Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

1030 comments

Another reason... (5, Insightful)

Spritzer (950539) | about 2 years ago | (#41048071)

So, after reading the article this can be summarized as "Microsoft gives you one more reason to disable Windows Defender and use a third party AV app."

Re:Another reason... (5, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 2 years ago | (#41048081)

Microsoft gives you one more reason to switch to Mac OSX or Ubuntu.

Re:Another reason... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048133)

I completely agree. This is the nail in the Windows coffin for me.

Re:Another reason... (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41048225)

I completely agree. This is the nail in the Windows coffin for me.

If you are an enterprise IT manager this is your dream come true. You're not seeing this from the angle Microsoft is, they count on enterprise income more than they do home users.

Re:Another reason... (5, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#41048265)

Why is that a dream come true for an enterprise IT manager? You *want* employees to be on facebook? Or are you saying that crazy behavior on the windows platform ensures your job security?

Re:Another reason... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048293)

Enterprise customers will block it at using DNS or using Group Policy, not the hosts file.

Re:Another reason... (5, Informative)

MicroSlut (2478760) | about 2 years ago | (#41048301)

What Enterprise IT Manager is using the Hosts file to block web sites? Enterprises use firewalls. I've been blocking doubleclick at the firewall/proxy level for as long as I can remember.

Re:Another reason... (1, Troll)

pipatron (966506) | about 2 years ago | (#41048317)

And this move makes sure you will never consider using a Windows-based platform as a small office-firewall, if you ever thought about something crazy like that before...

Re:Another reason... (0, Flamebait)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41048365)

Hosts file to block web sites?

You slut, there are other protocols than http and ports other than 80 or 443.

Re:Another reason... (1)

sqldr (838964) | about 2 years ago | (#41048435)

if you're an enterprise IT sysadmin, this is a nightmare. How can I check a site is up on a server with a certain domain name before I point DNS to it?

Re:Another reason... (4, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#41048537)

It turns out Windows Defender just prevents certain domains from being added. Disable Windows Defender or use a host name less common than "ad.doubleclick.net" or "facebook.com", and the hosts file works just fine. I'm guessing the idea is to safeguard against phishing and ad-replacement attacks.

Re:Another reason... (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#41048449)

If they're interested in 'enterprise' (I really hate that word these days), they may want to have a look at what's been happening. Good or bad security-wise, people have been pushing for using their own devices, devices they *like* to use. I think the only thing really stopping it from taking off for tablets and phones is the failure of Rim, Apple, etc, to open their protocols so a business does not need to pick a single type of device. If they ever figure that out, Microsoft is hosed.

Hamhandedness. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 2 years ago | (#41048487)

If you are an enterprise IT manager this is your dream come true.

Hardly. At the enterprise level there are multiple different ways of handling situations such as this. Which one(s) you choose depends upon how you've organized Active Directory and your network.

But a different point is that this is an OLD way of phishing. The phisher is publishing the IP addresses that need to be blocked. So, again, at the enterprise level this kind of phishing would not be an issue.

If a phisher really needed to redirect traffic like that he'd have an easier time just getting the information in the local machine's DNS cache. That way it would never show up in the hosts file which means that it would be that much harder to spot. Then just keep updating the DNS cache.

So this is the wrong solution to the wrong problem and it is implemented in the wrong way. And it will probably cause more issues in the future as 3rd party developers have to work around not having the hosts file as a reliable option any more.

Nice way to remove a useful tool that's been around for decades.

Re:Another reason... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048137)

Microsoft gives you one more reason to switch to Mac OSX or Ubuntu.

You think Apple or Canonical would never do this? What are you smoking? Maybe switch to Debian would sound a little more reasonable. Buy up routers that actually let you block things while you still can is more like it though. I wonder how long before you aren't ALLOWED to block certain addresses on pain of going to jail as a dirty pirate.

Re:Another reason... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048163)

I'm sorry, but there is no reason to change to a Mac

Re:Another reason... (1, Offtopic)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41048375)

I'm sorry, but there is no reason to change to a Mac

For a subset of meanings of the word, there's snobbery.

Re:Another reason... (0)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#41048459)

Microsoft gives you one more reason to switch to Mac OSX or Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is not an OS. Ubuntu is a distribution. Linux is the OS.
Hate it when people mix that up. So instead of Ubuntu, you can also use RedHat, openSUSE, Debian, Slackware or any of the other operating systems out there. (Including BSD)

So please stop using Ubuntu as a synonym for Linux or give back your geek card.

Re:Another reason... (3, Interesting)

burne (686114) | about 2 years ago | (#41048563)

Could you be so kind to post the other reasons?

I have been using UNIX/linux/BSD and odd stuff like BeOS, System 7/8/9, OS X, Solaris/CDE, IRIX etc for 15 years.

Never found a solid reason to use windows, and now you tell me there's more than one reason _not_ to run windows?

That is one alternative reality I must grab..

So... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048089)

Just add the hosts file to the Defender's white list. If you know how to edit the hosts file, you should know how to add it to the white list.

Otherwise, who says the edits to that file were not malicious.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048149)

But why doubleclick? I don't think it makes sense in the context of anti-phishing protection. Both entries stand to make more money by not being blocked in the hosts file.

Re:So... (4, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41048259)

Precisely. It's smells of a bad excuse for some money under the table.

Re:So... (4, Informative)

scrib (1277042) | about 2 years ago | (#41048569)

How about this: Windows Defender removes from the hosts file references to well-known and often accessed sites that could be redirected by malware for nefarious purposes?

I might not want to visit ad.doubleclick.net but I certainly don't want it redirected to some other unknown IP address! Many, many, MANY websites I visit try to pull up links in that domain.

Perhaps they should make an exception for localhost references, but considering how much of the general population knows about hosts files, I'm inclined to side with GP. Odds are very high that on most machines running Windows Defenders, a redirected ad.doubleclick.net reference is malicious.

Re:So... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41048239)

No that is the wrong attitude. You shouldn't have to do 'extra' stuff because they are pretty much flipping standards the bird.

If everyone always just says 'well, we can get around that', we dig the hole even deeper.

Re:So... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#41048415)

Any time a system decides to make things more complicated for the end user with no benefits means its time to jump ship to a different system. Just because you -can- perhaps get a work around doesn't make this decision any better. I -could- spend a few hours getting Ubuntu to behave like I want it to, but it makes more sense for me to just jump ship to a better distribution where configuring it to fit my needs takes a couple of minutes of minor changes rather than wasting an entire afternoon to make it behave like it did before the updates ruined it.

Given how nearly everything is web based, cross platform, able to be emulated via virtualization or WINE or has a Linux/OS X alternative I don't see why anyone would stick with Windows 8 unless you were a gamer.

How will APK react to this? (5, Funny)

metrix007 (200091) | about 2 years ago | (#41048097)

APK's sole existence seems to be reliant on advocating the hosts file as a means of host filtering, despite more modern, flexible, easier, convenient and powerful alternatives existing.

How will APK stay relevant with the demise of the hosts file in Windows 8? Stay tuned....

Re:How will APK react to this? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048119)

APK? Android application package file?

Re:How will APK react to this? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048167)

APK is a False Programmer. His very existence degrades the quality of everything in the world.

He needs to switch to Gamemaker. He needs to return... to Gamemakerdom! Gamemaker can do anything. The HOSTS file is nothing compared to Gamemaker. Gamemaker transforms pathetic, worthless individuals into upstanding True Programmers. There is nothing you cannot accomplish with Gamemaker.

Return, return, return, return, return to Gamemakerdoooooooooooooooooooom!

Re:How will APK react to this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048373)

OK. This Gamemaker troll takes the cake as the best. Give up on the Gamemaker trolls, because this guy just won it. Next troll, please.

Re:How will APK react to this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048189)

Hosts file blocking is simple and system wide, and requires no daemons or crash-prone hooks into network stacks or browsers. It is hardly antiquated or obsolete.

Agreed 110% fellow AC (see 'em disprove these) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048439)

Per my subject-line above: Some data for your reference I challenge my "naysayers" like metrix007 & others to disprove (not a single one has managed to on a SINGLE POINT in it over time here mind you - metrix, as you've seen in my other post they "pre-downmodded" since they're trolls, is shown in a SINGLE INSTANCE only of running from this & disproving all of its points in favor of custom hosts files in fact - I have 8 others he's done that, run like a whipped dog from in fact, lol...):

Ah, metrix007 aside (he's just a fool troll)? Here we go:

21++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES (over browser plugins for security, &/or DNS servers):

(Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs)).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

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

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below, & especially vs. the July 12th 2012 "DNSChanger" trojan purge that's coming soon (those folks won't get to sites if infested - I will, due to hardcodes in my hosts file of my fav. 20 sites + using BETTER filtering DNS servers (see list below))...

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions (in-addr.arpa) via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows - functions for "reverse DNS lookups"), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:

---

US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/0416238/US-Military-Blocks-Websites-To-Free-Up-Bandwidth [slashdot.org]

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)

---

Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]

---

And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

PEOPLE DISLIKE ADBANNERS: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/156225/Advertising-Network-Caught-History-Stealing [slashdot.org]

---

15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:

---

Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/bing_yahoo_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapsody_rogue_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google sponsored links caught punting malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/google_sponsored_links/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media_serves_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

---

ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

---

Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Demonoid Down For a Week, Serving Malware Laden Ads:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/02/1427257/demonoid-down-for-a-week-serving-malware-laden-ads [slashdot.org]

---

As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:

---

Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/0041203/Infected-Androids-Run-Up-Big-Texting-Bills [slashdot.org]

---

AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ZITMO&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

---

It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT (from -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/wikileaks_mirror_malware_warning_row/ [theregister.co.uk] )

"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser)...

---

20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] ), &/or NoScript ( http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:

---

DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/ghost_domains_dns_vuln/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)

---

DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)

---

Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)

---

DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/dns-hijacks-now-being-used-serve-black-hole-exploit-kit-121211 [threatpost.com]

---

DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/1353203/opendns-releases-dns-encryption-tool [slashdot.org]

---

Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1429259/potential-0-day-vulnerability-for-bind-9 [slashdot.org]

---

Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against:

http://www.securityweek.com/five-dns-threats-you-should-protect-against [securityweek.com]

---

DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/ddos_on_dns_firm/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!)

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/08/04/1525235.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS ROOT SERVERS ATTACKED:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/02/06/2238225.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/21/0315239.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/has-halvar-figured-out-super-secret-dns-vulnerability/1520 [zdnet.com]

---

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/09/123222.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/21/2343250.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/1658209.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/23/156212/High-Severity-BIND-Vulnerability-Advisory-Issued [slashdot.org]

---

Photobucket's DNS Records Hijacked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1285 [zdnet.com]

---

Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/15/1238210/DNS-Problem-Linked-To-DDoS-Attacks-Gets-Worse [slashdot.org]

---

HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]
ScrubIT DNS -> http://www.scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]
OpenDNS -> http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT firewalling routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows where you can "layer in" as many of them as you like, for again, "Layered Security"/"Defense-in-Depth" too - however: IF you are on a work LAN or even HOME LAN that uses Active Directory? Using these DNS servers can "mess up" MX mail records OR things like Outlook (full in Office) bindings to Exchange Servers since AD is HEAVILY DNS dependent - ask your network administrator or test yourself first using those tools to make sure it doesn't happen to you (this is MOSTLY for "single system 'standalone' machine" users but it works great & supplements what YOU locally control in custom HOSTS files, with better filtered vs. malicious exploits of all kinds online DNS servers))...

---

24++ SLASHDOT USERS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS USING HOSTS FILES QUOTED VERBATIM:

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) 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)

"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) Homepage Journal

"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) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

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

"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) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org] and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to 127.0.0.1" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)

"That is, do the things you would normally do to secure your own machine from malware, intrusive advertising, and vulnerabilities. Use the hosts file to block certain domains from being accessible." - by wickerprints (1094741) on Friday June 22, @12:57AM (#40407865)

"Ad blocking hosts file, I use it as an adult ;-) http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org] " - by RJFerret (1279530) on Friday June 22, @01:15AM (#40407983) Homepage

"There is probably a decent list of domains out there that you can put in your hosts file so that lookups for these fail. I assume you're more concerned about accidental adverts and such, which is a fair concern considering how many sites have em" - by ieatcookies (1490517) on Friday June 22, @01:21AM (#40408005)

"I find mapping hosts to 0.0.0.0 is faster, because it's not a valid IP address, so the DNS subsystem of your OS will ignore it without trying to connect. There are several hostfile collections out there. I merged three of them several years ago just for my own freedom from ads and other junk. I currently have 131572 host names zero'd out." - by Dracos (107777) on Friday June 22, @01:34AM (#40408085)

"I also use linux a lot more now and, beyond a custom hosts file, don't have any active antivirus software beyond what comes with Ubuntu" - by sneakyimp (1161443) on Friday June 22, @04:26PM (#40416169)

---

Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:

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, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"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."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread/bDNS [ntcompatible.com] experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, 28597-1.html !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human r go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately?ights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

* THE HOSTS FILE GROUP 37++ 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]
HOSTS MOD UP "How I only hardcode in 50 of my fav. sites": 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2857487&cid=40034765 [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]
HOSTS vs. TRACKING ONLINE BY ADVERTISERS & BETTER THAN GHOSTERY: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2926641&cid=40383743 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS FOR ANDROID SMARTPHONES: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2940173&cid=40455449 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS vs. DEMONOID MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERS: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3022017&cid=40856945 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS vs. BANNER ADS AT uTorrent: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40964905 [slashdot.org]

---

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

APK

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all - ALL of them may not fit here, but if you want them in FULL, A-G? Ask - I can post them in a subsequent followup reply:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - mvps.org covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem (mvps.org offers 2 types for this).

C.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY file is), so it reads F A S T upon re-reads/subsequent reads (until it's changed in %WinDir%\system32\drivers\etc on Windows, which marks it "Dirty" & then it gets re-read + reloaded into the local diskcache again). This may cause a SMALL initial load 1 time lag upon reload though, depending on the size of your HOSTS file.

D.) HOSTS files don't protect vs. DPI (deep packet inspection)

E.) HOSTS files don't protect vs. BGP exploits - Sorry, once it's out of your hands/machine + past any interior network + routers you have, the packets you send are out there into the ISP/BSP's hands - they're "the Agents" holding all the keys to the doorways at that point (hosts are just a forcefield-filter (for lack of a better description) armor on what can come in mostly, & a bit of what can go out too (per point #20 above on "locking in malware")). Hosts work as a "I can't get burned if I can't go into the kitchen" protection, for you: Not your ISP/BSP. It doesn't extend to them

F.) HOSTS files don't protect vs. IP addressed adbanners (rare) &/or IP address utilizing malwares (rare too, most used domain/host names because they're "RECYCLABLE/REUSEABLE"), so here, you must couple HOSTS files w/ firewall rules tables (either in software firewalls OR router firewall rules table lists)

G.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

... apk/b/b

Re:Agreed 110% fellow AC (see 'em disprove these) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048479)

Yes, yes, but now that none of that will work anymore in your beloved Windows OS, what are you going to start on next? I can't wait to see what new thing you start ranting about (the wonders of the new windows-8-style-UI or whatever they're calling it this week?)

I'm just a little concerned that it'll probably take you months to amass 7 or 8 pages of text with all sorts of random markup starting from scratch.

Wrong troll (YOU are in error, see inside)... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048583)

What? It works FINE on Windows up to Server 2008 & yes, in Win8 too (Oh, by the way - there's already work arounds, see the Windows Defender/Security Essentials part)... see subject-line above, & this from today's source article:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

---

"Update: Tom just pointed out that turning off Windows Defender, which basically is Microsoft Security Essentials, in Windows 8 will resolve the issue. It appears that the program has been designed to protect some hosts from being added to the Windows hosts file. To turn off Windows Defender press the Windows key, type Windows Defender and hit enter. This launches the program. Switch to Settings here and select Administrator on the left. Locate Turn on Windows Defender and uncheck the preference and click save changes afterwards. Please note that this turns off Windows Defender, and that it is recommended to have another antivirus software installed on the system to have it protected against Internet and local threats." FROM -> http://www.ghacks.net/2012/08/19/you-cant-block-facebook-using-windows-8s-hosts-file/ [ghacks.net]

---

See?

Plus, face it:

There is always alternate antivirus/antispyware, but in My case? Windows 7 will remain MY alternate solution... until MS "wakes up" from the delusions they have with Win8... yes, I feel that way. Maybe I am wrong, time will tell!

---

Personally & bluntly speaking, Windows/MS fan or not?

Windows 8 is going to be another ME... mark my words, sad to say it.

I'll stick with Win7!

On workarounds - I even posted what MAY be a work-around at the source article site, waiting for it to update & pass muster there...

E.G.-> Deals in tcp/ip parms redirection of databasepath, but, it's just theory on my end - not sure IF it'll do it, or not to be honest, leaning to "not" in fact)

However... I do NOT *like* Windows 8 METRO, beneath it's skin I do, good stuff, but not what Mr. Ballmer & crew are attempting TOO EARLY!

(Storming the phone & tablet market, and the PC desktop/server OS market TOO EARLY for touchscreen, with TOO MUCH CHANGE, dumb... it alienates long term Windows users).

* Ah, anyhow... there you are: YOU, are in blatant error troll.

APK

P.S.=> Piece of friendly advice - IF you're going to troll me? Be accurate & correct... thank-you (you make trolls here look VERY bad, lol - not that THAT's "news"...)...

... apk

Re:Agreed 110% fellow AC (see 'em disprove these) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048507)

great! now guess what? All your effort is now for nothing because windows 8 will edit your host file and allow shit you were trying to block.

Re:How will APK react to this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048199)

Baiting trolls is worse than feeding them.
Shame on you.

Re:How will APK react to this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048257)

Are you Jay Little?

http://www.jaylittle.com/jaylittle/?cmd=article&sub=display&id=30

Just wondering...

APK reacts FINE (it's not my "sole existence") (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048263)

Just fine - I've done a number of posts on the source site already, posting portions of what I have here a ton of times (mind you, which my "skeptic naysayers" here haven't disproven a single shred of to date)... I'm just waiting for the page to update for responses I gave others there (takes time on some boards, part of what I LIKE about /. is "instant on" with posts).

It's not a "demise" by the by - MS Sec Essentials is the KEY "workaround"... so you know. There's another I posted but it hasn't come up yet there (databasepath parm in tcp/ip parms in registry & redirecting it).

You obviously also aren't aware of some of my posts over time here. I've been "into" a LOT more than hosts my man... a LOT more. I'll post some for YOUR reference after this post as an "addendum"... fair enough? Good.

Anyways:

Do I *like* what I saw on Win8 there? Heck no... especially NOT on hosts files!

However/Then again??

MS "fanboy" extraordinaire here or not??

I don't think much of Win8, due to "METRO"! Man, I've said it before - MS has to get rid of Mr. Ballmer & his crew responsible for it... too far, too fast, not enough market on PC's yet for touch screen (tablets, & phones, yes... PC OS? No!)

Not that he's some evil guy, in fact, I hear he's a hell of a NICE guy who's great @ grooming mgt. talent (& that's also from an MS mgt. man named Foredecker who posts here or did). I've said this many times here before in fact.

However - He's not a "King Billy" calibre man, who was a computer coder/technologist AND business man... that's what MS needs.

Fact is - of ALL the MS guys I am aware of, personally or otherwise?

I hope Russinovich, former "co-worker" of mine thru Sunbelt where we sold wares together takes over 1 day. We've had diff.'s over time, but he'd get MY vote.

Anyways - Pity is, Win8 "under-the-covers" is BETTER than Win7 even in a LOT of ways, such as "self-terminating services"!

(Which tuners/tweakers like myself have been into for decades, ala my guides for it from 1997 onwards, & I'd be as bold to say they WERE the 1st of their kind, as I have yet to find older ones).

Proofs: I.E./E.G.-> I have done so since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text [neowin.net]

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml [archive.org] which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online in the 1st URL link above...

Which has well over 500,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ [pcpitstop.com] (see January 2008))

---

Anyhow/anyways, all that aside?

My std. post on hosts, of course...

For those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program:

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32/64-bit:

Screenshot -> http://start64.com/images/win64/security/apk-hosts-file-engine-1.png [start64.com]

&

Download Site #1 -> http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

or

Download Site #2 -> http://securemecca.com/public/APKHostsFileInstaller/2012_06_01/APKHostsFileEngineInstaller32_64bit.exe.zip [securemecca.com]

---

INSTALLATION:

a.) Extract its sfx installer file from the zipfile
b.) Run the installer from inside ANY folder you like, extracting the executables + datafiles to any folder you wish (usually one you create for it, doesn't matter where, but you MUST run it as administrator for FULL functionality (simple & the "read me" tab shows how easy THAT is to do))
c.) Then, & lastly - Run either the 32-bit OR 64-bit version (rightclick on the executable & set it to run as Administrator, OR, make a shortcut that can for FULL functionality (like write-protecting the hosts file, & more...))

---

What's it do for you?

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content
6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)
7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)
9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
10.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O + electricity too - bonus!)
11.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
12.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)
13.) Blocking out TRACKERS
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

* The malwarebytes/hpHosts site admin another person/site hosting it (Mr. Steven Burn, a competent coder in his own right), said it's "excellent" in fact and has seen its code too...

(Write him yourselves should anyone doubt any of this -> services@it-mate.co.uk , or see his site @ http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net] )

A Mr. Henry Hertz Hobbitt of securemecca.org &/or hostsfile.org can also verify that this program is safe - write him @ -> hhhobbit@securemecca.com

---

* I told myself (since i built it in late 2003 in version 1.0++ & have rebuilt it 5x since in Borland Delphi 3.0/5.0/7.0 32-bit & currently into 64-bit using Delphi XE2) this:

That IF things didn't get better on the "malware front" by 2012, out it would go for the general public to get the above enumerated multiple & versatile benefits custom hosts yield for end users!

(Mainly in saving them money on speed + bandwidth they pay for each month as well as added "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" AND reliability & even a bit better "anonymity", all noted above...).

APK

P.S.=> It works for ALL of the enumerated benefits above - here are the SPECIFICS/Details of those:

---

A.) Offers massively noticeable increased speed for websurfing via blocking adbanners

B.) Offers increased speed for users fav. sites by hardcoding them into the hosts file for faster IP address-to-host/domain name resolutions (which sites RARELY change their hosting providers, e.g.-> of 250 I do, only 6 have changed since 2006 - & when sites do because they found a less costly hosting provider? Then, they either email notify members, put up warnings on their pages, & do IP warnings & redirectors onto the former IP address range to protect vs. the unscrupulous criminal bidding on that range to buy it to steal from users of say, online banking or shopping sites).

C.) Better "Layered-Security"/"Defense-In-Depth" via blocking host-domain based attacks by KNOWN bad sites-servers that are known to do so (which IS, by far, the majority of what's used by both users (hence the existence of the faulty but for most part working DNS system), AND even by malware makers (since host-domain names are recyclable by they, & the RBN (Russian Business Network & others)) were doing it like mad with "less than scrupulous", or uncaring, hosting providers)

D.) Better 'anonymity' to an extent vs. DNS request logs (not vs. DPI ("deep packet inspection"))

E.) The ability to circumvent unjust DNSBL (DNS Block Lists) if unjust or inconveniences a user.

F.) Protection vs. online trackers

G.) Better security vs. the DNS system being "dns poisoned/redirected" (a known problem for recursive DNS servers via port 51/53 misdirection)

H.) Write protecting the hosts file every 1/2 second (supplementing UAC) - even if/when you move it from the default location via this registry entry (which if done, can function ALMOST like *NIX shadow passwords because of this program):

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters

And changing the "DataBasePath" parameter there (I do this moving it to a faster media, a "true SSD" using DDR-2 RAM, in the 4gb Gigabyte IRAM I have).

I.) Automatic downloading & Alphabetic sorting of hosts files' records entries (for easier end user mgt. manually) from 15 reliable sources (of 17 I actually use).

J.) Manual editing of all files used (hosts to import list, hosts itself in its default location of %windir%\system32\drivers\etc, the hosts files to import/download & process, & favorite sites to reverse dns ping to avoid DNS (noted above why)).

K.) Removal scanners (if the users decide to remove hosts entries from imported data they can check if the site is indeed known as bad or not (sometimes 'false positives' happen, or just bad entries, or sites clean themselves up after infestation due to vulnerable coding etc./et al)).

L.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Comments (useless bulk in a hosts file that's "all business")

M.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Trailing comments after records (produces duplicates)

N.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Invalid TLD entries (program checks this in a BETTER method than the API call "PathIsURL")

O.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Trims entries (vs. trailing blanks bloat on record entries)

P.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like the conversion of the larger & SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking "loopback adapter" address (slower due to larger size bytes wise to parse, & slower if loopback happens) to the smaller/faster to parse & load 0.0.0.0

Q.) Uniformity of ALL entries in hosts (as to records inserted & format they use - reducing bloat AND repeated bloating entries).

R.) Filtration-Removal of sites that IF in a hosts file are KNOWN to cause problems on larger portals that use CDN etc.

S.) Custom hosts files protect ALL webbound programs, not just webbrowsers (like AdBlock addons, & it doesn't even block ALL adbanners by default anymore) & it does so @ a more efficient faster level (Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode) acting merely as a filter for the PnP design IP stack, vs. the slower level webbrowser programs & their addons operate in (Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode), which addons slow them even more by "layering on" parsing & processing that browser addons layer on.

T.) Custom hosts files also offer the speedup to favorite sites noted above, & even firewalls + browser addons do NOT offer that...

---

& MORE, in roughly 10-15 minutes runtime (on an Intel Core I7 920 Quad/4 core cpu @ 2.67ghz) over millions of hosts file record entries no less, & faster on faster CPU's (e.g. - Intel Core I7 3960 "extreme" 6-7 core CPUs = 7 minute runtime) & slower on slower CPU's (Intel 1.5ghz Celeron single core = 45 minutes).

(Above all else - Enjoy the program: It works!)

Thanks for your time...

... apk

Addendum (for metrix007/funnyman's reference) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048363)

"APK's sole existence seems to be reliant on advocating the hosts file as a means of host filtering, despite more modern, flexible, easier, convenient and powerful alternatives existing." -

As promised in my last post, & since you said that? Well...

I suppose it's time to "dispel your notions"!

(OR rather, your attempts @ mocking me, since I can do that to YOU, easily metrix007 & you KNOW it, I know it, and everyone else can too now... I suppose I can let others know a few samples of it too now, fair enough?)

Here's only 1!

I.E.-> Where you RAN from disproving my points in favor of hosts files for end users gain in security, speed/bandwidth, efficiency, reliability, & even anonymity to some extent (vs. DNSBL's) & more:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888084&cid=34459018 [slashdot.org]

(Should I post the rest? Just ask, I can & will upon request... I have, oh, another 8 or so on the EXACT same lines, you running from disproving my points on hosts files!)

Anyhow/anyways:

"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)

====

NO GOOD EVEN IN CHROME (but are 0 Troll, meaning they were modded up & then down later dishonestly):

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1739756&cid=33107996 [slashdot.org]

(DID I? I CAN STILL SEE THOSE ABOVE IN CHROME - tomhudson said I LOST 50 DUE TO TROLL
  "AFTER DOWN MODS" CALLED 'META-MODERATION' & THAT I COULD NOT SEE THEM IF NOT LOGGED IN... apk)

---

Roughly 200++ 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" (5):

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]
What I admire about Theo DeRaadt of BSD fame: 2012 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3007641&cid=40785151 [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" (19):

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]
TAX THE TAR OUT OF OUTSOURCERS/OFFSHORERS & PENALIZE THEM ALSO #1 of 2: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2795637&cid=39728333 [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]
MICROSOFT "FLIPS THE SCRIPT" ON CISPA: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2817555&cid=39833573 [slashdot.org]
LEARN CODING IN A DAY: 2012 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3048265&cid=40986085 [slashdot.org]

----

+1 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (111) & 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]
CONGRATS TO LINUS TORVALDS ON MILLENIUM PRIZE: 2012 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2913441&cid=40308721 [slashdot.org]
KUDOS TO LINUX KERNEL 3.3 - 3.5 & NO BUGS PRESENT: 2012 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2995701&cid=40727067 [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]
TAX THE TAR OUT OF OUTSOURCERS/OFFSHORERS & PENALIZE THEM ALSO #2 of 2 + ECONOMIC CLASS 1984-1985: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2795637&cid=39729177 [slashdot.org]
GATTACA #1 of 2: 2012 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792033&cid=39722291 [slashdot.org]
GATTACA #2 of 2: 2012 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792033&cid=39711991 [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]
McAfee, Symantec, ClamAV, COMODO, ArcaBit/ArcaVir, & Dr. Web "False Positive" of my "APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++": 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2872677&cid=40107921 [slashdot.org]
Linux "Fine Security" (lol, NOT!) 2011-2012: 2012 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2875333&cid=40119001 [slashdot.org]
SAY NO TO MS & SAY NO TO A JOB: 2005 -> http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169549&cid=14132540 [slashdot.org]
"START ME UP" REGARDING WINDOWS 8, METRO, & RIBBONS: 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2955431&cid=40538813 [slashdot.org]
GHOSTERY TRUTHS #1: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2931443&cid=40413453 [slashdot.org]
GHOSTERY TRUTHS #2: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2931443&cid=40413493 [slashdot.org]
"DEAR MR. GATES": 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2955431&cid=40536263 [slashdot.org]
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation tax shield: 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2957987&cid=40549931 [slashdot.org]
Colorblindness and camouflage: 2012 -> http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010409&cid=40798555 [slashdot.org]
HBGary and "Freedom of Speech" plus REAL NAMES on forums: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3012595&cid=40811497 [slashdot.org]
Large Projects (millions of lines) vs. TINY ones (200k lines) & rewrite: 2012 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3026933&cid=40885035 [slashdot.org]
Native Code/"single stand-alone" non-interpreted code executables are "where it's at": 2012 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041081&cid=40956381 [slashdot.org]

---

* THE HOSTS FILE GROUP 37++ 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]
HOSTS MOD UP "How I only hardcode in 50 of my fav. sites": 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2857487&cid=40034765 [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]
HOSTS vs. TRACKING ONLINE BY ADVERTISERS & BETTER THAN GHOSTERY: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2926641&cid=40383743 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS FOR ANDROID SMARTPHONES: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2940173&cid=40455449 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS vs. DEMONOID MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERS: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3022017&cid=40856945 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS vs. BANNER ADS AT uTorrent: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40964905 [slashdot.org]

* THE APK SECURITY GUIDE GROUP 18++ 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]

---

* And, there you go...

APK

P.S.=> So much for your statement above, & that above? Only "scratches the surface" as far as computing + myself over time... apk http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2995701commentsort=0cid=38658078 [slashdot.org]

Re:APK reacts FINE (it's not my "sole existence") (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048423)

Oh come on, this time he does not deserve to be modded down as Troll, in this discussion his point of view is relevant (regarless of whether you agree or even think he's a crackpot). Also, he was *summoned* by the GP, so give him a break.

Thank-You, & here's a challenge I always make (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048493)

To my "naysayers" -

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41048439 [slashdot.org]

* That's MOSTLY directed to "funny man" metrix007, who's RUN from doing it before.. 8 times now, lol!

As well as my other detractors, who are naught but trolls, since they CAN'T disprove my points (or the ones the article source here makes, a mere subset of my own full model).

Go for it boys... I'll be waiting for the egg to fall on your faces, as per my usual.

(Should be 'simple' for the /. wannabe computer gurus. right? Well, let's see - I have been WAITING for someone to find a "chink" in that posts' armor... it only strengthens it IF you do, but? No one here ever did or does, lol!)

Nothing against you either...

APK

P.S.=> Call me crackpot & such all you like, but until my naysayers here can disprove my points on hosts files advantages over other things (DNS or AdBlock etc./et al, though hosts compliment them & supplement them vs. THEIR issues/weaknesses)?

Well... all the "downmods" in the WORLD, as well as off-topic illogical ad hominem attacks FAIL vs my points on hosts... fact! That's life folks, beat me or lose to me when you attack me (and, metrix007 KNOWS the result of all folks on /. on THAT account, lol - see my 1st post)... apk

Re:How will APK react to this? (1, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#41048553)

There are many ways to maintain a CleanPC.

Calm down (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048107)

Before everyone gets all excited... the article has already been updated with the fact that this is a feature of “windows defender” (and imo a reasonable one) and can be disabled.

The hosts file is popular for blocking sites, but also popular for redirecting to phishing sites as well. This seems like a very ineffective way of solving that problem, but at least it doesn’t look like there is some evil malicious intent..

In other news, running certain anti-virus products will prevent you from writing to the boot sector while they are running

Re:Calm down (0, Flamebait)

Truekaiser (724672) | about 2 years ago | (#41048171)

windows defender is 'part' of windows 8 so it's still correct to say windows 8 does this.

Re:Calm down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048215)

Really, fucktard? Let's ask all the Linux shitheads how they like Gnome 3 being Linux, 'cause it's in Linux right? That means it's Linux.
 
  Kill yourself.

Re:Calm down (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048303)

Linux isn't an operating system, just a kernel. Fedora 17 is an operating system. Windows is an operating system. All of windows is developed and produced by microsoft.

I think the point you were tryign to make is that its an optional part of windows.

Re:Calm down (4, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#41048305)

Linux is not owned by a single entity like Windows is.

Windows is what MIcrosoft says it is because they own it and they can do anything they like with it. If you're offended, your only alternatives are to "hack it" or abandon it.

There isn't some other pre-packaged variant of Windows you can switch to.

Re:Calm down (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#41048331)

Really, fucktard? Let's ask all the Linux shitheads how they like Gnome 3 being Linux, 'cause it's in Linux right?

The analogy fails because, while Windows Defender is in Windows 8, Gnome 3 is not in Linux. It may be part of some Linux-based operating systems, but that's a different thing. (Windows 8 is a family of operating system products from Microsoft, Linux is a kernel. And because Linux is an open-source kernel, the variety of operating systems based on it are much bigger than the variety of Windows 8 operating systems.)

Re:Calm down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048357)

So i cant get Linux without Gnome 3?

Fucktard.

faggot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048579)

Hey faggot, running Linux here, and no fucking gnomes or *buntus either.

Re:Calm down (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | about 2 years ago | (#41048349)

Yes, but among the vast majority of users (i.e., not Slashdot readers), the hosts file is an attack vector rather than an adblocker or development tool. All of that security training people should receive around double-checking what's in the address bar goes out the window when the hosts file has been compromised.

It sounds like MS's security tools have been a bit overzealous in trying to protect this file and can't determine what's a legitimate versus non-legit edit. But it's better to err on the side of being more rather than less secure here, especially with the amount of damage a maliciously-edited hosts file can do.

Basically: yes, it's Windows 8's fault that this happens, but it's not Microsoft trying to screw you over like the headline makes out. There should be a tool that can edit, save, and sign the hosts file to make this distinction, not entirely unlike visudo - and all operating systems should have something similar. My Cisco VPN client straight-up replaces my hosts file every time I connect, and while I was able to find and update the file it uses to make that less annoying (I have hosts for a lot of VMs in there), the fact that a non-privileged application can do that is quite scary.

Re:Calm down (5, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 years ago | (#41048445)

Basically: yes, it's Windows 8's fault that this happens, but it's not Microsoft trying to screw you over like the headline makes out.

No, it's Microsoft being stupid and ignoring its own security. If a non-privileged program is permitted to ignore the fact that a file is set to be Read-Only, you have absolutely no protection against malicious code changing anything it wants. All it has to do is infect Windows Defender and it can do anything it wants. If I were still a Windows user, I'd be very reluctant to trust Windows 8 at this point because of this obvious lack of common sense in how it handles this.

Re:Calm down (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41048501)

The read-only flag is largely disused. The NTFS permissions are the new one and, oddly enough, it's impossible to write to the hosts file without running as admin and clicking the 'this program wants unrestricted access' dialog. But Microsoft knows just as well as everyone else in IT that to the typical user, that dialog is meaningless: All they know is that clicking yes makes the computer do as it's told.

Re:Calm down (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 2 years ago | (#41048309)

This seems like a very ineffective way of solving that problem, but at least it doesnâ(TM)t look like there is some evil malicious intent..

Considering that one of the sites they are unblocking is ad.doubleclick.net (which is often blocked because the user wants it blocked) then Microsoft is taking away an option from the user.

What will be interesting will be when someone compiles a list of the sites that will be unblocked ... and finds how many BANKS will still be subject to phishing like this ... but ad.doubleclick.net will be protected.

This is a stupid move by Microsoft done in a stupid fashion.

Re:Calm down (5, Insightful)

mrnobo1024 (464702) | about 2 years ago | (#41048319)

The hosts file can only be modified by administrators. Any additional protection is useless because if malware has gotten itself running as administrator, it can just kill or modify windows defender anyway.

Re:Calm down (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#41048427)

Exactly. If you can modify the hosts file which should only be able to be edited by an administrator the system has been fully and utterly compromised.

This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048117)

As comments in the article point out, this behavior can be turned off by going to the Windows Defender settings... But by and large this make sense for 95% of Windows users as they will have NO clue about the hosts file, and even less of a clue if it has been modified for a phising attack. Nice to see microsoft take another step forward in protecting the blindingly ignorant and inept.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (5, Insightful)

lowlymarine (1172723) | about 2 years ago | (#41048155)

Exactly, this is a perfectly reasonable anti-phishing measure that can be easily disabled, as is clearly explained in the linked article. But hey, we can't have any such pesky facts sneak into a /. summary, it might stymie some good old-fashioned MS bashing.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048235)

Why wouldn't they build the feature to prompt the user? "Your hosts file has been modified to add xyz/delete xyz. Windows Defender can restore the file to its previous state. If you would like Windows Defender to restore the file, click OK, otherwise click CANCEL to keep the changes." Beyond host blocking, many people doing local web development use this. Of course, many people doing web development are now Mac users.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (2)

Firehed (942385) | about 2 years ago | (#41048371)

Prompting users to make security decisions means you have less security. If Defender prompted you every time it was blocking a write to a sensitive/monitored file, most people (the ones that really need the extra security software) would be inundated with requests eventually causing them to hit allow every time just to make the dialog boxes go away.

There should be a comment in the hosts file indicating how to opt-out of this behavior, but I think what Microsoft has done here is both reasonable and a good security decision. People doing local dev work (myself included, although I don't do web development on Windows) would see the comment and how to disable things, and the rest of the world would have a secure, non-compromised hosts file - as they should.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048185)

Do local phishing attacks usually try to hijack doubleclick?

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (2)

wolrahnaes (632574) | about 2 years ago | (#41048461)

It seems to make sense. Inject your own ads in place of one of the most popular ad networks. Any other content you want to bundle along with those ads you can as well of course.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048233)

A much better solution would be to alert the user -- in plain and simple English -- that something important has been modified on their system, ideally also telling them what program made the modification. Windows Defender could let the user know "it's been handled" and no need to worry, but at least the user would know something is not right on their system. If it keeps happening, then the user knows they have some sort of malware they need to deal with.

This modern design motif of "protect the user but don't tell them something attacked them" is bad design. It is a reflection of the blinding ignorance and ineptness of the current generation of UX people.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (1)

Firehed (942385) | about 2 years ago | (#41048393)

It's a reflection of the fact that people don't want to deal with security. It working silently in the background and staying out of your way whenever possible is absolutely the right decision, or else the protections would all get turned off because they'd be so damn annoying.

If you got a pop-up every time your firewall blocked a port scan, wouldn't you inevitably turn off your firewall?

Thought so.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#41048261)

You mean that not only Microsoft introduced a whole new concept on how to be unsafe in internet, but that also is enabled by default? And that does it specifically for the windows users that are clueless?

Hope it don't get widespread, or car makers will start to remove the safety belt because is too hard for clueless people to use it.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41048367)

As comments in the article point out, this behavior can be turned off by going to the Windows Defender settings... Nice to see microsoft take another step forward in protecting the blindingly ignorant and inept.

No, a step forward would be requiring administrator rights to write to the file, and then ensuring admin access is granted only when actually needed. Please, understand this: If you've got software modifying your hosts file, then Windows Defender hasn't done its job and you've got much bigger problems already.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 2 years ago | (#41048419)

You do need admin rights to edit it - it's nested in the system folders, on both Windows and Unix.

It does this for Facebook - you could argue that was reasonable, because it prevents malicious software redirecting you and phishing your Facebook password.

But it also does this for Doubleclick, which sounds more like someone sucking up to their corporate partners.

Re:This makes sense... for (most) Windows users (4, Insightful)

wolrahnaes (632574) | about 2 years ago | (#41048477)

But it also does this for Doubleclick, which sounds more like someone sucking up to their corporate partners.

You do realize who owns DoubleClick, right? Google. Not exactly a partner of Microsoft. Microsoft has their own ad network that competes with DoubleClick, so that part actually helps make a case to me that this was not ill-intentioned.

Adobe's Activation Servers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048161)

Prepare them for the shitstorm.

Bad/lazy programming (2)

bobbutts (927504) | about 2 years ago | (#41048169)

This seems like one of those situations where someone didn't think of the potential side effects. The goal was to fix some attack on specific sites, but the solution failed to consider that the mere presence of entries like Facebook is not enough to determine of the entry is in fact malicious and/or unintended. Security and expected behavior is compromised in too high a number of situations to use this software imo.

Re:Bad/lazy programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048211)

You going to build something better, or suggest how it'd be improved, or are you just going to tell us why it's bad?

Re:Bad/lazy programming (1)

bobbutts (927504) | about 2 years ago | (#41048283)

If it's me in charge of the software, I'd omit the feature and most likely never implement it.
The most obvious solutions would be to prompt the user before modifying the file, but considering the target argument that is not realistic.
I can't think of any sufficiently reliable way to protect against rogue entries here automatically since they essentially look the same as intentional ones. Maybe there's a way I'm not thinking of.
Since it's base software included with the OS, it should be solid for a very high percentage of users, not simply ok for most people.

Re:Bad/lazy programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048213)

"Didnt think"...yes ... that summarises this kind of change. A very strong defense mechanism has been rendered useless by the tool that is designed to protect us.

I strongly believe this is not April. And its not April fools day. But I cannot understand Windows 8 - was it an in-joke in Microsoft?

Well, I can kinda see why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048181)

Since, in the vast majority of cases, having facebook.com or doubleclick in the hosts file is the result of malware, Windows Defender is undoing what is likely malicious work. But... it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

was going to buy, not interested now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048187)

I was planning to buy the upgrade from Win7 to Win8. Now I won't.

Re:was going to buy, not interested now (1, Funny)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41048193)

Were you really? Why?

Re:was going to buy, not interested now (1)

NemosomeN (670035) | about 2 years ago | (#41048377)

Is anyone seriously this flaky? If you decided not to buy because of this, you were likely to change your mind later when you saw am ugly cursor or renamed mspaint or some other nonsense.

MSE: Microsoft Screws Everything (4, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 2 years ago | (#41048219)

Yeah, this is basically a cack-handed way of fixing malicious hosts redirects.

It'll prevent malicious programmes from sending you to fake Facebook, but at the expense of entirely overriding any preferences YOU as tthe computer owner might wish to make via the Hosts file.

It's a staggering level of incompetence that this is their solution. It needs to be changed and they need to find either another way of solving it or allow some form of granulation and user input.

Re:MSE: Microsoft Screws Everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048389)

Why? Why should they cater to power users and developers? They all left MS software for modern alternatives over a decade ago. This just means my poor cousins don't get caught by as many keyloggers and fake logins so I don't have to clean up their computers.

Re:MSE: Microsoft Screws Everything (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41048403)

It'll prevent malicious programmes from sending you to fake Facebook

No, it will not. If a malicious program is writing to your hosts file then it can also disable Windows Defender or just white-list itself or the hosts file. There's no reason to buy tickets to this security theatre.

/me eats popcorn.

Re:MSE: Microsoft Screws Everything (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41048525)

It'll break some existing malware. It'll take the authors a week or so to adapt, and then a few more weeks for the scammers to deploy patches. Doesn't seem worth the effort, really.

Re:MSE: Microsoft Screws Everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048467)

IPv6 has not been tested, it could still work. e.g.:

::1 ads.doubleclick.net

Re:MSE: Microsoft Screws Everything (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 2 years ago | (#41048495)

Replying to myself - apparently the way to fix this, in the short term, is to take control of the Hosts file and then kick the system out of write and modify privilleges.

Where do WE want you to go to today? (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41048223)

Hope you enjoy your new 'media consumption appliance'. Its becoming less and less of a 'general purpose computer' every day.

The internet (or networks) are more than the web (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41048253)

The internet (or networks in general) are more than the web.

The main problem I see is I've never worked at a place without an airgapped or at least hyperfirewalled production/engineering network. Its actually pretty rare for that design to have a DNS server on the private net. So host file distribution is popular. As is forcing people to use/memorize ip addresses. After all, its not like a "computer" could automate hostname lookups or something like that, and enforcement and procedures give management something to do.

Anyway sounds like upgrading a production network from hosts files to DNS system suddenly got a whole lot more exciting if you've got windows 8.. Then again, people who use windows for production are pretty much already used to suffering and intense pain, so making it even less ready for the enterprise is not so big of an idea.

Re:The internet (or networks) are more than the we (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048463)

Actually, setting up a DNS server in a windows environment takes about 2 minutes. And has a GUI so if you've never heard of DNS before you can often muddle your way through it.

windows server has a DNS server.

Re:The internet (or networks) are more than the we (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#41048581)

The main problem I see is

That you didn't read the article and have no idea what you are talking about?

... host file distribution is popular.

And it will still work, so what is the main problem you see again?

MS dog shit cycle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048267)

One workable OS, which is substandard to the competition but perfectly usable, then the next is a complete turd (ME, Vista, 8).

Re:MS dog shit cycle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048397)

I need a -1, Shit mod.

Another reason to skip Windows 8 (5, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | about 2 years ago | (#41048345)

This is another good reason to stick with Windows 7, giving Windows 8 a miss.

One common use of the hosts file is to test staging servers, particularly web servers before pushing them live, and without the complexity and time it takes to set up an additional DNS server.

Re:Another reason to skip Windows 8 (1)

Geeky (90998) | about 2 years ago | (#41048409)

I was about to post the same thing, as I'm often tinkering with the hosts file in a development setting just because it's quick and easy, but from at least one comment above it does appear that it's possible to turn this behaviour off.

Re:Another reason to skip Windows 8 (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#41048465)

Yep. After Windows 7 I actually thought Microsoft was getting better, after all IE is now actually usable, Windows Phone 7 is actually pretty neat (not good enough to replace my Android phone, but not the buggy crap which was the old Windows Mobile). But Windows 8 just seems to be stupid decision after stupid decision. I don't think I've really seen a decent idea implemented in Windows 8 so far...

Re:Another reason to skip Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048469)

This is another good reason to stick with Windows XP, giving Windows 8 a miss.

Fixed that for you.

I don't use Windows... (0, Redundant)

Zebaulon (534793) | about 2 years ago | (#41048399)

...and haven't since 98. How is this relevant to me?

Not a problem (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 2 years ago | (#41048431)

Not a problem on my LAN. Those hosts are blocked in the main DNS server. And don't even bother trying to bypass DHCP DNS assignment. My firewall rules don't forward destination port 53 packets to the WAN interface. You either use my DNS server or you get ICMP administratively-prohibited errors. Problem solved. Next!

Re:Not a problem (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41048551)

I use a squid proxy with a blacklist of ad-servers. It worked great, until about two weeks ago when I noticed the sudden return of ads. On further investigation, it turned out that some of the ad-networks had switched to HTTPS, which doesn't get proxied. So I had to configure bind with a bodgey DNS block too.

The really annoying thing is that sooner or later one of those ad networks will forget to renew their cert and everyone visiting a webpage with one of their ads will get a 'untrusted certificate' message.

Not only windows 8 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048433)

Just tried it on XP and 7 with MSE. MSE removes ad.doubleclick.net from the read only HOSTS file. So it's not just windows 8.

Re:Not only windows 8 (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 2 years ago | (#41048567)

Indeed. It is interesting that some people on one hand complain about how malware-prone Windows is for non power users, and simultaneously complain whenever Microsoft takes a step to obstruct an attack vector. If you're a power user, you will be able to work around your antivirus's blocking of obvious hacks in your HOSTS file (and yes, it is a hack, even if you're doing it to block facebook for yourself).

Non-issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048455)

This is silly. You are advised to disable any AV present on a Windows system when modding a host file for this sort of filtering and re-enable it afterward to prevent EXACTLY this sort of behavior.

I thought /. was supposed to have more technically adept editors/readers.

chattr +i /etc/hosts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41048505)

Don't need to Win when you got Lin
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...