593 [slashdot.org]
ARSTECHNICA & JEREMY REIMER LOL:2008 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1021733&cid=25675515 [slashdot.org]
CYBERSECURITY LEGISLATIONS:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2222868&cid=36379698 [slashdot.org]
FILTERING ONLINE:2010 -> http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1790178&cid=33610372 [slashdot.org]
APK ON PLANTED SHILLS BY TELECOM/ISP/BSP:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1827308&cid=33940988 [slashdot.org]
HBGary & Chinese Water Army b.s. posted: 2012 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2615084&cid=38662598 [slashdot.org]
OPERA & MULTITHREADED DESIGN: 2007 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=290711&cid=20506147 [slashdot.org]

----

+1 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (96) & we AC's start at ZERO, not 1 or 2 like registered users on /. do:

APK SSD/RamDrive/RamDisk usage since 1996:2008 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1014349&cid=25591403 [slashdot.org]
DISASSEMBLY & PROTECTING CODE:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1719570&cid=32907418 [slashdot.org]
APK ON RESERVED PORTS IN WINDOWS:2007 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=235621&cid=19229493 [slashdot.org]
MEMORY FRAGMENTATION: 2007 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=367219&cid=21434061 [slashdot.org]
NORTON DNS & DNSBL:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2311948&cid=36708742 [slashdot.org]
IRON FILESYSTEMS:2007 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=359507&cid=21347933 [slashdot.org]
APK ROOTKIT KILLING TECHNIQUE USING RC:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2428486&cid=37405530 [slashdot.org]
APK STOPPED CONFICKER BEFORE ANYONE DID:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1159209&cid=27178753 [slashdot.org]
APK ON WINDOWS DFS vs. LINUX COPYING FEATURES LIKE IT:2008 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=447752&cid=22361236 [slashdot.org]
WINDOWS #CPU's SUPPORTED (much higher now in Win7/Srv2k8 now, 256):2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1160287&cid=27191729 [slashdot.org]
DISK DEFRAG STRATEGY OPTIONS:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2435272&cid=37443738 [slashdot.org]
APK PART OF ULTRADEFRAG64 PROOF:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2435272&cid=37443252 [slashdot.org]
DATASTRUCTURES & SQL:2011 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080454&cid=35794668 [slashdot.org]
BINARY HEAPS:2010 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1686094&cid=32581292 [slashdot.org]
CACHE COHERENCY:2005 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168793&cid=14070783 [slashdot.org]
DELPHI ROCKS VB/VC++:2007 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236049&cid=19261269 [slashdot.org]
MEMORY FRAGMENTATION IN FF:2007 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=367219&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=21434061 [slashdot.org]
CODING PROFESSIONALLY:2005 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170925&cid=14238424 [slashdot.org]
MULTIPLE MESSAGE QUEUES:2010 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1618508&cid=31847246 [slashdot.org]
APK ROOTKIT.COM ON WINDOWS VISTA IPSTACK SECURITY:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1339085&cid=29106629 [slashdot.org]
USING CSC & SCIENCE TOGETHER IN ACADEMIA:2010 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1531366&cid=30971224 [slashdot.org]
PROGRAMMING CONCEPTS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SYNTAX:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1314993&cid=28827429 [slashdot.org]
SSD DECADES OF USAGE:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1273501&cid=28375697 [slashdot.org]
CODING .NET FROM VB:2006 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176229&cid=14641701 [slashdot.org]
LAMP SECURITY:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2243006&cid=36462748 [slashdot.org]
SLASHDOT "Pro-*NIX" SLANT CONTROVERSY = GOOD:2005 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154725&cid=12974078 [slashdot.org]
WINDOWS vs. IBM vs. LINUX ARCHITECTURE STEALING:2005 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160244&cid=13414756 [slashdot.org]
ADBANNERS & VIRUSES:2005 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169309&cid=14112880 [slashdot.org]
SECURITY BUGS LINUX vs. WINDOWS:2011 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2247480&cid=36485068 [slashdot.org]
NYSE+LINUX STOCK EXCHANGE LIE BY PENGUINS:2010 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1842764&cid=34046376 [slashdot.org]
APK ON PROCESSEXPLORER & NETSTAT:2009 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1328371&cid=28981169 [slashdot.org]
COMPLETION PORTS + SCHEDULING LINUX vs. WINDOWS:2005 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160290&cid=13419053 [slashdot.org]
WINDOWS vs. LINUX SECURITY ISSUES:2009 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1135717&cid=26948399 [slashdot.org]
LINUX IMITATING WINDOWS:2005 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170126&cid=14177851 [slashdot.org]
LINUX SERVING DUQU ROOTKIT: 2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2551740&cid=38215752 [slashdot.org]
WINDOWS vs. Linux SECURITY VULNS UNPATCHED:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2077414&cid=35776848 [slashdot.org]
WINDOWS vs. Linux vs. Mac SECURITY VULNS UNPATCHED:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1681772&cid=32524188 [slashdot.org]
APK Windows vs. Linux on UNPATCHED SEC. VULNS:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35656126 [slashdot.org]
PROOF MS HAD LESS BUGS THAN LINUX/MACOS X:2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=173564&cid=14442403 [slashdot.org]
PROOF MS HAD LESS BUGS THAN LINUX/MACOS X:2006 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=173016&cid=14398069 [slashdot.org]
LINUX & JAVASCRIPT ETC.:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1266651&cid=28307523 [slashdot.org]
APK USING KDE & LINUX:2010 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1750240&cid=33214838 [slashdot.org]
APK CONGRATS TO LINUX:2005 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170296&cid=14192885 [slashdot.org]
APK KUDOS TO LINUX:2005 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162921&cid=13614370 [slashdot.org]
LINUX WENT DOWN 2x in LESS THAN 1 YEAR @ London Stock Exchange:2011 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1999478&cid=35231358 [slashdot.org]
LINUX SECURITY vs. JAVASCRIPT:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1820234&cid=33892258 [slashdot.org]
GENETICS PLAYING WITH GOD'S ENGINEERING on mice: 2011 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2581286&cid=38423712 [slashdot.org]
1 GOOD THING ABOUT HACKER/CRACKERS:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1982796&cid=35119212 [slashdot.org]
MINIMUM WINDOWS SERVICES:2005 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157321&cid=13190570 [slashdot.org]
HIDDEN SECURITY BUGS:2005 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164039&cid=13698742 [slashdot.org]
APK & FIREFOX BUGFIX TEAM:2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161697&cid=13526010 [slashdot.org]
WHY OPERA ROCKS:2005 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170983&cid=14242283 [slashdot.org]
OPERA BEST SPEED & SECURITY: 2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1881444&cid=34333966 [slashdot.org]
OPERA "SUPERIOR WARRIOR":2009 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1309763&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=28768721 [slashdot.org]
OPERA=FASTER & MORE SECURE:2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157615&cid=13208800 [slashdot.org]
OPERA "The Superior Warrior" vs. FIREFOX:2007 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=286721&cid=20452183 [slashdot.org]
OPERA:2007 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233227&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=18969947 [slashdot.org]
OPERA BY SITE PREFS:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1881444&cid=34333758 [slashdot.org]
OPERA 64-BIT "FOR INDEPENDENT SMART PEOPLE" ROUND 1 FOR WINDOWS & MAC RELEASED:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2576256&cid=38388178 [slashdot.org]
OPERA HAS AN ADBLOCK ADDON: 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2579684&cid=38412366 [slashdot.org]
APK SANDBOXING IE:2007 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236547&cid=19310513 [slashdot.org]
APK ON SANDBOXIE:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1875754&cid=34281930 [slashdot.org]
CHROME NEEDS BY SITE PREFS TO SANITYINANARCHY:2011 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2358734&cid=36946676 [slashdot.org]
DO YOUR BEST WORK OUR YOUNG MENS LIVES RIDE ON IT:2010 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898806&cid=34472826 [slashdot.org]
STAT I/II SKEWING:2010 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1504756&cid=30711074 [slashdot.org]
SEARCH ENGINES:2005 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162717&cid=13598832 [slashdot.org]
PORTING CODE:2007 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236367&cid=19291677 [slashdot.org]
DARTH CHENEY POLITICALS:2007 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237091&cid=19362755 [slashdot.org]
WINDOWS EMPLOYS YOU BETTER:2006 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174277&cid=14498965 [slashdot.org]
MS PUTS YOU TO WORK:2005 -> http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169549&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=109&mode=thread&cid=14132540 [slashdot.org]
"666":2008 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=548476&cid=23353722 [slashdot.org]
APK ON HARDCODES & SHELLOPEN ASSOCIATION:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1519842&cid=30854906 [slashdot.org]
DR. DEMENTO SHOW:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1678308&cid=32494990 [slashdot.org]
CA DISREPUTABLE #2 of 2:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884922&cid=34351020 [slashdot.org]
NO PROOF USED BY LOB:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907190&cid=34529734 [slashdot.org]
ON KIDS CODING & ARMCHAIR QB's:2011 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2040490&cid=35508400 [slashdot.org]
FPGA & TERMINATORS:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2341586&cid=36842168 [slashdot.org]
APK ON CHESS:2010 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1877160&cid=34293988 [slashdot.org]
RON PAUL & WIKILEAKS:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907000&cid=34528958 [slashdot.org] /. "CATERING TO CRONIES":2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1664046&cid=32336794 [slashdot.org]
BEING MORE "ALL AROUND" THAN 1 DIMENSIONAL IN IT/IS/MIS:2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166174&cid=13863159 [slashdot.org]
GET RID OF S. BALLMER @ MS:2008 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=543962&cid=23310698 [slashdot.org]
COMBO OF CODER/NETWORKER = MOST DANGEROUS HACKER/CRACKER: 2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2590324&cid=38490476 [slashdot.org]
FACEBOOK ENHANCES mySQL: 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2643681&cid=38857629 [slashdot.org]
APPSTORE/WALLED-GARDEN DL OF APPS WON'T HELP vs. TODAY'S INFECTION VECTORS: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2655681&cid=38943319 [slashdot.org]
REGISTRY ACCESS WINDOWS 32-BIT vs. 64-BIT in code: 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2680271&cid=39093835 [slashdot.org]
2nd REGISTRY ACCESS WINDOWS 32-BIT vs. 64-BIT in code: 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2680271&cid=39093873 [slashdot.org]
CHINESE "CYBER-WAR" THREAT: 2012 -> http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718289&cid=39312311 [slashdot.org]
ON DR. MARK RUSSINOVICH MS DESKTOPS APP & MORE: 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2741569&cid=39445275 [slashdot.org]
DEFENDING STEVE GIBSON OF SPINRITE + "SHIELDS UP" vs. DEFAMATION: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2747957&cid=39479257 [slashdot.org]
OS/2 & What I thought was cool about it & when I used it: 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2761033&cid=39550525 [slashdot.org]
ActiveX Usage in Korea still "huge": 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2767885&cid=39584683 [slashdot.org]
On "insta-downmods" & /. "fine moderation" (b.s.!): 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2772023&cid=39606941 [slashdot.org]
ROMAN MARONI (lol) = arth1 "murder of the English Language": 2012 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2773803&cid=39617941 [slashdot.org]
FLASHY FLASH DRIVES: 2005 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154997&cid=12998477 [slashdot.org]
ROOTKIT CREATORS "GO PRO": 2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165958&cid=13843462 [slashdot.org]
MS LESS SECURITY ISSUES THAN *NIX in 2005: 2006 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=173564&cid=14441639 [slashdot.org]
OPERA ROCKS & WHY: 2007 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233227&cid=18969947 [slashdot.org]
SAY NO TO MS & SAY NO TO A JOB: 2005 -> http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169549&cid=14132540 [slashdot.org]

---

* THE HOSTS FILE GROUP 32++ THUSFAR (from +5 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 [slashdot.org]
APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596 [slashdot.org]
0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999 [slashdot.org]
0.0.0.0 IN HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&cid=27012231 [slashdot.org]
0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27580299 [slashdot.org]
0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319261&cid=28872833 [slashdot.org] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP vs. SOPA act: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611414&cid=38639460 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP vs. FaceBook b.s.: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2614186&cid=38658078 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP "how to secure smartphones": 2012 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2644205&cid=38860239 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP "Free Apps Eat your Battery via ad displays": 2012 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39408607 [slashdot.org]
APPLYING HOSTS TO DIFF. PLATFORM W/ TCP-IP STACK BASED ON BSD: 2008 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1944892&cid=34831038 [slashdot.org]

* THE APK SECURITY GUIDE GROUP 20++ THUSFAR (from +5 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

APK SECURITY GUIDE:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1361585&cid=29360367 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2009 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1218837&cid=27787281 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2008 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970939&cid=25093275 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1885890&cid=34358316 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE (old one):2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154868&cid=12988150 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2008 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970939&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&no_d2=1&cid=25092677 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2008 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1027095&cid=25747655 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY TEST CHALLENGE LINUX vs. WINDOWS:2007 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=267599&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20203061 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1638428&cid=32070500 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE (old one):2005 -> http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168931&cid=14083927 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2009 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1135717&cid=26941781 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2008 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=416702&cid=22026982 [slashdot.org]
APK SYSTEM TUNING:2010 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497268&cid=30649722 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE: 2008 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970939&no_d2=1&cid=25092677 [slashdot.org]
APK SYSTEM TUNING:2010 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497268&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30649722 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURE SETUP FOR IP STACK:2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170545&cid=14211084 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE (old one):2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170545&cid=14210206 [slashdot.org]
MICROSOFT SECURITY:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1546446&cid=31106612 [slashdot.org]

---

* LMAO - All that vs. YOU the "self-titled 'software engineer'" that used a pack of "noobs" here that I utterly DUSTED point-by-FAILING-so-called-"point" of theirs here:

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file [stackexchange.com]

To try to 'school me', trolling me 1st here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243 [slashdot.org]

LMAO!

APK

P.S.=> There is NO way in hell you're a software engineer as you claim in your profile... no way.

  Either that, or you're completely LAME, undereducated, and yes, stupid (as well as an off-topic troll in the link above where you trolled me 1st only to get your ASS KICKED soundly by "yours truly")

Above all else - since I dusted YOU & your "noobie wannabe experts"?

Answer the question in my subject-line above "Mr. NOT A SOFTWARE ENGINEER" though he claims he is, lol... apk

Since U trolled me on hosts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39681225)

You need to read this vs. what your buddies in the link where you trolled me messed up on (& they're "security pros"? LOL!). Please, see pdubs post here:

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file [stackexchange.com]

Then this was my response to his mostly erroneous b.s. there:

First of all - You've made VERY FUNDAMENTAL "rookie" mistake's here on hosts files above! I welcome ANYONE to dispute these points on benefits hosts files give the end user of them in:

1.) Diskcaching taking over for "in memory speed of access" for larger hosts files vs. the faulty DNS clientside cache service in Windows

2.) How hosts files can aid security via "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"

3.) How hosts files can lessen tracking & aid "anonymity" to an extent (DNS request logs)

4.) How hosts files can circumvent DNSBL's

5.) How hosts files aid speed

6.) Added reliability hosts files can give you vs. DOWNED dns servers

7.) Added security vs. DNS poisoned redirected DNS servers (a huge RECURRING problem the past few years done via port 51/53 iirc & "bum rushing" DNS servers set into recursive mode)

8.) The fact that HOSTS can do several things noted above for anonymity, & reliability AdBlock especially + even software firewalls cannot (see Questions # 1 - 3 below)

9.) LASTLY & POSSIBLY MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR EFFICIENCY VS. OTHER SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED HERE BY PDUBS:

The fact hosts files are merely a kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 FILTER for the IP stack (far faster operations than occurs in usermode/Ring 3/RPL 3 programs like AdBlock)... a fact of life in coding gentleman, & ONE YOU'D KNOW if you'd have programmed device drivers, vs usermode apps.

---

1st - Both gents pdubs & logicalscope above overlooked this:

The local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem caching the hosts file - Since, like any file that is referenced and subsequently re-referenced, it will get cached that way, even if one were to turn off their local DNS clientside cache in Windows!

There IS another method (in the registry dealing in TTL), but why use it with larger hosts files - it'd be redundant, wasteful, & illogical to do so, here's how/why:

First - The DNS clientside cache in Windows won't handle larger hosts files, and wastes CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O as well since the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem can assume duties caching it IF NOT ELECTRIC POWER ALSO!

(Since programs of ANY KIND tax the CPU and demand processing power & "commit charge" RAM chips also for faster processing while cached)

"Nothing rides for free" gents - a fact of life, even in computing!

Thus, running the KNOWN faulty local DNS clientside cache in Windows would be "redundantly DUMB" with large hosts files... read on:

Windows DNS clientside cache service is built on a faulty design premise in a non-flexible structure & with large hosts files, it will "lag" you, so turn it off IF you use a larger hosts file... THIS is a fact, AND a KNOWN design flaw in Windows itself!

I reported it to Microsoft LONG ago, along with the fact they removed 0 as a valid "short form" of the faster/smaller 0.0.0.0 blocking address in Windows VISTA/7/Server 2008 on 12/09/2008's "MS PATCH TUESDAY" but, Windows 2000 (post SP2 iirc), XP, & Server 2003 CAN STILL USE IT! Dumb & odd - a mistake in efficiency, no questions asked!

blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true&PageIndex=3#comments

So - how can I support that?

BASIC CSC-101 coursework on file access & parsing data in said files!

(YES - Even hosts which is merely a line-by-line record entry based text file, nothing more):

Since 0 especially (the short form of 0.0.0.0 AND what they removed the ability to use) IS smaller line for line in parsing on loads and reads of HOSTS files, AND IN THE UNNCESSARY CREATION OF A LARGER FILE (that especially 127.0.0.1 creates for no reason - any engineer knows that "doing more with less" is GOOD ENGINEERING, even in software engineering).

So, 0 (or even 0.0.0.0) produce smaller files and less characters to parse on loads of hosts data than 127.0.0.1 the "loopback adapter address" (which can slow you down even MORE when its installed - usually on systems with no NIC though as a tester "dummy" device TYPICALLY/ONLY)):

Thus, 0 is less to parse on load than even 0.0.0.0 & certainly LESS than 127.0.0.1 (this matters in larger hosts files along with duplicated entries) - & any fool knows a smaller file will read in FASTER than a larger file.

Which no one denied @ MS including the former head/VP of the "Windows Client Performance Division", Mr. Richard Russell here -> slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918

Yes, he was the VP of that Microsoft Division then and was when I debated he on this very issue: In fact - He conceded my point on it there in fact and yes, he holds a Comp. Sci. degree (unlike most here I wager)!

(By comparison - Linux for example has no such issue (it is 1 thing I will give Linux in fact, over Windows))

Thus, the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem will take over caching hosts file data for fast "in memory" lookups of its record entries!

(Just like the DNS clientside cache does, but without the "lag" you would get with a large hosts file due to faults in the DNS clientside cache service's design (static structure)).

* This is basic stuff fellas, you overlooked it.

---

Secondly:

2 items you have overlooked for speed that hosts files give you pdubs & logicalscope:

A.) You can also additionally "speed up" access to your favorite websites by "hardcoding in" your favorites into hosts files like so (examples):

100.1.2.3 yourfavsite1.com

101.4.5.6 yourfavsite2.com

* QUESTION #1 of 2 - CAN ADBLOCK OR A FIREWALL DO THAT? ANSWER = NO!

--

Which not only speeds up access to them for the reasons noted above, but?

It also "proofs you" vs. DNS poisoned-redirected remote DNS servers, OR "downed" DNS servers!

* An added security AND RELIABILITY feature, right there...

* QUESTION #2 of 3 - CAN ADBLOCK OR A FIREWALL DO THAT? ANSWER = NO!

---

Additionally:

This can also be used to bypass DNS request logs (for better "anonymity" to an extent, but doesn't fool Deep Packet Inspections)

AND

DNSBL's (dns block lists IF necessary).

This technique is a "white-list" (sort of) of your favorite sites in essence!

* It also allows for FASTER host-domain name lookups by FAR!

In fact, many orders of magnitude so!

E.G.-> Since hard disk access (7-10ms nowadays) is faster than roundtrip calls (and many orders of magnitude FASTER on access/seek on SSD's too mind you) & callbacks in the API to a remote DNS server (30-to 100's of ms)!

So - & speed of parsing is NO DIFFERENT in the diskcache than it would be in the faulty Windows DNS clientside cache service... (it's a memory based parse either way).

* QUESTION #3 of 3 - CAN ADBLOCK OR A FIREWALL DO THAT? ANSWER = NO!

---

* ALL OF THE ABOVE is a "BIG FAIL" on your ends gents... no questions asked. I suggest getting CSC degrees on your end.

Yes, I have AAS in it (80/120 credits into a B.S. in it also in fact, working on that over time during work as well, since AAS only takes 60 as you all know & iirc), as well as an MIS degree on top of it earned before it years before in my midrange/mainframe days in the 1980's (Client Server programmer since 1994 professionally & many times internationally published for wares I have done in that timeframe (& I stopped in 2004 on that note - didn't need to do THAT anymore)).

---

B.) HOSTS files can be also used to blockout adbanners to gain more easily NOTICEABLE SPEED online, as well as security also (since adbanners have borne malicious script in them MANY times the past few years, if you would like a partial list of that? Ask)

There's no question that adbanners slow down websurfing massively.

Hosts can do away with that lag, AND add security as well + more.

* By the way - your suggestion on AdBlock?

AdBlock "ain't what it used to be" by default & does NOT block all ads:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org]

* These are 2 other "fundamentals" you've overlooked in the capabilities of a hosts file pdubs & logicalscope.

---

ALSO & IMPORTANTLY FOR EFFICIENCY VS. BROWSER ADDONS LIKE ADBLOCK? Hosts files are merely a FILTER for the PnP designed (Windows &/or MacOS X, not sure on Linux but it should be too if it is not) IP stack, which runs in the FAR MORE EFFICIENT Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode access layer of operations (beneath the less efficient Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode access that Adblock gives you).

No questions asked.

---

There is also the words of Mr. Oliver Day of SecurityFocus (a division of Symantec) from the article of his on HOSTS files!

* It supports my points as well on how hosts files can speed one up and secure one additionally via "layered security"/"defense in depth" via known bad hosts-domains:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

* Speed, is the gain HERE he notes... as did I above & others below as testimonials supporting my points.

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

* Again - speed & security are the gain he notes as do I all through this reply.

---

Per my points exactly, no less...

Sincerely,

Alexander Peter Kowalski
apk

P.S.=> Lastly, here are some users experiencing success in BOTH SECURITY & SPEED from slashdot.org who use hosts files to do it:

---

SLASHDOT USERS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS USING HOSTS FILES QUOTED VERBATIM, SUPPLEMENTING THE ABOVE FACTS & MR. OLIVER DAY'S TESTIMONIAL ALSO (as well as my own here):

---

* FOR SECURITY:

"Ever since I've installed a host file to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries" - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

* FOR SPEED:

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363)

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050)

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

---

So, that "all said & aside", if you fellows are going to "play expert" on hosts files here? Be aware of all sides of the equation on hosts files!

* I state that because you started out with VERY FUNDAMENTAL errors on several grounds in your statements above (especially pdubs):

---

AGAIN - the blatant errors and rookie mistakes of those posting here reiterated:

1.) Diskcaching taking over for "in memory speed of access" for larger hosts files vs. the faulty DNS clientside cache service in Windows

2.) How hosts files can aid security via "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"

3.) How hosts files can lessen tracking & aid "anonymity" to an extent (DNS request logs)

4.) How hosts files can circumvent DNSBL's

5.) How hosts files aid speed

6.) Added reliability hosts files can give you vs. DOWNED dns servers

7.) Added security vs. DNS poisoned redirected DNS servers (a huge RECURRING problem the past few years done via port 51/53 iirc & "bum rushing" DNS servers set into recursive mode)

8.) The fact that HOSTS can do several things noted above for anonymity, & reliability AdBlock especially + even software firewalls cannot (see Questions # 1 - 3 above)

9.) LASTLY & POSSIBLY MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR EFFICIENCY VS. OTHER SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED HERE BY PDUBS:

The fact hosts files are merely a kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 FILTER for the IP stack (far faster operations than occurs in usermode/Ring 3/RPL 3 programs like AdBlock)... a fact of life in coding gentleman, & ONE YOU'D KNOW if you'd have programmed device drivers, vs usermode apps.

---

* IN FACT? I READILY WELCOME DEBATE & CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU "EXPERTS" TO DISPROVE THE POINTS ABOVE...

Thank-You,

Sincerely,

Alexander Peter Kowalski
apk

Re:Since U trolled me on hosts? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39682151)

Ah, APK... Your comments so often start out decent, then after the slightest bit of criticism, you end up making Gene Ray [timecube.com] look sane...

U can't disprove that, can u? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39684329)

"Ah, APK... Your comments so often start out decent, then after the slightest bit of criticism, you end up making Gene Ray look sane.." - by Sarten-X (1102295) on Friday April 13, @10:06PM (#39682151) Homepage

See subject-line, & obviously not - So you can quit trying to play the "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.", because that's ALWAYS THE LAST RESORT OF TROLLS when they're on the ropes. By the way, on that note: Do you have a PhD in the psychiatric sciences, a license to practice said sciences professionally, as well as having performed a formal examination of myself to determine my alleged mental state according to you, Dr. Quack? OF COURSE NOT!

No, that further trolling b.s. of yours just doesn't stand up very well vs. this -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783135&cid=39681225 [slashdot.org]

* If you're going to "troll me", & try use some "expert" (lol, NOT) like the words of that "pdubs" character here -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file [stackexchange.com]

?

Be SURE what he wrote is 100% correct, because in light of what I put down vs. it here (and there)? What he wrote doesn't "stand up" very well...

As far as your 'criticism' crap?

Please: This was TROLLING/HARASSING on your part, and yes, you did it first -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243 [slashdot.org] only to be "blown away" by facts I put out in rebuttal in the 1st link above

(I know it, the people @ that site you used know it, YOU know it... & anyone that read what I put out vs. it, KNOWS it... period!)

APK

P.S.=> It's not "criticism" if the points you use aren't solid. No, I am more convinced than ever that what's in your profile about being a "software engineer" for 16 yrs. isn't the truth on YOUR part (or you're not very good @ it) - either way, trying to play "innocent" on YOUR part isn't working, so give up on THAT, troll...

... apk

Quoting ur profile... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39687245)

"I've been a software engineer/programmer for 16 years, and general nerd for as long as I can remember. I'll debate anything, so long as facts are actually valued. I regard rampant profanity as a brilliant mark of stupidity." Sarten-X FROM -> http://slashdot.org/~Sarten-X [slashdot.org]

For an "alleged" software engineer (for only 1 yr. less as a pro than myself)?

How come you aren't 'living up to the words in your profile' quoted above, & you WON'T debate & MORE IMPORTANTLY DISPROVE this from me -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783135&cid=39681225 [slashdot.org]

Hmmm?

Especially after you opened up on hosts files trolling me using another security site:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243 [slashdot.org]

Which YOU obviously thought your 'security pros' could disprove my points on hosts files, and I show in that link above, and yes, on their site, they clearly, cannot!

(Which they even stooped SO LOW as to delete once but now have left it alone)

There's doctors, AND DOCTORS. There's mechanics, AND MECHANICS... and yes, there's 'security pros' AND SECURITY PROS!

To quote Mr. John Nash when asked what the difference is between "best" & "MOST BEST" (keeping the case sensitivity the same as above)? His answer?? QUITE A LOT!

* You don't live up to your words, OR your "alleged software engineer status", but you do as a troll - because you trolled me, got thrashed, & RAN from my points which disprove your "security pros" link, bigtime!

(Perhaps because it's SOLID AS A STEEL & has what I quote from Mr. Spock below?? Absolutely!)

It certainly "silenced" the folks @ the link you tried trolling me on/with here -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file/13756#13756 [stackexchange.com]

Especially since you tried to "troll me on HOSTS files", which a zillion dolts here have tried & failed on - same results as yourself - mere trolling & effete adhominem attacks, but NO FACTS that disprove those I posted in that link above... every single time (of 100's).

APK

P.S.=> "Sensors show the object's hull is SOLID NEUTRONIUM - A single StarShip CANNOT COMBAT IT!" - Mr. Spock, from the StarTrek TOS episode "The Doomsday Machine" by Norman Spinrad... apk

"ULTIMATE BLOWOUT" of ur wannabe security gurus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39696975)

THE ORIGINAL REPLIES of both logicalscopy & pdubs, plus a general rebuttal of their points here http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/13796/i-cant-post-corrections-to-an-erroneous-set-of-questions-answers-here [stackexchange.com] :

"I run Windows with a pretty hefty c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc/hosts file obtained from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org]. I update this file as regularly as I remember and layer it with appropriate add-ons in my modern web browser of choice, A/V, and firewall solutions. Basically, I realize that a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file is protection against KNOWN threats (and only those with names!), and very little help against unknown and emerging threats (or straight up IPs). I must admit that I have not checked to see if there are stats regarding the attack/infection rates of new threats vs. known threats though I would expect that old, known threats probably still outweigh new threats simply due to volume. QUESTION: Is there any added value from running with a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file when used with modern consumer-grade anti-virus and firewall solutions? Is it a redundant layer? I admit that A/V is generally a black box to me, so I'm not sure what kinds of signatures their engines scan for, and whether hostnames are part of those signatures. Although this seems like a free extra security layer, there are "costs" with manually updating the file, and the fact that I turn off DNS caching to prevent the whole file from hanging the machine each time it reloads itself (which can be frequent). (I've migrated DNS caching to the router instead which doesn't help me when I use my laptop elsewhere.)" - by logicalscope FROM -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file [stackexchange.com]

1st set of ANSWERS THAT BLEW THEIR mere "techie/networker" ERRONEOUS LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OFF THE WALL EASILY:

1.) Layered security/defense in depth - which you use but "oddly" have a problem in using hosts files also, & they're easily obtained as you've shown, regularly updated by reputable sites which you "strangely omit" as a FACT from said sources (There are many reputable ones beyond them as well) as well as easily edited by end users (text editors anyone? Easier than firewall rules tables or port filters & having to know things like IANA port lists etc./et al)

* Plus automating updates of hosts files? Cake: Setting up a simple PERL or Python script/program can do it (many are online for free) as often as you like & "automagically" (I wrote my own system 32/64-bit in Delphi XE2 to do it here, and it protects the hosts file every 1/2 second, via write protect attributes, even beyond UAC protection in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/7! It's being hosted by hpHosts/malwarebytes, another member of the security community, per Mr. Steven Burn services@it-mate.co.uk (which he says is "excellent" by the way) is another freeware that can)

2.) Again - adblock weaknesses now especially (by default now, it does NOT block all ads) - hosts files have NO SUCH WEAKNESS and are easier to edit than Adblock rules (scripted vs. text record entries, easily understood and documented in hosts files themselves in Windows or Linux by default)

3.) Browsers can easily be hijacked via malicious script along with their addons (via "web bugs", server-side - IF you don't know that technique, look into it)

4.) Browser addons are LESS EFFICIENT running in Ring 3/usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode/Ring 0 (since hosts are merely a filter for the IP stack)

5.) Hosts files can do a few things your methods (adblock, firewalls, dns servers) can't like:

* A. Speed up access to your fav sites LOCALLY, especially vs. remote dns servers (speed of HDD = 7-10ms in modern disks, & MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE FASTER ON SSD mind you, vs. 30-100's of ms from remote DNS queries) and even local ones (redundant & set in recursive mode have potential for port 51 (iirc) redirect poisoning) & are another layer of complexity, if not security failure due to DNS faults, as well as "weight" of running something that hosts can do as a ring 0/rpl 0 process via the IP stack itself, as a filter for it - which DNS servers as separate systems locally eat MORE POWER, and even as programs on the same system also).
* B. Proof you to DNS poisoned redirected servers
* C. Bypass DNS request logs vs. tracking
* D. Bypass DNSBL's if needed also (vs. unjust blocking of sites)

6.) Firewalls can be "hooked" & downed (see rootkit.com on that much & EASIER THAN BEFORE in Windows - Especially the new NDIS6 based ones in VISTA onwards...)

7.) Antivirus/Antispyware are largely signatures based reactive technology, and you spoke of that above, yet you don't seem aware of that much on these tools (useless vs. stuff they do NOT have signatures for, & heuristics "smells like a duck/tastes like a duck/must be a duck" is prone to false positives too) - not a problem in HOSTS files, because there are roughly 17++ reputable sites for their data vs. known malicious sites (and vs. adbanners too, phishing & the like etc./et al) that update hourly, to daily, to weekly, to monthly depending on the site (to do it automatically/hands-free, see above).

8.) Hosts also allow better speed by far (via adbanner blocking or hardcoding fav. sites into them, noted above & another benefit of this technique which demands LITTLE maintenance), better reliability (vs the KNOWN FAULTS IN DNS epsecially set in recursive mode which odds are YOU HAD TO DO - another area hardcodes in hosts help)

9.) Hosts are cached either by the faulty local dns client service in Windows (fails on larger hosts files, linux has no such issue) OR by SuperFetch in Windows (better aging algorithm vs. 4 way set associative FIFO caches & certainly the DNS cache with its fault in limited size/inflexible structure design), OR the local kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 FASTER & MORE EFFICIENT diskcache itself.

10.) On the subject of IP addresses:

* A. 1st - How many sites do you see in email or browsers that are IP address based? Perhaps 1/2 of 1%, IF THAT? 2nd - The second you do as security people, don't you QUESTION THAT? I certainly do! It smells of a "bushwhack". No, most of the time, you see host-domain names in use, hence the very existence of the faulty DNS system (but easier to use), & NOT IP addresses in the majority of attacks, & yes, malware makers tend to use those because once an IP address is "blackballed" it's GONE - not the case with host-domain names that hosts can stop. The RBN (Russian Business Network) were doing that left & right in fact as 1 example.

* ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? I will go into detail as I did before vs. your "points" in said question.

---

"Hosts file blacklists only provide protection by mapping specific domains away from their intended targets (generally to local). This does not block IPs or data transfer, just the lookup of the IP. I'd say the added value is minimal, especially if you're using local blocking like AdBlock or Ghostery. If you want to blacklist "known threats", use IP blocking software with a well-maintained list. If you want to be totally secure, unplug the ethernet cable. As you've pointed out, it causes a major slowdown with DNS lookups (it linearly parses the text file on DNS cache miss). That's because the hosts file was never intended to be used as a blacklist. edit: Here's script to use Windows Firewall to block IPs: http://www.sans.org/windows-security/2011/10/25/windows-firewall-script-block-addresses-network-ranges [sans.org]" - by pdubs FROM -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file [stackexchange.com]

2nd set of ANSWERS THAT BLEW THEIR mere "techie/networker" ERRONEOUS LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OFF THE WALL EASILY:

1.) Diskcaching taking over for "in memory speed of access" for larger hosts files vs. the faulty DNS clientside cache service in Windows (or better still due to better aging algorithms, SuperFetch - can't be "easily blown out" like a diskcache based on use patterns of data & if you're surfing + using hosts? It works that way on that data).

2.) How hosts files can aid security via "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" (this you SHOULD know as a security person, it's the best thing we have going currently in fact).

3.) How hosts files can lessen tracking & aid "anonymity" to an extent (DNS request logs)

4.) How hosts files can circumvent DNSBL's (vs. unjustified site blocking)

5.) How hosts files aid speed (see above, 2 different ways that really work (I.E.-> Adbanner blocking & yes they've been shown MANY times the past decade bearing malicious code too, and, by hardcoding fav. sites into it (requires little maintenance - over the past 6 yrs. now? I had to change 6/250 I do for example & it's easy to do via reverse DNS ping -a in Windows + editing hosts in notepad.exe)).

6.) Added reliability hosts files can give you vs. DOWNED dns servers (no questions asked)

7.) Added security vs. DNS poisoned redirected DNS servers (a huge RECURRING problem the past few years done via port 51/53 iirc & "bum rushing" DNS servers set into recursive mode).

8.) The fact that HOSTS can do several things noted above for anonymity, & reliability AdBlock especially + even software firewalls cannot (via hardcoded favorites, and vs. DNS faults).

9.) The fact that HOSTS files can cover "external-to-browser" email program (e.g.-> like Outlook) vs. malicious links: AdBlock can't afaik.

10.) LASTLY & POSSIBLY MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR EFFICIENCY VS. OTHER SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED HERE BY PDUBS:

* The fact hosts files are merely a kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 FILTER for the IP stack (far faster operations than occurs in usermode/Ring 3/RPL 3 programs like AdBlock)... a fact of life in coding gentleman, & ONE YOU'D KNOW if you'd have programmed device drivers, vs usermode apps.

11.) Propogating hosts files across a network even is a snap via logon scripts! Protecting them via ACL's by Group Policy (OR CACLS commandlines in logon scripts as an alternate options since you'd propogate them thus) = easy too (e.g. - Domain Admin group READ/WRITE access, local machine users READ ONLY for instance) & is quite simple to setup for updates...

I invite questions here - you may point out things vs. my points I did not see (whereas there's little question I did in your posts gents)

Sincerely,

Alexander Peter Kowalski
apk

P.S.=> All they had was DELETING my points repeatedly @ first, here:

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file [stackexchange.com]

With UTTERLY WEAK REPLIES like these quoted (deleted also):

---

#1: deleted by Hendrik Brummermann? 19 hours ago
Why was your post deleted? See the faq.
edited yesterday

answered yesterday

#2: deleted by AviD? 56 mins ago
Why was your post deleted? See the faq.

#3: protected by Community? 56 mins ago

This question is protected to prevent "thanks!", "me too!", or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.

MY ANSWER: No, to all of those deletions of my post - it's clearly a case of hiding that your people here made MANY rookie undereducated mistakes, and you seem to like misleading others apparently by deleting my corrections of pdubs mostly erroneous info. he posted, clearly.

---

#4 Please stop being so argumentative. â" logicalscope yesterday

MY ANSWER: Quit being 'weasels' above & deleting this post's material above, and quit evading disproving my points above vs. pdubs ERRONEOUS post which quite intentionally misleads others in terms of security and more then. If you can show me in error, as I showed your "pseudo security expert" pdubs to be? GO FOR IT - I will concede them if you can conclusively disprove my points above. You obviously, cannot.

---

#5 You have to be kidding. The hosts file is deprecated - nobody should be using it as a security tool. â" BJ292 yesterday

MY ANSWER: Funny it works for layered security/defense in depth (which for 'security pros' on a security site you seem to be unaware of & it's the best thing we have going conceptually + in practice) and it works for more speed, better anonymity, and reliability & can do things pdubs faulty suggestions cannot do or account for. Period.

---

#6 You have to be kidding. The hosts file is deprecated - nobody should be using it as a security tool. â" BJ292 yesterday

Oh, really? Tell you what - do you KNOW what "layered security" is?? Hosts work for that & FAR more to the benefits of end users. Care to disprove what I wrote above, point-by-point?? Please - feel FREE to do so, rather than deleting my posts in "effete retaliation", ok??? You're only making your site appear to be populated by RANK AMATEURS in doing so, as well as cowards that are technically incompetent.

---

#7 This is a questions and answers site, not a discussion forum. If there's an answer to the question in this post, it's buried under an epic novel full of condescending remarks. Please get to the point or stick to your blog. â" Gilles 1 hour ago

MY ANSWER: Gilles - pdubs answers are 1 sided & faulty, period. Again - I welcome you or any of you "pseudo experts" in computer security to disprove its points, point-by-point as I have with the mostly b.s. garbage pdubs put up above then vs. your trolling b.s. you just spouted... ok?? Good luck - "Sensors show the object's hull is SOLID NEUTRONIUM: A single starship cannot combat it!" Mr. Spock, from StarTrek TOS episode "The Doomsday Machine" â" Alexander Peter Kowalski 4 mins ago edit

---

LMAO! Yes, the truth will DO THAT, won't it (elicit weak ad hominem attacks, off topic b.s. OR MORE ERRONEOUS WEAK garbage!)

However, not that set now you see above...

Yea, I think they had enough "looking bad" doing that deleting of my posts (always a pleasure to trash trolls, wherever they may be)... apk

Re:"ULTIMATE BLOWOUT" of ur wannabe security gurus (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39702429)

You haven't silenced anybody. Everyone's just ignoring you. I, for instance, just had a lovely weekend without encountering anybody with overinflated egos from their meager accomplishments.

I briefly considered an actual point-by-point illustration of how ludicrous the "hosts file as security" idea is for modern computers, then I clicked "read more", and remembered why I don't actually even read your posts anymore [c2.com]. Once you start copying every message you can think of, insulting anyone who disagrees with you, and quoting non-sequitur lines from movies, I lose all interest in a discussion based on merits, because I don't expect you to participate meaningfully.

I get it. You think you're an admin god, and everyone whose opinions differ must be stupid, and it is your duty as a deity to point out that they are inferior. When mods delete your post, it must be because they're intimidated, and certainly couldn't be that the offense in your comments outweighed any useful content. That's fine. You're certainly entitled to your own opinions of yourself, regardless of whether I think they're crazy or not. Likewise, everyone else (myself included) is entitled to think that you're insane, if they so choose. I personally respect your obvious knowledge of the deep workings of Windows and video drivers, but I find your comments too stunningly arrogant to actually read.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: If your next message is under 15em vertically on my display, and free from insults, I'll read it, in the hopes of having a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, I have no desire to speak with you again.

When they manage to disprove my points? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39703943)

Then you've got a point. Until then? LMAO @ U (and yes, they) - On diskcaching alone I "knocked their legs right out from under them", first shot (knocked OUT, lol)...

APK

P.S.=> Better luck next time, & don't use rookie noobs that obviously don't have Comp. Sci. degrees or backgrounds - After all: They couldn't even identify how diskcaching works to offset linear reads from hosts files from diskbound-ness (or any files for that matter, because that's what they do - along with SuperFetch in Windows, but that's unique to Windows afaik), lol... & that's VERY bad! apk

Re:When they manage to disprove my points? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39704093)

You were doing so well, then said "rookie noobs". You have no knowledge of their qualifications other than "they don't agree with The Almighty APK", so you're launching ad hominem insults, which meets my criteria for not speaking with you again. Farewell, troll. Enjoy your irrelevance.

Don't have to, I see the results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39705881)

"You were doing so well, then said "rookie noobs". You have no knowledge of their qualifications" - by Sarten-X (1102295) on Monday April 16, @04:58PM (#39704093) Homepage

Same as w\ u: Disprove my points on the value of hosts files for added security, speed, reliability, and to a certain extent, anonymity (and I always do well):

"I run Windows with a pretty hefty c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc/hosts file obtained from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org]. I update this file as regularly as I remember and layer it with appropriate add-ons in my modern web browser of choice, A/V, and firewall solutions. Basically, I realize that a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file is protection against KNOWN threats (and only those with names!), and very little help against unknown and emerging threats (or straight up IPs). I must admit that I have not checked to see if there are stats regarding the attack/infection rates of new threats vs. known threats though I would expect that old, known threats probably still outweigh new threats simply due to volume. QUESTION: Is there any added value from running with a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file when used with modern consumer-grade anti-virus and firewall solutions? Is it a redundant layer? I admit that A/V is generally a black box to me, so I'm not sure what kinds of signatures their engines scan for, and whether hostnames are part of those signatures. Although this seems like a free extra security layer, there are "costs" with manually updating the file, and the fact that I turn off DNS caching to prevent the whole file from hanging the machine each time it reloads itself (which can be frequent). (I've migrated DNS caching to the router instead which doesn't help me when I use my laptop elsewhere.)" - by logicalscope FROM -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file [stackexchange.com]

APK ANSWER:

1.) Layered security/defense in depth - which you use but "oddly" have a problem in using hosts files also, & they're easily obtained as you've shown, regularly updated by reputable sites which you "strangely omit" as a FACT from said sources (There are many reputable ones beyond them as well) as well as easily edited by end users (text editors anyone? Easier than firewall rules tables or port filters & having to know things like IANA port lists etc./et al)

* Plus automating updates of hosts files? Cake: Setting up a simple PERL or Python script/program can do it (many are online for free) as often as you like & "automagically" (I wrote my own system 32/64-bit in Delphi XE2 to do it here, and it protects the hosts file every 1/2 second, via write protect attributes, even beyond UAC protection in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/7! It's being hosted by hpHosts/malwarebytes, another member of the security community, per Mr. Steven Burn services@it-mate.co.uk (which he says is "excellent" by the way) is another freeware that can)

2.) Again - adblock weaknesses now especially (by default now, it does NOT block all ads) - hosts files have NO SUCH WEAKNESS and are easier to edit than Adblock rules (scripted vs. text record entries, easily understood and documented in hosts files themselves in Windows or Linux by default)

3.) Browsers can easily be hijacked via malicious script along with their addons (via "web bugs", server-side - IF you don't know that technique, look into it)

4.) Browser addons are LESS EFFICIENT running in Ring 3/usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode/Ring 0 (since hosts are merely a filter for the IP stack)

5.) Hosts files can do a few things your methods (adblock, firewalls, dns servers) can't like:

* A. Speed up access to your fav sites LOCALLY, especially vs. remote dns servers (speed of HDD = 7-10ms in modern disks, & MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE FASTER ON SSD mind you, vs. 30-100's of ms from remote DNS queries) and even local ones (redundant & set in recursive mode have potential for port 51 (iirc) redirect poisoning) & are another layer of complexity, if not security failure due to DNS faults, as well as "weight" of running something that hosts can do as a ring 0/rpl 0 process via the IP stack itself, as a filter for it - which DNS servers as separate systems locally eat MORE POWER, and even as programs on the same system also).

* B. Proof you to DNS poisoned redirected servers

* C. Bypass DNS request logs vs. tracking

* D. Bypass DNSBL's if needed also (vs. unjust blocking of sites)

6.) Firewalls can be "hooked" & downed (see rootkit.com on that much & EASIER THAN BEFORE in Windows - Especially the new NDIS6 based ones in VISTA onwards...)

7.) Antivirus/Antispyware are largely signatures based reactive technology, and you spoke of that above, yet you don't seem aware of that much on these tools (useless vs. stuff they do NOT have signatures for, & heuristics "smells like a duck/tastes like a duck/must be a duck" is prone to false positives too) - not a problem in HOSTS files, because there are roughly 17++ reputable sites for their data vs. known malicious sites (and vs. adbanners too, phishing & the like etc./et al) that update hourly, to daily, to weekly, to monthly depending on the site (to do it automatically/hands-free, see above).

8.) Hosts also allow better speed by far (via adbanner blocking or hardcoding fav. sites into them, noted above & another benefit of this technique which demands LITTLE maintenance), better reliability (vs the KNOWN FAULTS IN DNS epsecially set in recursive mode which odds are YOU HAD TO DO - another area hardcodes in hosts help)

9.) Hosts are cached either by the faulty local dns client service in Windows (fails on larger hosts files, linux has no such issue) OR by SuperFetch in Windows (better aging algorithm vs. 4 way set associative FIFO caches & certainly the DNS cache with its fault in limited size/inflexible structure design), OR the local kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 FASTER & MORE EFFICIENT diskcache itself.

10.) On the subject of IP addresses:

* A. 1st - How many sites do you see in email or browsers that are IP address based? Perhaps 1/2 of 1%, IF THAT? 2nd - The second you do as security people, don't you QUESTION THAT? I certainly do! It smells of a "bushwhack". No, most of the time, you see host-domain names in use, hence the very existence of the faulty DNS system (but easier to use), & NOT IP addresses in the majority of attacks, & yes, malware makers tend to use those because once an IP address is "blackballed" it's GONE - not the case with host-domain names that hosts can stop. The RBN (Russian Business Network) were doing that left & right in fact as 1 example.

* ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? I will go into detail as I did before vs. your "points" in said question.

---

"Hosts file blacklists only provide protection by mapping specific domains away from their intended targets (generally to local). This does not block IPs or data transfer, just the lookup of the IP. I'd say the added value is minimal, especially if you're using local blocking like AdBlock or Ghostery. If you want to blacklist "known threats", use IP blocking software with a well-maintained list. If you want to be totally secure, unplug the ethernet cable. As you've pointed out, it causes a major slowdown with DNS lookups (it linearly parses the text file on DNS cache miss). That's because the hosts file was never intended to be used as a blacklist. edit: Here's script to use Windows Firewall to block IPs: http://www.sans.org/windows-security/2011/10/25/windows-firewall-script-block-addresses-network-ranges [sans.org]" - by pdubs FROM -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file [stackexchange.com]

ANSWER:

1.) Diskcaching taking over for "in memory speed of access" for larger hosts files vs. the faulty DNS clientside cache service in Windows (or better still due to better aging algorithms, SuperFetch - can't be "easily blown out" like a diskcache based on use patterns of data & if you're surfing + using hosts? It works that way on that data).

2.) How hosts files can aid security via "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" (this you SHOULD know as a security person, it's the best thing we have going currently in fact).

3.) How hosts files can lessen tracking & aid "anonymity" to an extent (DNS request logs)

4.) How hosts files can circumvent DNSBL's (vs. unjustified site blocking)

5.) How hosts files aid speed (see above, 2 different ways that really work (I.E.-> Adbanner blocking & yes they've been shown MANY times the past decade bearing malicious code too, and, by hardcoding fav. sites into it (requires little maintenance - over the past 6 yrs. now? I had to change 6/250 I do for example & it's easy to do via reverse DNS ping -a in Windows + editing hosts in notepad.exe)).

6.) Added reliability hosts files can give you vs. DOWNED dns servers (no questions asked)

7.) Added security vs. DNS poisoned redirected DNS servers (a huge RECURRING problem the past few years done via port 51/53 iirc & "bum rushing" DNS servers set into recursive mode).

8.) The fact that HOSTS can do several things noted above for anonymity, & reliability AdBlock especially + even software firewalls cannot (via hardcoded favorites, and vs. DNS faults).

9.) The fact that HOSTS files can cover "external-to-browser" email program (e.g.-> like Outlook) vs. malicious links: AdBlock can't afaik.

10.) LASTLY & POSSIBLY MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR EFFICIENCY VS. OTHER SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED HERE BY PDUBS:

* The fact hosts files are merely a kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 FILTER for the IP stack (far faster operations than occurs in usermode/Ring 3/RPL 3 programs like AdBlock)... a fact of life in coding gentleman, & ONE YOU'D KNOW if you'd have programmed device drivers, vs usermode apps.

11.) Propogating hosts files across a network even is a snap via logon scripts! Protecting them via ACL's by Group Policy (OR CACLS commandlines in logon scripts as an alternate options since you'd propogate them thus) = easy too (e.g. - Domain Admin group READ/WRITE access, local machine users READ ONLY for instance) & is quite simple to setup for updates...

I invite questions here - you may point out things vs. my points I did not see (whereas there's little question I did in your posts gents)

Sincerely,

APK

P.S.=> As far as this from you? You said it, not I:

"other than "they don't agree with The Almighty APK"" - by Sarten-X (1102295) on Monday April 16, @04:58PM (#39704093) Homepage

Why thank-you! A "near 'freudian slip'" there, perhaps?? Me - I am just a guy that can defend himself well, & with facts, that ALWAYS "shut down" the opposition/naysayers... that's all, as to an estimation of myself (with clear proof above)...

---

"so you're launching ad hominem insults" - by Sarten-X (1102295) on Monday April 16, @04:58PM (#39704093) Homepage

Again, no - just 'telling it how it is' vs. people that don't know what a 1st yr. Comp. Sci. student would! Proof's above, in your "network security pros" (yea, right) shown blundering above, and yourself being unable to disprove those points as well... lol, despite this quote from your profile here:

"I've been a software engineer/programmer for 16 years, and general nerd for as long as I can remember. I'll debate anything, so long as facts are actually valued. I regard rampant profanity as a brilliant mark of stupidity." FROM -> http://slashdot.org/~Sarten-X [slashdot.org]

Well, I don't see you being able to disprove my FACTS above either... funny that, eh? No... no way you're a software engineer (I know, & have had that title on the job for more than a decade professionally myself)...

---

"which meets my criteria for not speaking with you again. Farewell, troll. Enjoy your irrelevance." - by Sarten-X (1102295) on Monday April 16, @04:58PM (#39704093) Homepage

Good riddance, & on "irrelevance"? When you can show you've done MORE, BETTER, & EARLIER than I have from this only SMALL PARTIAL LIST OF MY FAVS. over time in the art & science of computing?

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]

It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html [sourceforge.net] or here http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2993462&group_id=199532&atid=969873 [sourceforge.net]

AND lastly: http://g-off.net/software/a-python-repeatable-threadingtimer-class [g-off.net] where I got other programmer's work WORKING RIGHT (in PyThon no less, which I just started learning only 2 week ago no less) by showing them how to use a "Dummy Proxy Function" as I call it, to make a RepeatTimer class (Thread sub-class really) to take PARAMETERIZED FUNCTIONS, ala:

def apkthreadlaunch():
                                      getnortonsafeweb(sAPKFileName = "APK_1_NortonSafeWeb360Extracted.txt".rstrip())

a = RepeatTimer(900, apkthreadlaunch) # 900 is 15 minutes... apk

Where it was NOT working for many folks there, before (submitted to the maker of the RepeatTimer class no less, & yes, it WORKS!)

----

What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10

(And, because I got LUCKY to have been exposed to some really GREAT classmates, professors, & colleagues on the job over time as well)

---

Then, you've earned the RIGHT as a PEER of mine, to say what you have... so, show us you have? Then, you can talk... until then?? Put up, or shut up (which you have repeatedly on hosts files, and I am sure you will on the above as well)...

... apk

Re:Luxury (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#39676891)

Exactly right.

I find it amusing how there's a double standard for quality when it comes to A/V... In a home theater system, marketing a device as "all-digital" implies that it offers uncompromising quality. On the recording side, saying something's digital is seen to imply that it's losing some extra part of the sound that can apparently only be captured in an analog system. This is a debate that's been raging on for all of digital audio's life [maximumpc.com], and it doesn't look like the madness will stop anytime soon.

I can appreciate that an old audiophile wants things to sound exactly how he expects them, which means keeping his old analog system with all its defects, noise, and nostalgia, but let's not force this analog nonsense on future generations under the guise of "better quality".

Yeah. Mp3 is far superior to any "old" analog technology. Right? [/sarcasm] The fact of the matter is that quality recordings can be made, and distributed, in digital format, but they are aren't (a very few exceptions noted). So yeah. That's why I own vinyl and a turntable.

Re:Luxury (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39677781)

I find it amusing how there's a double standard for quality when it comes to A/V... In a home theater system, marketing a device as "all-digital" implies that it offers uncompromising quality.

Key words here I highlighted. "Sell the sizzle, not the steak." Marketing is aimed at the half of the population with two digit IQs. The fact is, analog and digital both have their strengths and weaknesses. Analog is higher fidelity than digital (especially when you're talking about high speed tape recorders/players, but it applies to LPs vs CDs too), especially with today's limited digital technologies.

LPs have a far better frequency response than CDs, and CDs suffer from aliasing in the upper frequencies, but CDs have a better dynamic range and no noise. In a low end system, the CD will beat the LP every time. Not so in a high end system. In an expensive setup, CDs sound like shit compared to LPs.

I can appreciate that an old audiophile wants things to sound exactly how he expects them, which means keeping his old analog system with all its defects, noise, and nostalgia

Wrong. The audiophile (I wish I could afford to be one) wants the flute in his recording to sound as much like a flute as possible, and he certainly doesn't want clicks, pops, or hisses.

If the bitrate were doubled and the sampling rate increased tenfold, digital would blow all analog away.

But for low end systems, like I said, your CD is going to be better than an LP. A cheap turntable is going to have rumble, caused by the motor's vibrations travelling to the stylus. A high end turntable's rumble is inaudible. The low end manufacturer is likely to counter this rumble by cutting down the low end, and its fidelity as well. Plus its tonearm is going to be heavier, introducing those pops you get from the needle hitting the record, and otherwise wearing out the LP. Also, the lowered bass response will likely make them compensate by cutting out some of the high end, as well. In either case, your speakers are going to be the biggest limiting factor, and they're also the most expensive part of the system. You're not going to get very good fidelity with two four inch squawkers and a "sub" woofer. With that setup, you're not going to get any better fidelity by increasing the sampling rate and size, because it's already at a higher fidelity than your cheap speakers can deliver.

Re:Luxury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39680991)

If the bitrate were doubled and the sampling rate increased tenfold, digital would blow all analog away.

No it would not. Digital recording can never be better than the analog source. 0dbfs represents clipping - the maximum voltage swing from the analog stage of the converter (ie: 24V rails). Suffice to say, an increase in bit depth beyond 20 bits is useless as it can only extend below the analog noise floor . I'll spare you my standard piece on the physical limitations of microphone transducers wrt frequency response.

Re:Luxury (1)

doti (966971) | about 2 years ago | (#39674803)

Nope.

16bits is ok, but 44kHz is just not enough.
For even a 2kHz sound, you get only 22 "pixels" to "draw" the sound wave.
Result: high frequency sounds (treble) are poorly reproduced.
Some people notice it more than others.

Analog is superior in quality. At least compared to CD quality.
When there is enough resolution, digital will be better.

Just like with photography.
Just now the (state of the art) digital photography is getting enough resolution to surpass the digital film.

Re:Luxury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39676811)

Hilarious. Keep'em coming.

When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter? (1, Funny)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 2 years ago | (#39672477)

>> Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, and other greats...

When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter?

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672681)

Let me guess, you also don't want to read about any these other crusty old farts: Aristotle, Newton, Galileo, Watson, Crick, Shockley, Marconi, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart...

Get your head out of your ass, the world didn't start the day you were born.

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 2 years ago | (#39672873)

OK, I'll bite.

No, I don't want to read about the status quo, get a basic history lesson or take a non-tech trip down memory lane when I'm reading Slashdot. The reason I starting reading this site was keep abreast of emerging tech and science trends, hear some new (and often kooky theories) or look back on dead branches of tech and learn why they're dead.

I understand that Pro Tools' PR team worked hard to get this story on SlashDot, but if your hook is "Elvis Presley," you've hit the wrong demographic, my friend.

Speaking from Memphis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39674205)

I don't think you understand. Elvis was electric!

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39674397)

If you didn't want to read the story, why did you click the link?

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672723)

geeks get old, it happens, doesn't mean they stopped liking computers OR moved out of mom's basement, but they do accumulate years

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672821)

Those that don't learn from the past are foolish. Much good, and a lot of bad, we don't need to reinvent the wheel because we ignore the axle

The Wal-mart of music (1)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#39672891)

People are hoping to inherit some cool from the music. It doesn't work that way. Buying music from large record labels is like shopping at Wal-mart or buying a Ford Escalade.

Re:The Wal-mart of music (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#39676645)

The only people trying to be 'cool' are the idiots who decide what to listen to based on such important criteria as what label a band is (or is not) signed to, or how they obtained the music. Everyone else just listens to stuff they enjoy. Honestly, you indie-only people are every bit as pretentious as wine snobs, food snobs, and audiophiles.

Pretentious? No, I just like quality. (1)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#39699523)

False humility is what seems pretentious to me.

I just like quality music. Learning how to play an instrument really opened my eyes.

I don't disagree with you about the fact that some people are indie-pretentious. I don't know how to identify it, but as the saying goes, "I know it when I see it." I guess to me, if the band they like isn't much different from the stuff on FM radio, I'm going to think they're just being pretentious.

I hope to never be one of those people.

As far as music goes however, I think I'm more geared toward Harold Budd or Dead Can Dance than Feist or Wolfmother.

News? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39672709)

Where's the IT news in that?

Get your facts straight (0)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about 2 years ago | (#39672805)

Rock 'n Roll came here over 400 years ago in chains.

Re:Get your facts straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39673355)

Evey Australian knows that Yahoo Serious invented Roll and Rock.

Re:Get your facts straight (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | about 2 years ago | (#39673365)

This thread is about when white people discovered R&R. We surely picked it up from somewhere, but all of that is lost in the foggy shroud of history...

Not much to see (1)

Tapewolf (1639955) | about 2 years ago | (#39673131)

It would have been nice to actually see some of the kit, other than the A80 (which is nice, but not particularly rare or unusual). Even after looking at their website I haven't yet been able to find a comprehensive equipment list, which is odd for a working studio.

I'm going to take a wild guess that the Scully 280 is probably their multitrack, likely a late 1960s model in either 1" 8 track or 2" 16 track format, though I think there were also 1/2" 4-track versions, depending on how retro you want to go. The stereo 280 machines have an interesting reputation as a 'tape format converter' in that they can stretch a 1/4" master recording into something that would fit happily inside a cassette tape (this is not something you ever want to have happen).

The Ampex decks are probably the 350 series from the 1950s, which people seem to like to gut into preamplifiers.

Transcript (3, Informative)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#39673651)

Title: Sub Studio: Where Rock and Roll Was Born
Description: Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, and other greats recorded at Sun Studio in Memphis, TN. It's still there and still analog. Timothy lord talked with sun recording engineer Matt Ross-Spang...

00:00 - <TITLE>
The SlashdotTV logo bar with "Sun Studio in Memphis, TN... where Rock and Roll was born" appears over a shot of a red "SUN STUDIO" neon sign in a window.

00:02 - <TITLE>
A shot of Timothy Lord with the Sun Studio building behind him appears.

00:02 - Timothy>
Studio engineer Matt Ross-Spang wasn't even born when most of Sun's most famous records were cut.
Nonetheless, he's thought a lot about what makes them sound the way they do.
He's gonna talk us through some of the tech.

00:11 - <TITLE>
Various shots of audio equipment appear; a Scully 280 reel to reel tape machine and a mixing panel.
(1), is played in the background.

00:18 - <TITLE>
The interviewee, Matt Ross-Spang, is shown sitting in Sun Studio control room, with the SlashdotTV logo bar reading "Studio Engineer Matt Ross-Spang"

00:18 - Matt>
Around 30's, 40's, is prolly, you know, when they start making decent recording stuff that you can still use besides, like, a wax recorder or something.
So I've got that.. a bunch of microphones are from the 40's and 50's.. 60's - I've got pretty much every decade down.
Of course Ampexes are from the 50's, those mono tape machines that I use, and the Scully is from the 50's and 60's.
The newest tape machine would be the Studer a80 ... -

00:43 - <TITLE>
The view zooms in on the tape machine discussed before zooming back out.

00:43 - Matt> ... - which is kind of like the Cadillac of tape machines - they made the best ones and they were the last makers of the best tape machines.

00:50 - <TITLE>
"Great Balls of Fire" by Jerry Lee Lewis is played in the background.

00:50 - Matt>
Really high quality tape machines.
You'll find them in all the major studios running tape.
Some people like 'm, some people don't - they're not.. as far as tape machine goes, they don't have that crazy tape characteristic as much as the Scully, because a Scully is a bunch of lead, and this one is like, you know, trying to make it as clean as possible.
But they sound, really cool.
So that's probably the most modern tape machine I have for sure.

01:20 - Matt>
And then you got the outboard gear.
That's the same thing, 50's ... -

01:23 - <TITLE>
The camera pans up slightly to show the gear being discussed before panning back down.

01:23 - Matt> ... - there's some stuff from, you know, few years ago, up there.
It's stuff that I like, really unique stuff.

01:28 - Timothy>
Does anything stick out from the older, from the 50's and 60's, that is, you know, outboard gear that you're really happy to use?

01;34 - Matt>
Well, I think, if you're talking about effects or outboard.. 50's, I mean, in the 50's they used - besides a real room - for reverb they used a plate in the 60's.
Plate reverb is something digital will never be able to emulate, ... -

01:49 - <TITLE>
"Blue Suede Shoes" by Carl Perkins is played in the background.

01:49 - Matt> ... - and tape echo.
They've got plenty of plugins that do tape echo, but you gotta hear the tape echo, you've gotta smell the tape to get tape echo, and it's.. especially for Sun, if I don't use tape echo then I need to f... get a new job. *laughs*

02:06 - Timothy>
Is your job pretty safe?
As an analog specializing engineer?

02:11 - Matt>
Yeah - I mean, you know, I do freelancing stuff.. other places, and I, you know, I'm not saying Pro Tools sucks.
I'm not saying I have to cut the tape and I can only use 50's gear.
I've gone to studios where they haven't had anything back then, and I'm not gonna fly with that stuff, and I'm perfectly fine with that stuff too, I don't have to have it, ... -

02:32 - <TITLE>
"I Walk the Line" by Johnny Cash is played in the background.

02:32 - Matt> ... - but for Sun, I think Sun should have to have it.
There's a certain way you should record in here.
So I use that for here and then it changes wherever you go.
But, no, I've had fun doing other rooms - I've had great success in other rooms - and I still.. you know, having an old - and I'm not old - but having an old school engineer with the old school way of thinking and recording is.. it's so rare these days, there's so many few guys..
The best guy who does it is Roland James down the street, of Phillips Recording Service - that's where Sam left after Sun - and he played guitar throughout.. early in the 50's, and a great guitar player, but he still records..
I mean I steal quotes from him all the time, you know, like after you get done with a take you go "Anybody get hurt?".
I stole that.. I use that one to this day - it's just great stuff like that, you know, and how he mics stuff; no-one mics stuff like that, now people put a mic in a kick drum - they never did that, they put it outside.
Once I saw how they did it, that's the only way to do it now - ... -

03:32 - <TITLE>
"Stake Your Claim" by Eli 'Paperboy' Reed is played in the background.

03:32 - Matt> ... - it's in incredible.
Yeah, so I think it's.. what I do is kind of rare and it's not for everybody, you know, I'm not gonna do like a U2 record obviously, or like a Jay-Z record, but, you know, if somebody wants some kind of 'cool vibe' and some kind of 'funky sound', I can certainly take care of that. *laughs*

03:54 - <TITLE>
The SlashdotTV logo bar with "Sun Studio in Memphis, TN... where Rock and Roll was born" appears over a shot of a graphic of various 'vintage' music items and the names Elvis, Jerry Lee, Carl and Johnny (The Million Dollar Quartet)

1) A piece of music this transcriber has heard many times but cannot recall nor find the title to - pitch in!

Also, my brackets had to go to satisfy the lameness filter. Oh, lameness filter, you.

Re:Transcript (1)

timothy (36799) | about 2 years ago | (#39681337)

A bit detail oriented? Holy Moley! You even went to the trouble to identify songs. This is ridiculous, in the best possible way.

timothy

Re:Transcript (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#39682217)

It still bothers me that I can't identify the first one (not the very beginning intro bit - I've never heard that before)... but that other piece.. "one two, one two, one two".. brass sections.. I know it, but can I name it? Nope. Google search for the aforementioned just yields a bunch of rap and R&B, while audio identification services failed; too short of a sample, I guess.

I'll figure it out yet

Content Fail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39673737)

Product placement for Pro Tools makes me uneasy about the future of Slashdot. Looking for a new news source.

Oracle Studio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39677153)

Didn't Oracle buy Sun?

Million dollar quartet setting (1)

Yoik (955095) | about 2 years ago | (#39678437)

The studio was the setting for the Broadway play "Million dollar quartet" which offered a nice re-imagining of what it was like there, as well as some classic music.

Box in upper left half of screen... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about 2 years ago | (#39679527)

Who knows what the box in the upper left half of the screen during the last half of the video labeled "SKUNK APE" is? Is there some mike manufacturer who named a mike that? Is is a small amp head? Any ideas? It's a great name for some piece of audio kit, and I'd just like to know what it was.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...